Professional Documents
Culture Documents
41
Monday, July 28, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
At 9:42 a.m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia Muoz Palma, opened the
session.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is called to order.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please rise to sing the National Anthem.
Everybody rose, to sing the National Anthem.
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please remain standing for the Prayer to be
led by the Honorable Jaime S. L. Tadeo.
Everybody remained standing for the Prayer.
PRAYER
MR. TADEO: Aming Amang Diyos at Allah, Diyos ni Abraham, Moises, Jacob,
Lapu-Lapu, Rizal at Bonifacio, Diyos ng Kasaysayan at ng sambayanang
Pilipino:
Kami ay lumalapit sa Iyo sa mga sandaling ito na kung saan kami ay
nagtatalakayan tungkol sa aming Saligang Batas. Tinipon Mo kami mula sa
ibat ibang
kaabalahan; antas ng buhay, pananaw at simulain. Bagamat magkakaiba
ang aming katayuan at pananaw, pinapag-isa Mo kami sa iisang adhikain
na makamtang
ganap ang aming kalayaan at kasarinlan.
O Diyos, sa mga sandaling ito inilalapit ko sa Iyo ang mga magbubukid,
manggagawa at iba pang aping uri at sektor. Patuloy pa rin kaming bihag ng
mala-kolonyal at mala-piyudal na sistema na nagbabaon sa amin sa
kumunoy ng kahirapan. Kaming magbubukid na lumilikha ng pagkain at
yaman ng bansa na
siyang mayroong kapangyarihang paningningin sa ginto ang kabukiran ang
siyang walang pagkain.
Present *
Natividad
Present *
Alonto
Present *
Nieva
Present
Aquino
Present *
Nolledo
Present
Azcuna
Present *
Ople
Present
Bacani
Present *
Padilla
Present
Bengzon
Present
Quesada
Present *
Bennagen
Present
Rama
Present
Bernas
Present
Regalado
Present
Rosario Braid
Present
Reyes de los
Present *
Brocka
Present
Rigos
Present
Calderon
Present *
Rodrigo
Present
Castro de
Present
Romulo
Present
Colayco
Present
Rosales
Absent
Concepcion
Present
Sarmiento
Present*
Davide
Present
Suarez
Present
Foz
Present
Sumulong
Present
Garcia
Present *
Tadeo
Present
Gascon
Present *
Tan
Present
Guingona
Present *
Tingson
Present
Jamir
Present
Treas
Present
Laurel
Present
Uka
Present
Lerum
Present
Villacorta
Present
Maambong
Present
Villegas
Present
Monsod
Present
PETITION
Petition of the honorable Commissioners Lugum L. Uka, Yusup R. Abubakar,
Napoleon G. Rama, Regalado E. Maambong, Jose N. Nolledo, Ma. Teresa F.
Nieva,
Hilario G. Davide, Jr. and Florenz D. Regalado, requesting the Committee on
Human Resources to immediately call a meeting of the Committee to
consider
articles or sections of Proposed Resolution No. 451, entitled:
A RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION PROVISIONS
RELATIVE TO THE PROBLEM OF ENGLISH, SPANISH AND FILIPINO, OUR
MOTHER TONGUES, NATIVE
LANGUAGES AND DIALECTS, AND OTHER RELATED SUBJECTS,
which the Committee may wish to incorporate into the new Constitution.
(Petition No. 1 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Human Resources.
COMMUNICATIONS
Communication from Mr. Mariano Z. Familara, Jr. of 5521 Devonshire, Detroit,
Michigan, proposing that it be the policy of the State to stamp out graft and
corruption and hidden wealth, and suggesting to this end that the burden of
proof that said wealth or property was amassed legitimately be shifted to the
owner or possessor thereof.
(Communication No. 343 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Accountability of Public Officers.
Letter from Mr. David D. Boaz, Cato Institute, 224 Second St. SE, Washington,
D.C. 20003, transmitting a copy of Cato Policy Report containing an article
by Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, entitled: The Constitutional Protection of
Economic Freedom.
(Communication No. 344 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on the National Economy and Patrimony.
Letter from Mr. Joaquin J. Pascual of 63-C P. Burgos St., Batangas City, urging
the Constitutional Commission to adopt provisions for the welfare of senior
citizens and government retirees.
national
failure of justice evidenced by gross violation of human rights would already
be included in the concept of betrayal of public trust. The answer was in
the affirmative, so I did not insist on the inclusion of this additional ground.
May I, however, explain, Madam President, that I had specifically
eliminated my original suggestion making the President subject to
impeachment for national failure of justice evidenced by gross violation of
election
laws, because of the fact that we have already instituted an independent
Commission on Elections. And it is my humble opinion that to make the
President
liable for an obligation or a duty of an independent Commission on Elections
that we have created would not be in consonance with the rationale behind
the
creation of that independent Commission on Elections.
MR. OPLE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair would just like to be clarified. Is Commissioner
Guingona propounding a question to Commissioner Ople?
MR GUINGONA.: Yes, Madam President. I would like to ask the honorable
proponent, with due respect to his opinion, whether or not in conformity with
the
response of the Committee that the national failure of justice evidenced by
gross violation of human rights which I had suggested would already be
included
in the concept of betrayal of trust, and national failure of justice evidenced
by gross violation of election laws would also be conveyed or embraced in
that same concept of betrayal of public trust.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, we are speaking of proportional ways given to
certain offenses in terms of the degree of their lethal effects on the fragile
life of a democracy. May I also point out that when I introduced this
amendment, I was not thinking of the more recent past which is very
instructive for
all of us. I was not thinking of the immediate future because I have complete
trust in the ability of President Aquino to keep the elections clean and free
and probably to advance the purity of the electoral process to a higher level.
I was thinking beyond that point. I was thinking of future Presidents whose
own vulnerability to temptations would be difficult to measure at this time.
We are writing a constitution not only for this time but for the future
generations. So, I think there is no redundant effect if the Constitutional
Commission takes cognizance of a central fact in our own contemporary
history;
namely, that the prostitution of the popular will can directly threaten the
because
we would be subject to the rule: expressio unzius est exclusio alterius I would
prefer if the enumeration ended with the phrase other high crimes because
this phrase includes anything that in the opinion of the impeaching body
renders the subject of impeachment unworthy to remain in office.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. RAMA.: Madam President, Commissioner Bernas will speak against the
amendment for two minutes.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bernas is recognized.
FR. BERNAS: While I agree with the lofty objectives of the amendment
proposed, I am afraid that the effect of the proposed amendment is, in fact,
to weaken
the provisions on impeachment. The amendment speaks of massive election
frauds. We have a very general principle in the Constitution which says that
sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates
from them. And the sovereignty of the people is principally expressed in the
election process and in the referendum and plebiscite processes.
This provision on sovereignty of the people can be violated culpably even if
not massively. By requiring that the violation of the election law be massive,
in effect, we are saying that the impairment of the sovereignty of the people
must be massive in order to be a ground for impeachment. So it weakens
rather
than strengthens the impeachment provisions.
MR OPLE. Madam President, I just wanted to give Commissioner Bernas an
update. The massive election frauds which are covered by the phrase
originally
intended to be proposed had been replaced by MANIFEST AND GROSS
DISREGARD OF THE POPULAR WILL, which is really intended to mean the
same thing.
FR. BERNAS: Even with that phrase, I am afraid that it may be more strict
than culpable violation of the Constitution on sovereignty and thereby,
instead
of strengthening the provision, I am afraid it may weaken the provision.
MR. OPLE: Thank you for that explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: May we now hear first the reaction of the Committee.
MR OPLE: Yes, I would like to ask the Committee just one question. Will the
Committee oblige?
MR. MONSOD: Yes, gladly.
MR OPLE: Thank you, Madam President.
Does the Committee support the remarks of Commissioner Bernas
concerning the possibility that the offense MANIFEST AND GROSS
DISREGARD OF THE POPULAR
WILL is already embraced in the underlying meaning of the other
impeachable offenses, and also the remarks of Chief Justice Concepcion that
it is already
embraced under the category of other high crimes?
Is it also the intention of the Commission to make this offense part of
betrayal of public trust, which is the latest ground for impeachment
adduced in
this provision?
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, the Committee agrees with the opinions of
Commissioners Concepcion and Bernas in that the phrase MANIFEST AND
GROSS DISREGARD
OF THE POPULAR WILL is more limiting and, secondly, this offense could be
considered embraced in the other grounds for impeachment enumerated in
Section
2.
MR OPLE: Thank you, Madam President. It will not be necessary for me to
press this amendment then.
May I proceed to the next proposal, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: So for the record, the first proposed amendment is
withdrawn.
MR OPLE: Yes, on that understanding, which I hope the record of this debate
will very clearly register. May I propose a new sentence on Section 11, line
21, page 4 of the draft Article.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: May I make a comment in relation to this proposed
amendment of Commissioner Ople on Section 11.
If the proposal of the Honorable Ople is to create a system by which the lowly
soldier in the military may have the means to file his complaints with
anybody, the military has already a system for this purpose. Starting from
the commanding officer of the company, to the battalion, to the regiment, to
the
division, and to the office of the Chief of Staff, there is the Inspector General
who conducts inspection every now and then and asks every soldier,
without the presence of his officer, whether he has any complaint against his
officer/s, against his noncommissioned officers or against the government.
So
there is already a system in the Armed Forces to get the complaint of the
lowly soldier, and I believe it will not be necessary to create another system
in
the government for this purpose.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. OPLE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: May I reply briefly to both Commissioners de Castro and
Sarmiento.
There may be a glut of complaints and action services in the civilian
government, but I assure the Commissioners that the area where the
Ombudsman can be
felt as a truly innovative beneficent friend of the lowly rank and file will be in
the Armed Forces of the Philippines.
I am not at liberty, I suppose, to disclose some of the more horrifying
complaints in a long list of particulars submitted by the Reform the Armed
Forces
Movement to former President Marcos, but there is one that I ought to share
with this Commission. The widows of some of the soldiers killed in action in
Mindanao had to follow up their gratuity papers, their death compensation
claims, in one of the headquarters. According to one of those complaints that
was
very clear, some of the processors in that headquarters took advantage of
the widows of soldiers slain in battle to the extent of subjecting them to
unconscionable molestations.
I am not saying that this is endemic, but since we have created the office of
the Ombudsman, what is wrong if we vest it with the power to extend itself
as
a champion of the common man in this context, the ordinary foot soldier
so that he will have a friend? And I say here very categorically that the
Ombudsman will have to work in close cooperation with the Minister of
National Defense and the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines. There
will be no attempt to disrupt the integrity of the chain of command. The
Ombudsman, in this case, will be a friend also of the highest authorities in
the
Ministry of National Defense. I submit, Madam President, because I have only
five minutes and I hope Commissioner de Castros time is not charged to
mine.
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: It is not at all charged to Commissioner Oples time.
MR DE CASTRO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de Castro is recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you, Madam President.
When we talk of the Ombudsman in the military to take care particularly of
the complaints of the widows and orphans of soldiers as stated by the
Honorable
Ople, we have two organizations which look after these. These organizations
are: the Last Watering Hole which meets today and every 28th day of the
month
to check on the complaints of soldiers, of officers, of widows and orphans;
and the Association of Generals and Flag Officers which also looks after the
welfare of the veterans, their widows and their orphans. And I have a
resolution to also look after the welfare of these war veterans, their orphans
and
their widows. So, I believe that to create an Ombudsman for the military in
the Constitution is no longer necessary.
This time is not charged to the Honorable Oples.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. OPLE: I submit, Madam President. I seek the honorable Committees
benediction for this amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: May we hear the position of the Committee on this
particular amendment of Commissioner Ople?
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, may we just ask one question of the
proponent. The Ombudsman for the military will deal with relationships
between the soldier
and the hierarchy. Is that correct?
MR. OPLE: It can be lateral or it can be vertical. With higher authority, yes,
but also with fellow soldiers occupying positions of trust.
MR MONSOD: In other words, within the military?
MR OPLE: Yes.
MR. MONSOD: It would not include human rights violations by soldiers
against civilians?
MR. OPLE: No, that belongs to another jurisdiction, Madam President.
MR MONSOD: So, in effect, it could not be inconsistent with a Commission on
Human Rights?
MR. OPLE: No, there is absolutely no overlap or inconsistency.
MR MONSOD: Madam President, the Committee accepts the amendment of
the proponent.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: I would have no objection to the proposed amendment, but it
should not be on Section 11. It should be placed on Section 6 because if we
put it
here, the appointing authority will no longer be the President but the
Ombudsman, and that is not, I think, the philosophy of the provision.
So it should also be covered by the manner by which an appointment may be
extended to it. So I would propose that it be transferred principally to Section
6.
MR. OPLE: The Committee has no jurisdiction; personally, I have no objection,
Madam President.
MR DAVIDE: But I would propose that the wording would be: A SEPARATE
DEPUTY FOR THE MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT MAY BE APPOINTED, after
Mindanao on Section 6,
line 16, page 3.
Those against, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
The results show 22 votes in favor and 11 against; the proposed amendment,
jointly submitted by Commissioners Ople and Davide and accepted by the
Committee, is approved.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other amendment?
MR. OPLE: Madam President, I am still on the floor.
THE PRESIDENT: May we know from the Floor Leader who will have the floor.
MR. RAMA: Commissioner Ople still has the floor. He has other amendments
to propose.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: Thank you.
On previous clearance with the Floor Leader and the Committee, Madam
President, I would like to submit just two more amendments to the Article on
Accountability of Public Officers. I propose to add a new section to be
denominated as Section 15 which reads: A PUBLIC OFFICER SHALL, UPON
ASSUMPTION OF
OFFICE, DECLARE HIS ASSETS AND LIABILITIES. THE PRESIDENT, THE VICEPRESIDENT, MEMBERS OF THE CABINET, MEMBERS OF CONGRESS, THE
HEADS AND DIRECTORS OF
GOVERNMENT-OWNED OR CONTROLLED CORPORATIONS AND FLAG
OFFICERS OF THE ARMED FORCES SHALL DISCLOSE TO THE PUBLIC THEIR
NET WORTH AT THE BEGINNING OF THEIR
TERMS AND EVERY TWO (2) YEARS THEREAFTER.
May I explain briefly, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner may please proceed under the fiveminute rule.
MR. OPLE: It will take me only one minute to explain this amendment. We
had previously met this principle in the Article on the Legislative but this was
made applicable only to the Members of the Congress. It was especially
Commissioner Serafin Guingona and Chairman Hilario Davide, Jr. of the
Committee on
the Legislative who called my attention to the fact that if this is made to
apply to the Members of the Congress, it should be made a universal
principle
elsewhere in the Constitution to apply to public officers of the government,
and this is what this additional new section seeks to do, Madam President.
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Guingona is recognized
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you, Madam President.
As the distinguished proponent said, I had called his attention to the need for
this particular amendment that he is now proposing. May I just mention that
in the Journal of Saturdays session, July 26, on page 28, paragraph 7, the
following appears, and I quote:
Referring to Mr. Tadeos concern on modest living, Mr. Guingona suggested
that impeachable officers submit their statements of assets and liabilities
upon
assumption of office.
I, therefore, would like to assure the distinguished proponent that I fully
support his amendment. However, I wish to offer two amendments to his
amendment, which are to remove the period (.) after LIABILITIES and add
UNDER OATH and to add AND AT THE END OF THEIR TERMS after YEARS
THEREAFTER.
In the case, for example, of a member of the Cabinet who leaves his office
one-and-a-half years after his last disclosure, under this provision he would
not be required to submit a statement of his assets and liabilities. I am,
therefore, proposing these two amendments for the consideration of the
distinguished proponent.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, I accept the amendment on my behalf and on
behalf of Commissioner Bennagen who had another resolution to this effect
but who
kindly agreed to combine it with the one I had put forward.
MR. DAVIDE. Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: Would the proponents accept an amendment by substitution?
The amendment will read as follows: EVERY PUBLIC OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE
SHALL, UPON
ASSUMPTION OF OFFICE AND EVERY TWO (2) YEARS THEREAFTER AND
WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FOLLOWING HIS CESSATION FROM OFFICE,
MR. DAVIDE: If the idea really is to impress upon the public officer or
employee the particular duty of disclosing his assets and liabilities upon the
assumption to office, then that should apply to all, not just to the public
officer but to all employees because graft and corruption can be committed
not
only by those in the upper bracket in public service but even by those in the
lower bracket. As a matter of fact, Madam President, insofar as graft and
corruption is concerned, we cannot distinguish a separate hierarchy for those
in the upper bracket and for those in the lower bracket. Both of them are
equally liable to disclose their assets and liabilities. And besides, when a
public officer discloses his assets and liabilities, we know already what his
net worth is. So there is no need for a disclosure of net worth because it can
easily be determined from the statement of assets and liabilities.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, I prefer to leave the case of the generality of
employees of the government to law, while we treat the highest public
officers
in terms of a constitutional accountability to disclose to the public not merely
to submit to the civil service or to the head of the ministry; in practice
this really means archiving all of these statements of assets and liabilities. In
the case of the higher echelons of the government, just like in the
United States and in other countries, the obligation to disclose to the public
means that there is no choice; they do not send these to the archives.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: The amendment has been sufficiently debated on.
THE PRESIDENT: May we have the reaction first of the Committee.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, the Committee accepts this in principle, but
we just want to make some editorial suggestions so that it would read: A
PUBLIC
OFFICER SHALL, UPON ASSUMPTION TO OFFICE AND EVERY YEAR
THEREAFTER, MAKE A DECLARATION OF HIS ASSETS, LIABILITIES AND NET
WORTH, WHICH IN THE CASE OF THE
PRESIDENT, VICE-PRESIDENT, MEMBERS OF THE CABINET, MEMBERS OF
CONGRESS, HEADS AND DIRECTORS OF GOVERNMENT-OWNED OR
CONTROLLED CORPORATIONS, AND OFFICERS OF
THE ARMED FORCES, SHALL BE DISCLOSED TO THE PUBLIC.
MR. OPLE: I accept the amendment, Madam President, on behalf of
Commissioner Bennagen and the other author.
MR. PADILLA: For just a matter of form, may we suggest that the members of
the Cabinet, of the Congress, of the Supreme Court and of the constitutional
commissions be in that order, instead of putting the members of the Cabinet
and of Congress at the end of the enumeration.
MR. MONSOD: Yes, maybe we can refer that to the Committee on Style.
MR. OPLE: I support the proposal.
MR. PADILLA: And instead of specifying the Ombudsman alone, can we add,
let us say AND OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICES, so that the provision will
be
all-embracing?
MR. MONSOD: We are amenable to that amendment.
MR. OPLE: I support the change.
MR. PADILLA: Thank you.
MR. FOZ: Parliamentary inquiry, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Foz is recognized.
MR. FOZ: In connection with the enumeration of the public officials who shall
be covered by such requirement of disclosure, is the enumeration inclusive,
meaning to say, that all those not so named or mentioned shall not come
within the coverage of the requirement, so that the ordinary employees will
not be
required to make such disclosure?
MR. OPLE: No, Madam President. The disclosure is mandatory for the
President, the Vice-President, members of the Cabinet and so forth. But
ordinary
government employees, as a rule, are already required to file their
statements of assets and liabilities not for public disclosure but for purposes
of
examination by their superiors, since public interest in their assets and
liabilities would, in any case, be very limited.
MR. FOZ: But the statements of assets and liabilities filed by the rest of the
government personnel constitute public records, and they are available at
any time upon request of anybody, like the members of media, etc. I fear
that the enumeration of the officials covered by such requirement of
disclosure
would, in effect, prohibit any law from requiring any other officials not so
named in the listing from making such disclosure. So I suggest we make such
changes in the phraseology so that the legislature would be free to add other
officials to be within the ambit of the requirement of disclosure.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the interpretation of the Committee? Commissioner
Nolledo is recognized.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, in reply to the inquiry of Commissioner Foz,
the enumeration of public officials, from the President down, for purposes of
public disclosure should not prohibit the legislature from requiring public
disclosure of the statements of assets and liabilities, including net worth of
other inferior officials. That is the sense of consensus of the members of the
Committee.
MR. FOZ: If that is the meaning being attached to it, I accept.
Thank you.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: We now proceed to the voting.
Those in favor of this proposed amendment which has been read by the
Chairman of the Committee, please raise their hand. (Several Members
raised their
hand.)
Those against, please raise their hand. (No Member raised his hand.)
The results show 31 votes in favor and none against; the proposed
amendment is approved.
Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, may I state my very last proposed amendment
which consists in the addition of a new section to the Article on
Accountability of
Public Officers, which is already cleared with the Committee headed by
Chairman Christian Monsod. This is actually a combined draft in which the
Committees reservations were fully overcome. Again, may I say that
Commissioner Bennagen is my co-author of this amendment, together with
the rest of the
members of the Committee on Accountability of Public Officers. It will read as
follows: PUBLIC OFFICERS OWE THE STATE AND ITS CONSTITUTION
UNCONDITIONAL
ALLEGIANCE AT ALL TIMES. ANY PUBLIC OFFICER WHO SEEKS TO CHANGE
HIS CITIZENSHIP OR ACQUIRE THE STATUS OF AN IMMIGRANT OF ANOTHER
COUNTRY DURING HIS TENURE
SHALL BE DEALT WITH BY LAW. May I explain briefly, Madam President?
THE PRESIDENT: Please proceed.
MR. OPLE: Public officers are expected to set the example on standard singleminded allegiance to the nation and to the public interest. Where they are
seen as already preparing refuge or safety outside their own country
because of lack of faith in the stability of their government and of their own
society, the effect on citizens is demoralizing and unsettling. It is also
divisive because it flaunts a class privilege since only a few can afford at any
time to buy security on foreign shores. For most Filipinos, it is still true what
Manuel Quezon said in his time: Love your country for it is the only one
God has given you. In the face of danger, the human reflex calls for flight or
fight. Public officers must not be seen as running away or preferring not
to fight. They must, together with the rest of their countrymen, in the face of
danger and insecurity, not be seen as wavering in their dedication to the
national interest while they stay on as public officers. They are, however, at
perfect liberty to choose. What this draft provision offers is a clarity of
choice. Those who want to change their citizenship or to live in a foreign
country are free to do so. But when they do it, it is clear that they forfeit
their office as public officers of the Philippines. However, this is not stated
categorically. The draft provision leaves to the future legislature ample
discretion to address the specific implications of this policy based not only on
the national interest but also on equity and fairness for those concerned.
I seek the Committees approval, Madam President.
MR. REGALADO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Regalado is recognized.
MR. REGALADO: May I propose an amendment to the proposed amendment
to make it a little more embracing as to also include employees? In the case
of a public
officer, his acts are generally publicly visible; whereas in the case of lower
officials or lower employees, sometimes they may actually be the ones
performing these acts but they are not generally known. And to add a little
more teeth to this last portion, it should read: NO PUBLIC OFFICER OR
EMPLOYEE
MAY DURING HIS TENURE SEEK A CHANGE IN HIS CITIZENSHIP OR ACQUIRE
THE STATUS OF AN IMMIGRANT IN ANOTHER COUNTRY WITHOUT
MR. OPLE: Yes. We can eliminate the adjective if the Commissioner likes.
BISHOP BACANI: Thank you.
MR. OPLE: It is the Committees adjective, incidentally.
MR. ROMULO: The Committee is willing to let go of its adjective.
MR. OPLE: Thank you.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President.
THE, PRESIDENT: Commissioner Padilla is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: I have no objection to inserting the word EMPLOYEE after
PUBLIC OFFICER, but I would like to state that under Article 203 of the
Revised
Penal Code, the words PUBLIC OFFICER include employees even of the
lowest rank. The distinction being made in the Code is only between or
among persons
in authority, agents of persons in authority and public officers.
MR. REGALADO: Madam President, may I make a reply to that.
What Commissioner Padilla stated is applicable only to criminal law, but for
purposes of political or administrative law, there is a distinction between a
public officer and a public employee since the public officer is one vested
with discretion whereas a public employee is one with purely ministerial
functions. I agree that that is the concept in the Revised Penal Code; that the
phrase or employee in the epigraphs of hearing in the provisions of the
Penal Code, specifically in Title VII, is even a surplusage inasmuch as it has
been decided that anybody who takes part in governmental functions,
whatever
his rank is in the plantilla, is a public officer. But this one is for political or
administrative purposes and there is a substantial distinction.
MR. OPLE: I think the Committees text stands with that clarification on both
sides.
THE PRESIDENT: Are we ready now to vote?
MR. ROMULO: Yes, Madam President. we are ready.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this proposed amendment? They
are asking that it be read, Commissioner Ople.
MR. OPLE: It shall read: PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OWE THE STATE
AND ITS CONSTITUTION ALLEGIANCE AT ALL TIMES, AND A PUBLIC OFFICER
WHO SEEKS TO CHANGE
HIS CITIZENSHIP OR ACQUIRE STATUS OF AN IMMIGRANT OF ANOTHER
COUNTRY DURING HIS TENURE SHALL BE DEALT WITH BY LAW.
MR. REGALADO: On the second sentence read by Commissioner Ople, the
words OR EMPLOYEE were not included by him.
MR. ROMULO: No, they were not.
MR. OPLE: Yes, it should include the words OR EMPLOYEE. Thank you for the
correction.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
amendment is approved.
MR. OPLE: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Rodrigo be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, my proposed amendment is on the method
of appointing the Ombudsman and his deputies. According to Section 7, page
3, the
Ombudsman and his deputies shall be appointed. Following the manner of
the recommendations by the Judicial and Bar Council, I was going to propose
that
they be appointed by the President with the confirmation of the Commission
on Appointments. However, Madam President, I was informed that
Commissioner
Bacani would like to file a motion which will raise a prejudicial question to my
proposed amendment. And so, I would like to give way to Commissioner
Bacani. I yield to Commissioner Bacani.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President, when Commissioner Rodrigo moved for
the deletion of the provisions regarding the Ombudsman in our session last
Saturday I
voted against his proposition which was turned down Therefore, I move that
we reconsider that amendment in view of the information that we have
received
from the letter of the Tanodbayan. And I do think that there were not enough
of us present on that day to give a real sounding of the thought of the body
prosecute
charges under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Law, but also violations of
the Penal Code provisions under Title VII, from Articles 203 to 245.
So, for these reasons, Madam President, I move for a reconsideration of the
vote last Saturday.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended for a few minutes.
It was 11:31 a.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 11:48 a.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT. The session is resumed.
The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Bacani be recognized
for his motion for reconsideration.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: Before Commissioner Bacani restates his motion for
reconsideration, may I just be allowed to make a comment on the letter?
Madam President, this issue was comprehensively debated upon and
discussed by the body and the Committee for more than two hours last
Friday. We devoted
our time, our efforts just to be clarified on this vital issue. This morning, we
again suspended the session for about 15 to 20 minutes just to
accommodate
one letter.
Madam President, I was looking at the Order of Business and I notice that
there are also several letters. For us to accommodate this letter after
substantially discussing this point is to me interference in our work. This is an
infringement on our independence as a constitutional body. So, may I ask,
Madam President, that we set aside or disregard this letter.
I recall that one letter was also addressed to the body, a letter from BAYAN,
but upon motion of one of our colleagues, the body decided not to consider
nor discuss that letter. And here comes another letter. Madam President, this
will open the floodgates for more letters to come asking for the
reconsideration of actions that were already acted upon by this constitutional
body.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, may I reply?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: We receive hundreds of letters, but this is a different kind of
letter because this is the letter of the Tanodbayan, also the Ombudsman,
whose
office will be directly affected by the proposed amendment. And I do not
know, I would like to ask first the Committee: Was Tanodbayan Raul Gonzalez
invited to any meetings of the Committee regarding the creation of a
separate office called the Ombudsman?
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, may we reply to the query of the honorable
Commissioner?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, please.
MR. MONSOD: As a matter of fact, Justice Raul Gonzalez was invited, and we
had a very long session with him. The arguments that he presented to the
Committee were given full consideration in the Committees deliberation of
the concept that is now being presented to this body.
Secondly, the arguments that he has in the letter were the same issues that
were posed last Saturday by the Honorable Rodrigo and which was the
subject of
discussion for two hours.
MR. RODRIGO: My only point is its propriety. It seems the idea is: Why are we
giving importance to this particular letter? Why not to a letter from BAYAN?
A letter from BAYAN is different; a letter from UNIDO will be different from
this letter because this is a letter from the head of the office which will be
directly affected and whose functions will be duplicated by the creation of
the Ombudsman.
So, that is the only point I would like to raise, but it is not improper for us to
give importance to this letter. And this is not interference; I think
this is helping us. This is the right of any citizen to write a letter to us,
Our proposal is for the President to appoint him, but his choice is limited to
the persons who will be chosen by a known political body. So, although
chosen by this known political body, he will not owe any debt of gratitude to
the Judicial and Bar Council.
Let us take the example of what happened to Mr. Marcos. The Presidents
office was supposed to be under the supervision of the COA. But what
happened was
that the Commissioners then were told, Dont touch us, and that is what
they did, and that is why we have the effect of the known performance of a
constitutional officer no less. He could do that because the Commissioners of
COA were appointed by him. That cannot be repeated if we appoint the
Ombudsman from a list selected by a known political body.
We have been talking about the practice in the United States. Let me read
something about that. In connection with the appointment of the
Ombudsman in some
states in the United States, some persons favored direct legislative selection
without participation by the executive. This is an American author talking,
not a European author. Thus, a Florida bill proposes simply that the
Ombudsman be appointed by agreement of the President of the Senate and
the Speaker of
the House, subject to confirmation by the majority of the members of each
chamber of the legislature. And then there is the summary that says that all
the
plans emphasized the desirability of depoliticalizing the selection process.
How can we have a fiscalizer who is appointed by the President whose office
is
supposed to be under the jurisdiction of such an appointee? It does not make
sense.
Thank you.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: Just a few remarks in reply. In the case of Ericta that was
mentioned and the other cases whose names were not mentioned, these
people were
working under martial law, and we should not use as a norm what happened
during the martial law.
May I add that in this very proposal in Section 4, the Sandiganbayan is
retained. This is a very important judicial body, and the members and the
chairman
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised
their hand.)
The results show 8 votes in favor and 28 against; the amendment is lost.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner de Castro be
recognized for an amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de Castro is recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you, Madam President. It is already ten minutes after
twelve; I shall be very, very brief.
During the period of sponsorship and debate, Commissioner Nolledo, with his
prowess in convincing people, talked about graft and corruption in our
government. I cannot add nor subtract. The only thing I can say is: even as a
joke, it is common now to answer Ang lagay bay ano? It is a joke, but it
seeps through the dignity of a person.
I remember when I was young and was in the military academy for four
years, only three things were taught to us: duty, honor, country. Yet, the
Armed
Forces was not spared from graft and corruption so much so that we now
have a board composed mostly of retired military men. I am saying this
because,
while we recognize that graft and corruption is the cancerous malady that
seeps into our society, we do not have a state policy on what to do about
graft
and corruption. The Article on Accountability of Public Officers mentioned
graft and corruption only in two sections: in Section 2 and another one in
Section 4. In so stating, graft and corruption on line 17, page 1 was
mentioned as one of the causes for impeachment only; and on page 3 the
Anti-Graft
Court only describes what a Sandiganbayan should be. The State has no
policy regarding graft and corruption.
Madam President, I have a resolution about graft and corruption as a matter
of state policy. It was referred to the Committee on Accountability of Public
Officers, and yet there is nothing in the report about it. Apparently, we want
to continue graft and corruption in our society, the very malady that seeps
into our country. I was informed that this resolution was sent to the
Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of Principles. I
am a
member of this Committee but I do not find it there. May I know from the
Committee whether or not they want a state policy on graft and corruption?
now read as follows: The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall be naturalborn citizens of the Philippines, AND AT THE TIME OF THEIR APPOINTMENT, at
least
forty years old, WITH RECOGNIZED PROBITY AND INDEPENDENCE, AND
MEMBERS of the Philippine Bar, AND MUST NOT HAVE BEEN CANDIDATES
FOR ANY ELECTIVE OFFICE IN
THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ELECTION. The Ombudsman must have FOR
TEN YEARS OR MORE BEEN A JUDGE OR engaged in the practice of law IN
THE PHILIPPINES.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that accepted by Commissioner Bennagen and the
Committee?
MR. BENNAGEN: I do not think that is an amendment to my amendment. I
think the Committee should answer it.
MR. REGALADO: That was an amendment to my proposed amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: I see. What does the Committee say?
MR. MONSOD: We accept the amendment, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: So then, can we state that this will be a joint amendment of
Commissioners Bennagen, Davide and Regalado?
MR. MONSOD: Yes, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: May we have this read again, Mr. Chairman?
MR. MONSOD: The Ombudsman and his Deputies shall be natural-born
citizens of the Philippines, AND AT THE TIME OF THEIR APPOINTMENTS, at
least forty years
old, WITH RECOGNIZED PROBITY AND INDEPENDENCE, AND MEMBERS of the
Philippine Bar, AND MUST NOT HAVE BEEN CANDIDATES FOR ANY ELECTIVE
OFFICE IN THE
IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ELECTION. The Ombudsman must have FOR TEN
YEARS OR MORE BEEN A JUDGE OR engaged in the practice of law IN THE
PHILIPPINES.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
amendment is approved.
MR. BENNAGEN: Madam President, may I proceed with the second
amendment?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bennagen is recognized.
MR. BENNAGEN: This is on page 4: after line 24, I propose to restore to the
section the first function that was in Committee Report No. 16 which was not
included in Committee Report No. 17.
THE PRESIDENT: So, what line?
MR. BENNAGEN: It should be included after the word duties on line 24.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: This will be a paragraph insertion, I believe.
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes, it is a whole paragraph. So, it is an amendment by
insertion.
THE PRESIDENT: Before subparagraph (1).
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes. It used to be Section 6-A of Committee Report No. 16,
and it reads: TO INVESTIGATE ON ITS OWN OR ON COMPLAINT BY ANY
PERSON ANY ACT OR
OMISSION OF ANY PUBLIC OFFICIAL, EMPLOYEE, OFFICE OR AGENCY WHEN
SUCH ACT OR OMISSION IS ILLEGAL, UNJUST, IMPROPER OR INEFFICIENT.
I think the reason for restoring this is that it is a direct function of the
Ombudsman without having to delegate it to others.
THE PRESIDENT: Is this accepted?
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, before we accept, could we ask
Commissioner Bennagen to get together with Commissioner Natividad
because he has the same idea.
The principle being enunciated is acceptable to us but so as not to duplicate
efforts, I suggest that the proponent confer with Commissioner Natividad.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioners Bennagen and Natividad are requested to
confer.
In the meantime, may we proceed to another amendment and we will call
this amendment later on?
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Jamir be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Jamir is recognized.
office
of the Ombudsman as presently contemplated in the Constitution will
continue to be named Tanodbayan and the prosecutory function will be put in
another
office which, as proposed now, will be called Special Prosecutor. The present
Tanodbayan may end up as the Ombudsman of the Tanodbayan.
MR. FOZ: But under this provision now, he will just be a mere special
prosecutor.
MR. MONSOD: No, Madam President, I think the statement is not accurate.
MR. FOZ: But that is the phrase used; that is the nomenclature used.
MR. MONSOD: Yes, because the function has been divided. So, it is not the
same person and the same office anymore.
MR. FOZ: We know for a fact that at present the Tanodbayan enjoys the rank
of a justice of the Intermediate Appellate Court, so if we reduce the office to
that of a special prosecutor, attached to the Anti-Graft Court under this
provision, then the effect would be to reduce his rank from that of a justice of
the Intermediate Appellate Court to a mere member or officer of the
Prosecution Division of the Ministry of Justice.
MR. MONSOD: That does not follow, Madam President. The constitutional
provision is silent as to the rank; that may be provided by law. It does not
automatically follow that if he is a special prosecutor, he is at a certain level
as one in the Ministry of Justice.
MR. FOZ: This is really the question, Madam President: In the case of the
Sandiganbayan which, under the 1973 Constitution was authorized to be
established
by the legislature, there is no provision here for the establishment of such a
court previously called Sandiganbayan but now to be renamed as Anti-Graft
Court. Do I take it that it will be something that will be left to the discretion of
the legislature, whether to establish or not, there being no longer
any constitutional mandate for the establishment of such a court?
MR. COLAYCO: Madam President, may I answer the question?
The office of the Sandiganbayan under the provisions we have approved will
be like this: We are not deducting any jurisdictional powers from the
Sandiganbayan presently existing; we are just changing the name, just that.
MR. FOZ: It is just a change of name?
MR. RODRIGO: So, we are reducing the powers of the Tanodbayan here?
MR. MONSOD: As defined in the 1973 Constitution, they are being reduced in
this new Constitution.
MR. RODRIGO: Was the attention of Tanodbayan Raul Gonzalez called to the
fact that the functions will be reduced, or was it that when he appeared he
was
under the impression that there will only be created an Ombudsman?
MR. MONSOD: I suppose that is the reason he wrote the letter.
MR. RODRIGO: But in his letter that I read, my impression is not that he did
not have the impression that the powers of the Tanodbayan, of his office
now,
will be reduced. From the tenor of the letter, his impression was that there
would be duplication of the functions of that office, and he said there is no
need to create another office. All that the Tanodbayan needs, he says, is
added appropriation.
MR. MONSOD: I suppose the answer to that is, the premise of his letter is
wrong but it is clear that he recognizes the two functions, and this
constitutional provision now will make that explicit.
MR. RODRIGO: But then, another problem arises. We make the Tanodbayan,
as renamed, a prosecuting arm. So, this will just be a duplication of the work
of
the fiscals under the Ministry of Justice.
MR. MONSOD: I believe we discussed that issue earlier. That is another issue
unrelated to what is being discussed but, in any case, we believe that a
special prosecutor for anti-graft cases is still needed because that is a
specialization and there are many cases now falling under the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act. During the hearings of the Committee, which were
attended by Tanodbayan Justice Gonzalez and also Sandiganbayan Justice
Garchitorena, it was highlighted that there is a need for specialization in antigraft cases.
MR. RODRIGO: So, do I take it that the functions of the Tanodbayan will not
only be reduced to purely prosecutory functions but they will further be
limited to prosecution of anti-graft cases? Is that it?
MR. MONSOD: That is the intent, Madam President, of renaming the
Sandiganbayan as the Anti-Graft Court and the prosecutory arm as the
Special Prosecutor in
anti-graft cases.
under this concept. And that would include violations under Article VII of the
Revised Penal Code, referring to the performance by public officials of
their duties.
REV. RIGOS: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Let us allow Commissioner Rodrigo to finish and then maybe
we can have the other speakers.
Please proceed, Commissioner Rodrigo.
MR. RODRIGO: What is the proposed name for the Tanodbayan?
MR. MONSOD: Special Prosecutor.
MR. RODRIGO: The very name itself implies that its functions will then be
limited to prosecution of special cases only.
I wonder if the Committee will accept an amendment to abolish the
Tanodbayan completely. That is the result of this, because prosecution can be
done by the
fiscals.
MR. MONSOD: If the Commissioner wishes to put that in the form of an
amendment, we will ask the body to decide on it on the floor.
MR. RODRIGO: No, I just wanted to emphasize a point.
REV. RIGOS: That is my amendment, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me. Was there any amendment by Commissioner
Rodrigo? What was the amendment of Commissioner Rodrigo?
REV. RIGOS: No, I will propose the amendment.
MR. BENNAGEN: What is the parliamentary situation?
MR. JAMIR: He is not pursuing his amendment?
MR. RODRIGO: I am not pursuing. I just used that to emphasize the point that
we have emasculated completely the Tanodbayan
THE PRESIDENT: May the Chair inquire from the Chairman of the Committee
what office would have administrative supervision now over the Tanodbayan?
Is there
any office that would have administrative supervision over the Tanodbayan,
as described in Section 5?
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, as the decree now reads, no one has
jurisdiction over the Tanodbayan. He may be removed by the President for a
cause.
THE PRESIDENT: So he is directly under the Office of the President?
MR. ROMULO: Yes, because it is the President who may remove him for a
cause. In effect. he comes under the Office of the President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rigos is recognized.
REV. RIGOS: Madam President, the difficulty in Section 5, page 3 is that the
Tanodbayan is understood to be the same as the Ombudsman under the
1973
Constitution, and this reference to Section 6 of Article XIII of the 1973
Constitution contributes to the confusion. I would like to find out whether the
Committee would consider the possibility of just not mentioning the
Tanodbayan at all and instead, in Section 5, we will simply say: THERE IS
HEREBY
CREATED THE OFFICE OF SPECIAL PROSECUTOR, which will be the
prosecution arm of the Ombudsman, without reference to Article XIII of the
1973 Constitution.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, that is the intent of Section 5. However, the
new Constitution cannot be completely silent on this because the reality is,
there is an office existing; so, somehow, it has to be dealt with, which the
Committee had decided would be a better way to do it, either in the main
body
or in the Transitory Provisions of the Constitution. Those were the options we
had. And the Committee decided that it is better to put it here, so that in
the sequence of the paragraphs, the concepts will stand out on what the
intent of the Committee was.
REV. RIGOS: The Committees decision, as recommended in Section 5,
constitutionalizes Section 6 of Article XIII of the 1973 Constitution which will
precisely avoid confusion.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, we wanted to constitutionalize the
Ombudsman, but in the discussions yesterday, it was the preference of the
body that the
1973 Constitution not be mentioned here, and that is the reason we
accepted an amendment from Commissioners Treas and Regalado.
that the functions of this office is different from the Office of the State
Prosecutor? This is for purposes of the record because the Office of the State
Prosecutor is under the Ministry of Justice and the Office of Special
Prosecutor that we are creating under Section 5 is a constitutional body.
MR. ROMULO: Yes, they are separate and, in effect, the Special Prosecutor is
a mandated office by the Constitution.
MR. SUAREZ: In other words, the Office of Special Prosecutor will handle
exclusively graft and corruption cases, unlike the case of the State
Prosecutor
which could handle any and all kinds of criminal cases to avoid overlapping
of functions.
MR. ROMULO: Yes, that is correct. He will handle all of the prosecution that
comes to the Sandiganbayan by virtue of the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan.
MR. SUAREZ: So, that will exclude or preclude the state prosecutors from
acting as prosecutors in the Office of the Special Prosecutor.
MR. ROMULO: Yes, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: That is clear.
MR. ROMULO: Yes.
MR. SUAREZ: But will that also preclude the state prosecutors from acting as
special prosecutors?
MR. ROMULO: I think the Special Prosecutor may appoint such deputies as he
may choose. So, in that way, the so-called State Prosecutor could be utilized
by
the Special Prosecutor, if he likes.
MR. SUAREZ: It might be a little confusing. May I suggest that this matter be
further clarified, because there could be a duplication of functions between
the Office of the Special Prosecutor which is constitutional in character and
the Office of the State Prosecutor which is only under the Ministry of
Justice.
MR. REGALADO: Madam President.
MR. ROMULO: Let us put it this way. They are separate offices; we do not
intend to get them mixed up. The Special Prosecutors Office is really the
Tanodbayans office now.
MR. SUAREZ: So, let us go to a specific case, Madam President, because this
is important for the record. Let us say an anti-graft case is filed against a
public official, Juan de la Cruz, so that will be handled by the Special
Prosecutors Office.
MR. ROMULO: Yes, as is the present practice.
MR. SUAREZ: And when the formal complaint is filed with the Anti-Graft
Court, the one who will appear to prosecute that will be the Special
Prosecutor and
not the State Prosecutor?
MR. ROMULO: Yes, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. REGALADO: May I add a point of information on that based on
Commissioner Suarez observation?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Regalado is recognized.
MR. REGALADO: The present practice of the Tanodbayan, which will now be
known as the Special Prosecutor, is to deputize Or designate provincial
fiscals in
remote areas of the Philippines to handle the preliminary investigation. But
the actual prosecution in the Sandiganbayan is handled by the Tanodbayan
now
this is supposed to be called the Special Prosecutor to prevent the need
for people in the provinces to come to Manila just for preliminary
investigation. That is the present practice now.
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, Commissioner Jamir has the floor. May we
finish his amendments?
MR. GUINGONA: This is just in reaction to the remarks of Commissioner
Regalado where he spoke about deputation. Since there are two separate
bodies under
different jurisdictions one under the Ministry of Justice and the other
apparently under the Office of the President I was wondering whether the
Special Prosecutor now could deputize even without the approval of the
Minister of Justice.
MR. ROMULO: That is the present practice now.
MR. REGALADO: May I add to that? The practice is based on the rules of the
Tanodbayan. But, of course, before they can deputize a particular provincial
or
city fiscal in any of the provinces outside Manila, they usually get the
concurrence of the Minister of Justice to determine the availability and the
number of the fiscals in that particular region.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the next amendment of Commissioner Jamir?
MR. JAMIR: My next amendment is with respect to the name Ombudsman. I
propose that the word TANODBAYAN be placed before the word
Ombudsman and that the
word Ombudsman be enclosed in parentheses. My reason is that the 1971
Constitutional Convention used the name Tanodbayan as the most
appropriate
translation in Pilipino for the word Ombudsman.
THE PRESIDENT: Which section then Section 5?
MR. JAMIR: It should apply to all sections of the proposal, beginning with
Section 2, line 14.
THE PRESIDENT: All references to Ombudsman should be preceded by the
word TANODBAYAN?
MR. JAMIR: And the word Ombudsman should be enclosed in parentheses.
THE PRESIDENT: What does the Committee say?
MR. MONSOD: Would the proponent be willing to say TANODBAYAN OR
Ombudsman? We are suggesting that because in over 50 countries, the
word Ombudsman has
acquired a certain international meaning and practice.
MR. JAMIR: I welcome the Committees suggestion.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, may I be recognized for a question?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: There is already an existing Office of the Tanodbayan which is
called Ombudsman in the 1973 Constitution. I think this office will continue
to
exist. Under what section will it exist: Section 5 or Section 6?
MR. MONSOD: It will continue to exist under Section -5. It will now be called
Special Prosecutor and the new Office of the Ombudsman or Tanodbayan is
the
one that is mandated as a creation of this Constitution.
MR. RODRIGO: So, this emasculated office will continue to exist under
Section 5.
Thank you.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: I would like to introduce an amendment to the accepted
amendment, the idea being that it would not look elegant to indicate Office
of the
Ombudsman or Tanodbayan. Why do we not just say OFFICE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN TO BE KNOWN AS THE TANODBAYAN so we do not have to use
the word or in the
stationery of the Ombudsman?
MR. MONSOD: We accept the amendment.
MR. ROMULO: If Commissioner Jamir accepts it, we will accept.
MR. JAMIR: I have already expressed my agreement with the Committee.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, this is just an amendment to the
amendment of Commissioner Jamir who speaks of the Tanodbayan as the
Ombudsman. However,
Section 11 defines the Ombudsman as the champion of the people. When he
speaks of Tanodbayan, he is referring to a protector or guardian. Tanod
means
guardian or watchman, not champion. Is Commissioner Jamir willing to
accept the word LINGKOD-BAYAN which would embrace all concepts tanod,
guardian,
watchman or anything?
MR. MONSOD: We regret that the Committee cannot accept that. It will just
lead to confusion.
MR. SARMIENTO: For clarity and simplicity, I withdraw the amendment.
MR. ROMULO: Thank you.
MR. RAMA: We have not followed the old procedure because those who came
here to register did not indicate which section they are going to amend.
In the case of Commissioner Bennagen, he is supposed to coordinate with
Commissioner Natividad for a certain amendment. I do not know whether or
not he has
already done that. He has two more amendments. I am under the impression
that he has not yet consulted with Commissioner Natividad.
THE PRESIDENT: What does Commissioner Bennagen say?
MR. BENNAGEN: I did, as a matter of fact, I have already informed the Floor
Leader that I already made consultations with Commissioner Natividad, but
this
is for another amendment. It does not refer to the subject matter that we
discussed earlier, which was for the insertion of a subsection present in
Committee Report No. 16 but not included in Committee Report No. 17. We
have not acted on that. I gave in to the amendments of Commissioner Jamir
because
those had to do with the decision on the name of the office.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the pleasure of the Floor Leader?
MR. RAMA: I think the Commissioner has still two more amendments. So I ask
that he be recognized.
MR. REGALADO: Madam President, what is now the procedure? Shall we
defer this after Commissioner Bennagen has spoken, or shall we revert now
to the process
of anterior amendments?
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is calling the Commissioners in accordance
with their having signified their intention to propose amendments. So the
Chair
believes that we will just continue the procedure that has been employed
and followed by the Floor Leader, at least, for this afternoon. But inasmuch
as
Commissioner Bennagen is already on the floor, we will continue considering
his amendments.
MR. REGALADO: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. BENNAGEN: May I be clarified as to the method of proposing
amendments, because my belief is that there is a certain logical sequence in
the articles?
MR. BENNAGEN: I will read into the record some of the reasons after
Commissioner Jamir shall have presented the amendment.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Jamir is recognized.
MR. JAMIR: Madam President, my amendment will be an amendment by
insertion. On page 5, after Section 12 (5), insert the following: TO
DETERMINE AND MAKE
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE OBSERVANCE OF HIGH STANDARDS OF ETHICS
AND EFFICIENCY AND TO ELIMINATE THE ROOT CAUSES OF INEFFICIENCY,
RED TAPE, MISMANAGEMENT,
FRAUDS AND CORRUPTION IN THE GOVERNMENT.
This is a consolidation of the proposals of Commissioners Natividad,
Sarmiento, Bennagen, Concepcion and myself.
THE PRESIDENT: What does the Committee say?
MR. ROMULO: The Committee accepts.
THE PRESIDENT: The Committee has accepted the amendment.
Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is
approved.
MR. JAMIR: My last amendment is to be inserted after the last portion of the
proposal and it reads: THE TANODBAYAN OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES, OTHER
THAN THE
DEPUTIES, SHALL BE APPOINTED BY THE TANODBAYAN ACCORDING TO THE
CIVIL SERVICE LAW.
MR. ROMULO: Is the Commissioner subjecting the Tanodbayan Deputies to
the Civil Service?
MR. JAMIR: No, precisely, it says: THE TANODBAYAN OFFICIALS AND
EMPLOYEES, OTHER THAN THE DEPUTIES, SHALL BE APPOINTED BY THE
TANODBAYAN ACCORDING TO THE
CIVIL SERVICE LAW.
MR. ROMULO: We accept.
MR. JAMIR: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The Committee has accepted the amendment.
Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is
approved.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Maambong be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, before I was interrupted I was saying
that the proposed provision on impeachment which I have submitted to the
Committee
might have some objectionable points because some of the members say it
is unduly long. However, I would just like to indicate for the record that I am
doing this precisely to correct the deficiencies which happened in the last
Regular Batasang Pambansa.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there copies of this proposed amendment?
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: We do not have copies.
MR. MAAMBONG: Right now we have three proposals: the proposal of
Commissioner Regalado, that of Commissioner Davide and my own proposal.
In order to save
time for the Committee I am now formally asking that this six-paragraph
provision which has exactly the same number of paragraphs that is now
being
indicated in the committee report except for paragraph 7 which is on rulemaking be inserted in the Record. Then I ask that we defer the consideration
of
this until the three proposals have been worked out by the Committee.
I will not proceed to another amendment, Madam President.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, the Committee has sat down with
Commissioners Davide and Regalado regarding the draft. The only difference
between that
formulation and that of Commissioner Maambong is on the question of the
need for an investigation before it goes into the Order of Business and it is a
little bit shorter.
the Ombudsman is to
give effect to the right of the people to petition the government for redress
of grievances and to promote higher standards of integrity and efficiency in
the government service?
MR. MONSOD: Yes.
MR. MAAMBONG: Then I will not press anymore that amendment. I ask that I
be allowed to withdraw the same.
I will go now to page 5, Section 13, line 23.
I would like to indicate before the Committee that this specific provision in
Section 13 is found in Section 11 of RA 1379 which is an act declaring
forfeiture in favor of the State of any property to have been unlawfully
acquired by any public officer or employee and providing for the procedure
therefor.
Section 11 of RA 1379 says:
Laws on Prescription. The laws concerning acquisitive prescription and
limitation of actions cannot be invoked by, nor shall they benefit the
respondent
in respect of any property unlawfully acquired by him.
Considering the existence of this provision in RA 1379, I wonder if the
Committee would allow that this Section 13 be deleted.
MR. NOLLEDO: I think the Commissioner knows the basic distinction between
a statutory provision and a constitutional provision.
MR. MAAMBONG: Very well.
MR. NOLLEDO: I say so because at any time this section can be repealed by
the legislature. Due to the importance of Section 11 of RA 1379, which the
Commissioner correctly quoted, we reproduced the same provision but in
different words in Section 13, page 5 of our committee report so as to
constitutionalize it.
MR. MAAMBONG: I succumb to the answer of Commissioner Nolledo.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you.
MR. MAAMBONG: Considering that the Committee does not feel that this
Section 13 should be eliminated then I would propose its rewording.
Committee. I do not know whether it will satisfy them if I say that the
intention of the Committee is to embrace all the consequences, meanings
and
intentions gleaned from the words which they recommended.
They are all contemplated in this provision. I think we should not clutter the
Constitution with words, no matter how beautiful they may be.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: I think my amendment was cluttered a little bit because of
the proposed amendment to my amendment. (Laughter)
THE PRESIDENT: Is the Commissioner accepting the proposed amendment of
Commissioner Davide?
MR. MAAMBONG: Considering that the Commissioner is from Cebu, I would
like to accept it. However, the problem is that he is trying to introduce an
amendment not to my amendment, but to the original provision of Section
13. How in heavens name could I accept that? So, I would rather stick to the
present formulation which I have proposed. Considering that the Committee
did not get a copy of my proposal, I am willing to have this deferred in the
meantime for them to go over my proposal because I still maintain that the
proposal I am putting forward is more encompassing since I practically
copied it
from an existing law and this covers civil and criminal prescriptions.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, I have a copy of Section 11 of RA 1379,
known as An Act for Forfeiture of Unlawfully Acquired Property, so the
Gentleman
need not furnish me a copy. The provision of Section 13 which the
Commissioner proposes to amend covers both the civil and the criminal
aspects. In
relation to the proposed amendment to the amendment of Commissioner
Davide, we also feel that the property unlawfully acquired by public officials
is
considered res criminis and whoever is in possession of that property,
whether he is an accessory, a principal, an accomplice or otherwise, should
return
the property to the State, and the right of the State to forfeit the same does
not prescribe.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, if the purpose of the Committee is to
really encompass civil and criminal actions in relation to the
nonprescriptibility, I
suggest that the Committee take seriously the proposal. Anyway, what is
wrong with improving the provision at this time?
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair believes that the point of the Committee is that it
prefers a simple presentation of the whole issue. The Committee believes
that
what are included in the Commissioners proposed statement are already
included in the simple sentence of Section 13.
MR. MAAMBONG: With that assurance and unless Commissioner Davide will
not press his amendment to my amendment, I am willing to withdraw, with
the
understanding that this provision of Section 13 covers nonprescriptibility of
civil and criminal actions.
MR. NOLLEDO: I thank the Commissioner for his magnanimity.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: I would like to insist on my proposal for the plain and simple
reason that the republic act on forfeiture of ill-gotten wealth would cover only
the civil aspect. As a matter of fact, any prosecution for the criminal aspect
of that will have to be taken under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act. That is why it is necessary to include here, specifically, the criminal
action and the imprescriptibility of the criminal action. Besides, what is
stated in the law on ill-gotten wealth and recovery thereof would refer to
prescription or statute of limitations. We know for a fact that there are two
other concepts in Civil Law. We have laches and estoppel. Laches, for
instance, is a concept entirely different from prescription. While an action
may not
prescribe, it may be barred by laches and while an action may not prescribe
or may not be barred by laches, it may also be a limitation because of
estoppel. So, if we really want to strengthen this particular concept, we
should be very specific in having it related to both criminal and civil actions.
In addition to prescription, we should also include laches and estoppel.
MR. REGALADO: Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, the issue has been sufficiently debated.
THE PRESIDENT: Will Commissioner Davide state his proposed amendment to
Section 13?
MR. DAVIDE: The proposed amendment will be on line 25 alone. After the
word employees, add the following: OR THEIR CO-PRINCIPALS
ACCOMPLICES OR
ACCESSORIES OR TO PROSECUTE OFFENSES IN CONNECTION THEREWITH.
Then after the word prescription, add a comma (,) and the words LACHES
OR ESTOPPEL. So, the
entire section will read: The right of the State to recover properties
unlawfully acquired by public officials or employees, THEIR CO-PRINCIPALS,
ACCOMPLICES OR ACCESSORIES OR TO PROSECUTE OFFENSES IN
CONNECTION THEREWITH shall not be barred by prescription, LACHES OR
ESTOPPEL.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it accepted by the Committee?
MR. NOLLEDO: After consultations, the Committee is happy to announce that
we are accepting the amendments.
MR. DAVIDE: Thank you, Madam President; I also thank the members of the
Committee.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
amendment is approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Bacani be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President, I wish to propose an amendment to
Section 6 on page 3, line 15. Between the words and and one, insert the
words AT
LEAST.
In the period of sponsorship and debate last Saturday, Commissioner Rodrigo
spoke very forcefully pointing out that the office of the Ombudsman will be
quite powerless because it will have only one deputy for each of these big
subdivisions of the Philippine Archipelago. To remedy that infirmity, may I
suggest that the words AT LEAST be added so that in the future, should the
need arise then, we can easily add more deputies.
So, Section 6 should go this way: There is hereby created the independent
office of the Ombudsman composed of the Ombudsman, one over-all Deputy
and AT
LEAST one Deputy each for Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao.
MR. COLAYCO: We accept.
THE PRESIDENT: So, how will that section read now? What are the words that
have been changed?
MR. PADILLA: Lines 8 and 9 should read . . . utmost RESPONSIBILITY,
integrity, LOYALTY and efficiency.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that accepted?
MR. MONSOD: We accept the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: The Committee has accepted the amendment.
Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is
approved.
MR. PADILLA: On page 2, paragraph 6 of Section 3, from line 23 was copied
from the previous Constitution but I wonder whether the word not on line
24 is
misplaced or is erroneous because this Section 6 speaks of removal from
office and also prosecution. But as it is worded, it says.
Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than the removal
from office . . . the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject
to prosecution, trial and punishment according to law.
It seems to me that the word not should be deleted to read: shall extend
further than the removal. Then on line 27, change the word-but to AND.
So,
it will read: AND the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable . . .
MR. ROMULO: The sense in using the word not is to convey that the Senate
should not go further than removing the impeachable officer and that the
reserved clause belongs then to his prosecution outside the Senate. That is
why we believe that the original wording of the 1935 Constitution is
appropriate.
THE PRESIDENT: Will Commissioner Padilla insist?
MR. PADILLA: With that explanation I will not insist on my amendment.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: Would the proponent yield to an amendment?
At this juncture, the President relinquished the Chair to the Honorable Efrain
B. Treas.
MR. ROMULO: We regret we cannot accept because there was a specific
resolution filed on this matter by Commissioner Tadeo and the purpose is
really for the
public official to set an example and to avoid conspicuous display of wealth
and power. So, when we say FRUITFUL, it may, in fact, be misunderstood
that
he should aggrandize himself while he is in office because that would be
fruitful indeed, but in the wrong sense.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, if we put some malicious intention to the
word, we can always do that. But I was trying to say that the word
FRUITFUL
carries a mandate not just to be a spectator but a participant to make the
Philippines fruitful. The original proponent of that resolution, Commissioner
Tadeo, may perhaps agree with me.
MR. NOLLEDO: If the Gentleman will permit it, the word FRUITFUL is really
subject to malicious implications; it may mean enrichment. That is what we
intend to avoid, Madam President.
MR. TINGSON: There is another one here, Madam President. It has been a
truly inspiring experience to listen to the functions of the Ombudsman and
his
deputies.
Commissioner Sarmiento said he is a mobilizer; he is a watchdog; he is a
critic. Others say he is a reformist; he is a crusader; he is an arbiter. He is,
in other words, a moral superman. He should, therefore, be a man with the
vim, the verve and the vigor of youth. I was going to propose amendments
that
instead of requiring him to be at least 40 years, we require him to be 35
years old; instead of 10 years in practice, we reduce it to 7, if only to satisfy
Commissioners Gascon, Sarmiento, Brocka and Ople that I did not have any
malicious intent when I tried to suggest before that the Senators be 40 years
old
instead of 35.
However, upon consulting the committee members, they say that for
purposes of legal symmetry in the language of Commissioner Nolledo, it has
to be 40 years
old because I understand the office of the Ombudsman is being elevated to
that of a Commissioner. All of them wanted 40 years old. Have they changed
their
MR. RODRIGO: That is what the Gentleman said. I just want to be consistent
with the definition by the Committee of the functions of the Ombudsman.
MR; MONSOD: We will accept that amendment in order to clarify that
position.
MR. RODRIGO: So, how will the amendment now read?
MR. NATIVIDAD: Maybe . . . the Special Prosecutor shall PROSECUTE CASES
REFERRED TO IT BY THE OMBUDSMAN.
MR. ROMULO: In appropriate cases.
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer, I object to the proposed amendment
because that is already covered by Section 12 (2) on page 5 which reads:
To direct the officer concerned to take appropriate action against a public
official or employee at fault, and to recommend his removal, suspensions
demotion, fine, censure or prosecution, and to see to the compliance of the
directive.
In short, the Ombudsman can direct even the Special Prosecutor to
prosecute the particular complaint concerning which the Ombudsman may
have determined
that an action is proper to be filed.
MR. NATIVIDAD: That is clear, Mr. Presiding Officer. If that is encompassed
within the meaning of that power, maybe I should withdraw the amendment.
MR. MONSOD: Yes. maybe the proper thing to do is to withdraw it in view of
that manifestation.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Yes, anyway it is in the record already.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): For the .record, the proposed
amendment of Commissioner Natividad has been withdrawn.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I ask that Commissioner Aquino be
recognized.
MR. NOLLEDO: The Commissioner need not overhaul the procedure. But it
seems to me that she is suggesting some sort of judicial review; am I right?
MS. AQUINO: No, what I am suggesting is to transfer the impeachment power
after the impeachment articles have been initiated and formulated by the
joint
action of the legislative chambers to the judicial courts.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you.
MR. OPLE: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: Will Commissioner Aquino yield to a question, too?
MS. AQUINO: Gladly.
MR. OPLE: Commissioner Aquino must be aware that the main provision on
impeachment in the draft article under discussion was lifted virtually from
the two
previous Constitutions, actually almost a verbatim copy of Article VII of the
United States Constitution that was framed and ratified in 1787. May I
briefly read Article VII:
Judgment in case of impeachment shall not extend further than the removal
from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or
profit under the United States, but the party convicted shall nevertheless be
liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment according
to law.
It is almost unchanged since the American constitutional framers established
this impeachment rule in the Constitution of 1787.
But the reason I brought this up was to induce Commissioner Aquino to recall
a more recent event related to impeachment in the United States Congress
of an
American President, Richard Nixon, who was facing impeachment. As a
matter of fact, the charges had already been formulated in a committee of
the House of
Representatives and he was to be tried by the Senate in the full glare of
world television. Instead of submitting to impeachment proceedings, he
resigned,
and later on was granted amnesty by President Ford. The point is that
impeachment is a sword in the scabbard. It is as good as a sword drawn; it
certainly
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The Chair would like to understand the
present parliamentary situation. Is Commissioner Aquino proposing a specific
amendment?
MS. AQUINO: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): On what section and what is the nature
of the amendment?
MS. AQUINO: It will overhaul massively Section 3 in the sense that I am
contemplating the possibility of amending Section 3 to vest in the judicial
courts
the power of impeachment trials after the impeachment articles have been
formulated and initiated by the joint action of the legislative chambers. But
the
Committee has expressed reluctance to this position.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Precisely, the Chair would like to know
the reaction of the Committee on the proposed amendment.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, the Committee explained its position that
we believe the present provision serves a very useful purpose, and we want
to
see it retained. Furthermore, if I get the drift of the arguments of
Commissioner Aquino, the overhaul would involve the introduction of the
judicial
branch of the government into the process in the case of the President.
Our position is that the President has been directly elected by the people.
Since this is a political act, the more appropriate judge of the President in
this matter should probably be the direct representatives of the people as
well, which are the Senate and the House.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer, I am presently inclined to respect the
position of the Committee. However, without foreclosing the possibility of
introducing pertinent amendments on the basis of their position, may I make
two inquiries?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The Commissioner may proceed.
MS. AQUINO: Am I in agreement with the Committee that impeachment
proceedings are essentially judicial in nature?
MR. ROMULO: No, we believe that they are political. Judicial aspects may
come in the procedures such as the forming of the articles, the actual trial
being
presided over by the Chief Justice, and so on. But we still believe that they
are essentially a political act rather than a judicial act.
MS. AQUINO: Precisely, I was very careful on my formulation of terms when I
said impeachment proceedings, not impeachment power. So, we are agreed
on the
premise that impeachment proceedings are essentially judicial in nature.
Does it follow, therefore, that when the legislative chamber sits to undertake
impeachment proceedings, it sits not as a legislative body but as a judicial
body; rather, it sits as a court of justice?
MR. ROMULO: In a way, they probably sit more like jurists, as finders of fact
and the law, I suppose. They combine those functions. We could say that
there
is an exercise of judicial power involved.
MS. AQUINO: On the basis of these shared premises, would the legislature
then, sitting to undertake impeachment proceedings, still be bound by the
rules of
legislative sessions? Specifically, if the legislature adjourns, are the Members
duty-bound to terminate or preterminate as the case may be the
impeachment proceedings if the supervening circumstance of adjournment
of the sessions come in?
MR. ROMULO: I think that would depend on the rules they would adopt.
Certainly, the Constitution does not settle that.
MS. AQUINO: Because I would proceed from settled jurisprudence that
impeachment proceedings are essentially judicial in nature, such that it
follows that
when the legislative chamber undertakes these proceedings it sits as a court
of justice and, therefore. it is not bound by the rules of legislative
sessions. It cannot adjourn. Assuming that the session is adjourned,
impeachment proceedings should not, in any way, be affected by the
adjournment of the
session.
MR. ROMULO: That is not precluded from our proposal. If the Commissioner
wants to make it explicit and to suggest amendments to that effect, I
suppose we
would not object. Our thinking is that if the Commissioners premise is that it
is like a court of justice. Maybe an adjournment of the hearing will
certainly not preclude it from continuing the proceedings on some other day.
In other words, it could not lose jurisdiction just because of adjournment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The Chair, therefore, understands from
Commissioner Aquino that her proposed massive amendment is considered
withdrawn.
MS. AQUINO: Not yet, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The Commissioner may proceed.
MS. AQUINO: On another point, if an impeachment proceeding has been filed
against the President, for example, and the President resigns before
judgment of
conviction has been rendered by the impeachment court or by the body, how
does it affect the impeachment proceeding? Will it be necessarily dropped?
MR. ROMULO: If we decide the purpose of impeachment to remove one from
office, then his resignation would render the case moot and academic.
However, as
the provision says, the criminal and civil aspects of it may continue in the
ordinary courts.
MS. AQUINO: I am not so much concerned about the civil and criminal
aspects as I am concerned with the necessary effect of a judgment of
conviction in an
impeachment proceeding. A judgment of conviction also means
disqualification from office; it does not only mean removal from office.
MR. ROMULO: Yes, I see that point. It is my personal opinion that if he
resigns, that in itself would end the impeachment proceeding.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The Chair recognizes the Floor Leader.
MR. RAMA: There are several other Commissioners who would like to amend
the Article. May I ask that Commissioner Regalado be recognized?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Just a minute. May we consider
Commissioner Aquinos proposed amendment withdrawn?
MS. AQUINO: No, Mr. Presiding Officer. I have to consult Commissioner
Guingona about it.
MR. GUINGONA: Precisely, Mr. Presiding Officer, I was going to ask
Commissioner Aquino a couple of questions, if I may, in connection with her
proposal.
impeachable officers,
there is nothing that will prevent the legislature as it stands now from
providing also that other officers not enumerated therein shall also be
removable
only by impeachment, and that has already happened.
Under Section 1 of P.D. No. 1606. the Sandiganbayan Decree, justices of the
Sandiganbayan may be removed only by impeachment. unlike their
counterparts in
the then Court of Appeals. They are, therefore, a privileged class on the level
of the Supreme Court. In the Committee on Constitutional Commissions and
Agencies, there are many commissions which are sought to be
constitutionalized if I may use the phrase and the end result would be
that if they are
constitutional commissions, the commissioners there could also be removed
only by impeachment. What is there to prevent the Congress later
because of the
lack of this sentence that I am seeking to add from providing that officials
of certain offices, although nonconstitutional, cannot also be removed
except by impeachment?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas) : What does the Committee say on the
proposed amendment of Commissioner Regalado?
MR. MONSOD: May we ask Commissioner Regalado a few questions?
Does this mean that with this provision, the other officers in the case of the
Sandiganbayan would not be removable by impeachment?
MR. REGALADO: For the present and during the interim and until the new
Congress amends P.D. No. 1606, that provision still stands. But the proposed
amendment will not prevent the legislature from subsequently repealing or
amending that portion of the law. Also, it will prevent the legislature from
providing for favored public officials as not removable except by
impeachment.
That is the purpose of this proposal.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, the Committee is willing to accept the
amendment of Commissioner Regalado.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas). The proposed amendment of
Commissioner Regalado has been accepted by the Committee.
MR. REGALADO: After the last sentence in Section 2, the amendment will
read: ALL OTHER PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES MAY BE REMOVED FROM
OFFICE AS PROVIDED
BY LAW BUT NOT BY IMPEACHMENT.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas) : Precisely, that has been accepted by
the Committee.
MR. REGALADO: They wanted me to read before we vote.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas) : All right.
Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is
approved.
MR. REGALADO: On Section 9, Mr. Presiding Officer, regarding the
Ombudsman and his deputies serving for a term of seven years without
reappointment. I
propose to add a sentence to read as follows: THEY SHALL NOT BE
QUALIFIED TO RUN FOR ANY OFFICE IN THE ELECTION IMMEDIATELY
SUCCEEDING THE END OF THEIR
TERM OR RESIGNATION FROM OFFICE.
May I explain the reason, Mr. Presiding Officer?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The Gentleman may proceed.
MR. REGALADO: The reason is that the Ombudsman as now visualized by us
will be a person who will have some powers, although as they say he is
toothless.
Nevertheless, he is publicly visible and highly capable of projecting himself
into the public limelight; whether he likes it or not, he will have to do so.
We would like to avoid the possibility that an Ombudsman may use his
position as a springboard for the coming elections. Or if he is caught in
midstream in
his term and the elections are coming up, he may resign and having already
the aura of public acceptance, he may immediately go into politics. In other
words, he should not use his position as a springboard for political purposes
but we are not going to deprive the electorate completely of such a man if he
is really capable and competent. All I am trying to introduce here is that
there be an interval before he can run in the next election.
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: Will the proponent accept some amendments?
MR. REGALADO: The Committee has already accepted the amendment. Is the
Committee willing to defer acceptance in the meantime to give
Commissioner Foz an
opportunity to introduce a proposed amendment to the amendment, as
amended?
MR. MONSOD: May we hear the proposed amendment to the amendment?
MR. FOZ: The amendment is to the effect that instead of disqualifying them
in just the immediately succeeding election, I would amend it to provide IN
THE
NEXT TWO SUCCEEDING ELECTIONS AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF HIS TERM.
May I explain my amendment, if the Chair will permit me?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The Gentleman may proceed.
MR. FOZ: The office of the Ombudsman is a very visual office. Precisely, the
functions, powers and duties of the Ombudsman make it a natural subject of
a
lot of publicity. As a matter of fact, one of its functions is to publicize, when
circumstances so warrant, matters covered by its investigation. We
expect, therefore, a very active Ombudsman who will most probably be in
the glare of publicity almost everyday. If he does his job well, he will be
popular. In other words, he may use his office as a launching pad for his
political ambitions.
In order to preclude a politicking Ombudsman, we should so provide that
aside from prohibiting him from resigning his office and then running for
public
office within the term for which he was appointed and for the succeeding
election, we should lengthen the period during which he should be prohibited
from
running for public office precisely to dissuade him from harboring political
ambitions during the time he will be discharging the functions of his office.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): What does the Committee say?
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, we regret we cannot accept the
amendment. The reasons given by Commissioner Foz were the same reasons
given by
Commissioner Regalado.
If we extend it to two elections. the prohibition could reach nine years. We
feel that probably that is not really the intention of the original proponent.
We just want to deter politicking; on the other hand, nine years may be a
little too long for a really good man who might be able to serve the people.
SUCCEEDING THEIR
CESSATION FROM OFFICE.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Is there any objection? (Silence) The
Chair hears none; the amendment is approved.
MR. REGALADO: One more proposed amendment, Mr. Presiding Officer.
Section 12 (1) on page 5, lines 1 to 3, reads: any act or duty required of him
by law, or to stop, prevent, and correct any abuse or impropriety in the
performance of duties. I propose to add a comma (,) and the phrase
ESPECIALLY ANY VIOLATION OF CIVIL, POLITICAL, NATURAL OR HUMAN
RIGHTS. May I explain,
Mr. Presiding Officer?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The Gentleman may proceed.
MR. REGALADO: In the subcommittee on additional Constitutional
Commissions and Agencies, there is a pending resolution to create a
Constitutional
Commission on Human Rights. We do not know what will be the fate of that
resolution but we are nevertheless concerned about human rights. Therefore,
this
addition I am proposing would be a sort of a backup measure in the event
that that proposed Constitutional Commission on Human Rights is not
approved. At
least there is an expression of concern for the protection of civil, political,
natural or human rights this time through the graces of the Ombudsman.
That
is the only purpose for the amendment.
MR. SARMIENTO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I interpose my objection to the proposed amendment?
If we expand the powers of the Ombudsman, then we will be giving the body
too much
powers. We will be expanding it and making it a superbody. I think the
Commission on Human Rights should be the appropriate body to conduct
investigations
on human rights violations. These are serious matters, matters like
salvaging, tortures, hamletting. This cannot be the duty of the Ombudsman
considering
its multifarious duties. I think we should limit the Ombudsman to
investigation of cases involving graft and corruption, how to make the
government
efficient, to avoid waste, graft and corruption, and mismanagement.
MR. FOZ: Mr. Presiding Officer, just a point of information on the matter.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Is the Gentlemans question addressed
to Commissioner Regalado?
MR. FOZ: Yes, and to the body.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Will Commissioner Regalado answer
the point of clarification?
MR. REGALADO: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The Gentleman may proceed.
MR. FOZ: Actually, we would like to inform the body that in the Committee on
Constitutional Commissions and Agencies, there is a consensus on the
establishment of a Commission on Human Rights which would have
jurisdiction over the matters which are now being proposed by the proponent
of the amendment
regarding the function of the Ombudsman. So, I think we should not include
such a function under the office of the Ombudsman because that is precisely
the
main function of the proposed Commission on Human Rights, which the
Committee on Constitutional Commissions and Agencies is about to take up
in a meeting.
MR. REGALADO: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I respond to that?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The Gentleman is given two minutes.
MR. REGALADO: I specifically prefaced my statement by saying that this
proposed additional phrase is only a backup measure in the event that the
proposed
Constitutional Commission on Human Rights is not approved. Commissioner
Foz says there is a consensus. I am not aware how many voted for or against
the
same. Secondly, I said that I do not know what would be the fate of that
proposed Constitutional Commission on Human Rights. I think there are only
a few
members in the Committee that we cannot even reach a unanimous
decision. If Commissioner Foz can assure me with certainty that that
proposed Constitutional
Commission on Human Rights will be approved by the entire membership of
the plenum, I will withdraw my amendment. Can he assure me now that that
is assured
of approval?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Will Commissioner Foz respond?
MR. FOZ: First of all, I would like to report that 7 out of 13 members have
voted to establish such a commission, of course, with a lot of reservations as
to functions and powers. With that as basis, I think we can more or less be
assured of the possibility of having the same body be reported out in a
committee report, unless the members change their minds, particularly
those who voted for its establishment.
If we can be assured that the approval of such an amendment now being
proposed by Commissioner Regalado will not be a stumbling block to the
Committee
acting and reporting out in a committee report a proposal to establish a
Commission on Human Rights, then we will have no objection to such a
proposal.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The Chair believes the matter has been
sufficiently discussed. What is the reaction of the Committee to the proposed
amendment?
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, we believe that the intent of the
proponent in making the amendment is very clear. He would like to insert
this phrase
so that if, for any reason, a Commission on Human Rights is not approved,
then there is a corresponding phrase here that the Ombudsman can act on.
However,
if the proponent is willing, we are prepared to accept the proposed
amendment with the understanding that should the Commission on Human
Rights be
established under this Constitution, the phrase that would be redundant be
removed.
MR. REGALADO: That is wholeheartedly agreed upon, not by reason of literal
redundancy but substantially because it would be academic.
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: I would like to propose some amendments.
with that clarification, that in all other cases it would be the President of the
Senate who will preside, I withdraw the amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The amendment has been withdrawn.
MR. DAVIDE: May I propose another amendment. On page 3, line 21, after
thereafter, delete without any confirmation and insert a period (.) then
add a
new sentence to read: SUCH APPOINTMENTS SHALL REQUIRE NO
CONFIRMATION.
This is just to have a symmetry with the same provision in the Article on the
Judiciary.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): What does the Committee say?
MR MONSOD: We accept the amendment, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Is there any objection? (Silence) The
Chair hears none; the proposed amendment is approved.
MR. DAVIDE: On line 1, page 4, after not, insert the following: HOLD ANY
OTHER OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, OR. On line 2, after profession, add the
following: OR IN THE MANAGEMENT OF ANY BUSINESS WHICH IN ANY WAY
MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE FUNCTIONS OF THEIR OFFICE, OR BE FINANCIALLY
INTERESTED, DIRECTLY
OR INDIRECTLY, IN ANY CONTRACT WITH, OR IN ANY FRANCHISE OR
PRIVILEGE GRANTED BY THE GOVERNMENT, OR ANY OF ITS SUBDIVISIONS,
AGENCIES OR INSTRUMENTALITIES,
INCLUDING GOVERNMENT-OWNED OR CONTROLLED CORPORATIONS OR
THEIR SUBSIDIARIES.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner de los Reyes is
recognized.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Will Commissioner Davide accept an amendment to his
amendment to his which will embody the same concept?
MR. DAVIDE: May we hear the proposed amendment?
MR. DE LOS REYES: It is obvious that Commissioner Davide restated the
disabilities against members of a constitutional commission as provided for
in
Article XII, Section 3 of the Constitution.
MR. DAVIDE: That is correct, Mr. Presiding Officer, because we have raised
the position of the Ombudsman to that of a member of a constitutional
commission. Therefore, all the disqualifications and prohibitions attaching to
a member of the commission must also similarly attach to the Ombudsman.
MR. DE LOS REYES: That is why to make the sentence shorter, my proposed
amendment would be to simply state that they shall be subject to the same
disabilities as provided for in Article XII, Section 3 of this Constitution. Then
delete the words on lines 1 and 2, page 4.
MR. DAVIDE: I would have no objection to that; it would embody the full idea.
But I wonder if we must use disabilities.
MR. DE LOS REYES: I think that is the term which we used.
MR. DAVIDE: Disqualifications, I guess, would be a much better word. BE
SUBJECT TO THE SAME DISQUALIFICATIONS AND PROHIBITIONS.
MR. DE LOS REYES: They shall BE SUBJECT TO THE SAME
DISQUALIFICATIONS AND PROHIBITIONS AS PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE XII,
SECTION 3 OF THIS CONSTITUTION.
Then delete lines 1 and 2 of page 4. Is that all right with the Commissioner?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Treas): What does the Committee say?
MR. MONSOD: We accept the proposed amendment, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Is there any objection? (Silence) The
Chair hears none; the proposed amendment is approved.
MR. DAVIDE: I have a proposal on Section 9 but I would like to get first the
position of the Committee. Does not the Committee also contemplate a
staggered
term for those first appointed?
MR. MONSOD: We did not contemplate that because unlike in the other
constitutional commissions, the Ombudsman is the only one who is a
constitutional
officer; the others are not.
MR. DAVIDE: In that particular case then, I will not insist on an amendment to
Section 9. But on Section 11, page 4, line 15, I would like to propose an
amendment. It is just an insertion between the words shall and act of the
following: AT NO EXPENSE TO AN AGGRIEVED PARTY. Then add a comma (,).
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): What does the Committee say?
The results show 35 votes in favor and no vote against; the proposed
amendment is approved.
MR. FOZ: Point of clarification. Does the prohibition cover members of the
family of those mentioned in the provisions?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Will the Committee please answer the
inquiry?
MR. MONSOD: The immediate family would be included because of the words
directly or indirectly, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. FOZ: What about relatives within the third degree of affinity or
consanguinity?
MR. MONSOD: No, Mr. Presiding Officer, they are not included. I think we are
looking at beneficial interest given directly or indirectly. So they would not
be included, unless it can be proven that they are dummies.
MR. FOZ: Thank you.
MR. GUINGONA: Mr. Presiding Officer, just for clarification.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Guingona is recognized.
MR. GUINGONA: When we voted with regard to the constitutional
commissions, we, of course, referred to the Chairman and the members.
What about in the case
of the Ombudsman, do we refer to the Ombudsman, or the Ombudsman and
his deputy?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): What does the Committee say?
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, we refer only to the Ombudsman
because only he is a constitutional officer, unlike in the case of the
constitutional
commissions.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: May I request that Commissioner Sarmiento be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: Mr. Presiding Officer, my first amendment is an amendment
by addition. After Section 14 on page 6, I propose to add a new section that
will
give fiscal autonomy to the Ombudsman.
Mr. Presiding Officer, we gave fiscal autonomy to the constitutional
commissions and to the judiciary in order to give independence to these
bodies and,
secondly, to free them from political pressures. I believe that the
Ombudsman, being the champion and protector of the peoples cause,
should also be given
this fiscal autonomy. Therefore, this proposed section will read: THE
TANODBAYAN OR THE OMBUDSMAN SHALL ENJOY FISCAL AUTONOMY. THE
APPROVED ANNUAL
APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE OMBUDSMAN SHALL BE AUTOMATICALLY AND
REGULARLY RELEASED.
This proposal, Mr. Presiding Officer, has the fatherly support of Commissioner
Nolledo.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The new section would therefore be
Section 15?
MR. SARMIENTO: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): What does the Committee say?
MR. MONSOD: We accept it, Mr. Presiding Officer, but can we align it with the
similar provision on the constitutional commissions?
MR. SARMIENTO: Yes, I copied verbatim the provisions on the constitutional
commissions.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Is there any objection? (Silence) The
Chair hears none; the proposed amendment is approved.
MR. SARMIENTO: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I proceed with my next
amendment?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Please proceed.
MR. SARMIENTO: My amendment is with respect to Section 10, lines 9 to 11
which reads: A Deputy of the Ombudsman shall have the rank of a
Commissioner of a
Constitutional Commission. The term Constitutional Commission is quite
vague as it may refer to the Constitutional Commission of 1986, this
Constitutional Commission.
officers holding executive positions like the President are already subject to
impeachment, then the Local Government Code or the Article on Local
Governments should be the more appropriate place for a system of recall.
We regret that we cannot accept the amendment, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I hear a brief explanation from the Chairman of the
Committee on Local Governments?
MR. NOLLEDO: I can assure the Gentleman that I will accept any amendment
to that effect when we report our provisions on local government later.
MR. SARMIENTO: Thank you for the explanation and assurance.
Then I am withdrawing my amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The proposed amendment is
considered withdrawn.
MR. BENGZON: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I request that Commissioner Rigos
be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Rigos is recognized.
REV. RIGOS: Mr. Presiding Officer, my proposed amendments have already
been presented by the previous speakers; so, I will just proceed with two
very minor
suggestions.
On page 2, Section 3 (5), line 16, I propose to insert the words CASES OF
between the words try all and impeachment, so that the sentence will
read:
The Senate shall have the sole power to try all CASES OF impeachment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): What does the Committee say?
MR. MONSOD: We accept. Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Is there any objection? (Silence) The
Chair hears none; the proposed amendment is approved.
REV. RIGOS: On page 4. line 2 of Section 8, I propose to insert the word
OTHER between any and profession.
Thank you.
MR. GUINGONA: I am not aware that there was a motion acted upon to delete
this particular section. But if there was and if I would be allowed, I would like
to move for reconsideration, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): What does the Committee say?
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, the first motion made last Saturday
afternoon was precisely to delete the office of the Ombudsman because it
did not
have prosecutory functions, the same reasons now being used by
Commissioner Guingona. Therefore, would the Commissioner like to move for
reconsideration of
all of these points that have been discussed several times and debated in
this Commission?
MR. GUINGONA: May I reply by saying, as I said at the outset, that, this
particular proposal of mine is linked with other proposals. And even if this
proposal was made yesterday, I do not think that the same has been
considered in the light of what I have said that we would be giving the
Ombudsman
prosecutory power and the Tanodbayan would now serve as the
Ombudsman, as provided in this Constitution.
MR. BENGZON: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: May we take up the matter one by one? Since there was
already a resolution of the point raised last Saturday regarding the deletion
of Section
5, and since the first desire of Commissioner Guingona is for the same, I
guess the first thing that we should decide is whether or not we shall allow
this
motion for reconsideration. If this body decides in favor of the motion for
reconsideration, then we will vote on whether or not Section 5 will be
deleted.
MR. GUINGONA: Yes, I agree, Mr. Presiding Officer, but may I add that I am
making this proposal with the intention of transferring the prosecutory power
of
the former Tanodbayan to the present Ombudsman. It is a matter which was
not considered in the previous deliberation, if my memory serves me right.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The Chair will make a ruling. Whatever
is the purpose of the present motion of the Gentleman partakes the nature of
a
reconsideration.
The Chair, therefore, asks the body to vote. Is there any objection?
MR. JAMIR: Mr. Presiding Officer, before we vote, there is a prejudicial
question because it has not yet been shown that the Gentleman voted with
the
majority when we voted with respect to this particular provision.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The Chair would like to inquire how
Commissioner Guingona voted.
MR. GUINGONA: There were so many votings held that I do not recall, Mr.
Presiding Officer.
MR. BENGZON: Mr. Presiding Officer, the Floor Leader raises a point of order.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Yes, what is the point of order?
MR. BENGZON: The point of order is that, as indicated by Commissioner
Jamir, it has to be shown first that the proponent voted with the majority and
since
he could not indicate whether or not he voted with the majority, then I regret
to say that he is out of order.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Since Commissioner Guingona cannot
tell us definitely how he voted, much to the regret of the Chair, it must rule
that
Commissioner Guingona is out of order.
MR. RODRIGO: Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Presiding Officer. I was the one who
moved for the deletion of all the provisions creating the Ombudsman, from
Section 6 down. But the motion of Commissioner Guingona is not to delete
Section 6 but to delete Section 5 so, it is a different motion altogether. We
have not yet voted on the issue whether to delete Section 5 or not; we voted
on the deletion of Section 6.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): May the Chair ask for enlightenment
from the Committee.
MR. ROMULO: Section 5 was amended several times by Commissioners Jamir,
Treas, Regalado and others. All those amendments were accepted and
voted upon by
the body. So, one would presume, therefore, that we have accepted and the
Commission has decided that Section 5 should be retained; otherwise, why
would we
be voting on an amendment on Section 5 and accepting it?
MR. GUINGONA: May I say. Mr. Presiding Officer, that we are following today a
procedure whereby we do not consider anterior amendments and have to
wait for
our turn to be called. Although people might have voted in favor of an
amendment, this does not mean that if a proposal to delete is presented
they would
not prefer the proposal to delete.
MR. NOLLEDO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Nolledo is recognized.
MR. NOLLEDO: In connection with that statement, I think Commissioner
Guingona should have raised a prejudicial question, or he should have filed a
motion
to delete first before allowing the others to amend the same provision
several times.
MR. GUINGONA: I could not, Mr. Presiding Officer. As a matter of fact, I
approached the Floor Leader two times and he said: You have to wait for
your
turn. So, I obediently waited for my turn.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: Maybe we should just give due course to the proposed
amendment of Commissioner Guingona in order to resolve the issue.
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The Chair recalls its ruling insofar as
the proposed motion of Commissioner Guingona is concerned.
We, therefore, ask for a vote.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, I believe the vote is not for a
reconsideration at this point because there has been no finding that this has
been voted
on, but on his proposal to delete Section 5.
VOTING
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The Chair appreciates the correction.
The body shall proceed to vote.
All those in favor of the proposed amendment of Commissioner Guingona to
delete the whole of Section 5, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised
their
hand.)
All those against, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their
hand.)
The results show 7 votes in favor and 24 votes against; the proposed
amendment is lost.
MR. BENGZON: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: May I request that Commissioner Villacorta be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Villacorta is recognized.
MR. VILLACORTA: I am sorry, I registered for another Committee. My name
was not erased by Commissioner Rama. I am sorry about that.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The apology is accepted.
MR. BENGZON: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I request that Commissioner Suarez
be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
My amendments are rather simple. May I call the attention of the Committee
members to Section 11, particularly line 16. There is mention here about
complaints filed without the qualifying word verified and the phrase which
reads in any form or manner, which is susceptible to various
interpretations
and could contemplate even the filing of a telephone complaint. We do not
like to constitutionalize harassment under Section 11, but this could be used
as
a weapon of harassment by unscrupulous individuals against even honest
public officials. So to avoid that possibility, Mr. Presiding Officer, may we
suggest this amendment:
On line 16, I propose to delete the word the and instead insert the word
VERIFIED before complaints, and then after filed delete the comma (,)
together with the phrase in any form or manner. Therefore, Section 11, as
proposed to be amended, would read: The Ombudsman and his Deputies,
as
protectors of the people, shall act promptly on VERIFIED complaints filed
against public officials or employees of the government, including
government-owned corporations, agencies or instrumentalities, and shall
notify the complainants of the action taken and the results thereof.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): What does the Committee say?
MR. COLAYCO: Mr. Presiding Officer, I wonder if Commissioner Suarez was
present during the discussion last Saturday when we explained the main
thrust of
Section 11. One of the principal functions of the officer contemplated in this
section is the capability to attend and act immediately on complaints not
leading to prosecution but to correction or implementation of the request,
either phoned in, or simply made orally or even in writing. What we wish to
cure
is the despair of the common people with our government officials. We have
entrenched the administration with public officials who are beyond the reach
of
common people. It is a very common and sad spectacle to see people going
from one government office to another, trying to secure redress for their
common
complaints of inaction, abuse, arbitrariness on the part of public officials. In
other places like Nassau County, the United States, Singapore and Japan,
people are free to call in, to use the telephone simply. For instance, when
going to an office, they are made to return day after day, either because the
official concerned did not come to work or simply they are told, I am very
busy. Will you please come back this afternoon? These are common
complaints of
our people.
MR. NOLLEDO: In addition to that, most of the complainants are fishermen,
peasants, the poor, and to require them to have verified complaints would be
foolhardy. They will have to go to a lawyer and perhaps, if they cannot afford
one, shall decide not to complain anymore. Besides, Mr. Presiding Officer,
the Ombudsman is empowered. to publicize and, therefore, will not readily
publicize any complaint. He will take into account all the factors involved in
connection with the complaint and so there will be no harassment. I think it
is understood that the Ombudsman, in taking into account complaints filed
with
his office, should see to it that no undue harassment shall result.
Thank you.
MR. SUAREZ: I thank the Gentleman for the expression of the noble
sentiment behind the formulation of this provision but it may not jibe with
lines 19 and
20 because if it is an anonymous call or an anonymous letter, how do we
expect the Ombudsman or his Deputies to notify the complainants of the
action
taken and the results therefor?
MR. COLAYCO: If it is anonymous, there is nothing that the Ombudsman can
act upon.
MR. SUAREZ: But the Committee used the mandatory words shall notify,
Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. COLAYCO: That is correct, under circumstances which make it possible. I
suppose that is clear.
MR. SUAREZ: This may not harmonize with the expression in any form or
manner the complaint can be filed. So, probably with the explanation of the
Gentleman, I am willing to concede the validity of the arguments, but let us
try to formulate another prescription for this requirement regarding
notification. That is my humble suggestion, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, would the Gentleman suggest that we
say and shall WHERE APPLICABLE, notify?
MR. SUAREZ: That is better. I will go for that. So with that proposed
amendment from the Committee I will not press my original amendment
anymore.
Thank you.
MR. COLAYCO: What would Commissioner Suarez suggest?
MR. SUAREZ: I would suggest and shall, WHENEVER APPLICABLE, notify the
complainants of the action taken and the results thereof.
MR. COLAYCO: Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Is there any objection to this proposed
amendment? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the proposed amendment is
approved.
MR. BENGZON: Mr. Presiding Officer, before we proceed further, I have been
asked to announce that if possible the body should adjourn at about six-thirty
because of Commissioner Calderons affair.
May I request that Commissioner de los Reyes be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner de los Reyes is
recognized.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, just a point of inquiry. We have a
substantial amendment on the procedure for impeachment that needs to be
considered by
the body. This might be the appropriate time to take it up and with due
indulgence of the others, if theirs are perfecting amendments and not
substantial
amendments, would it be possible to take up the procedure for impeachment
as agreed upon by the three major proponents of this Article?
MR. BENGZON: With the permission of Commissioners de los Reyes and Ople
the last Commissioner actually to propose that amendment was
Commissioner Aquino
I would like to request that Commissioner Aquino be called.
MR. MONSOD: I believe that the proposed amendment of Commissioner Ople
is quite short. May we ask Commissioner de los Reyes?
MR. DE LOS REYES: It is also short.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner de los Reyes is
recognized.
MR. DE LOS REYES: On line 20 of page 2, after the phrase preside but shall
not vote because we amended that yesterday I propose to add the
following
sentence: IN CASE OF DEATH, DISABILITY, REMOVAL OR RESIGNATION OF
THE CHIEF JUSTICE THE MOST SENIOR ASSOCIATE JUSTICE SHALL PRESIDE
AND IF FOR THE SAME
REASONS HE COULD NOT PRESIDE, THE NEXT SENIOR ASSOCIATE JUSTICE
SHALL PRESIDE. THE SAME RULE SHALL APPLY IF THE NEXT SUCCEEDING
SENIOR ASSOCIATE JUSTICE
COULD NOT PRESIDE FOR THE SAME REASONS.
Mr. Presiding Officer, it is possible that during an impeachment process
something happens to the Chief Justice in which case the President can
frustrate
his impeachment by not appointing a Chief Justice. That is the concept.
MR. ROMULO: May we just suggest? Normally, if the Chief Justice cannot
preside, an Acting Chief Justice is appointed. May we not refer to the Acting
Chief
Justice instead?
MR. DE LOS REYES: Yes, but suppose the President does not appoint any
Acting Chief Justice because he is the one under impeachment? So, we must
make an
automatic rule in the Constitution itself.
MR. ROMULO: May we ask Commissioner Concepcion if the appointment of
an Acting Chief Justice is automatic or done by the President?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Concepcion is
recognized.
MR. CONCEPCION: There is no need under the law. Whenever the Chief
Justice is absent or the position is vacant, the Senior Associate Justice will
perform
his duties.
MR. DE LOS REYES: With the explanation of Commissioner Concepcion, I
withdraw my amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The proposed amendment is
considered withdrawn.
MR. DE LOS REYES: On Section 4, page 3, I propose to insert the words
PRESENT ANTI-GRAFT COURT KNOWN AS THE between The and
Sandiganbayan, and to
delete created and the whole of lines 2 to 4 up to the word it. The whole
amended sentence will therefore read as follows: The PRESENT ANTI-GRAFT
COURT KNOWN AS THE Sandiganbayan shall continue to function and
exercise its jurisdiction as provided by law. My point is that there are some
who believe
that the word Sandiganbayan should not be deleted from the Constitution.
So, this is a compromise between those who want to call it an Anti-Graft
Court
and those who want to retain the name Sandiganbayan .
MR. MONSOD: We will accept the amendment, Mr. Presiding Officer.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas) : Is there any objection to the proposed
amendment? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the proposed amendment is
approved.
MR. BENGZON: Mr. Presiding Officer, may we request Commissioner Ople to
be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas) : Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
I refer to Section 12 (5) on page 5. May I propose an amendment by
transposition and the addition of just a phrase which will read as follows: TO
PUBLICIZE
MATTERS COVERED BY ITS INVESTIGATIONS WHEN CIRCUMSTANCES SO
WARRANT AND WITH DUE PRUDENCE. The reason, Mr. Presiding Officer, is
that publicity will be a
major tool of the Sandiganbayan in creating the moral pressures it will need
in order to perform. At the same time, not all those who will file complaints
are well-meaning persons and they can avail of the presence of the
Sandiganbayan and its powers to give the color of privilege to complaints
that may not
be well-founded. Therefore, we simply urge the office of the Ombudsman to
exercise due care and prudence in publicizing matters covered by its
investigations so that there is no undue injury to the reputation of persons. I
seek the Committees approval of this proposed amendment.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, the Committee accepts the proposed
amendment also; this has reference to the earlier comments of
Commissioners Sarmiento
and Suarez.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Is there any objection? (Silence) The
Chair hears none; the proposed amendment is approved.
MR. OPLE: Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I ask that Commissioner Aquino be
recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer, the proposed amendment on Section 3 (5)
would seek to transfer the jurisdiction of the impeachment trial pertaining
only
to the President from the Senate to the Supreme Court, such that I would
seek co-sponsorship with Commissioner Guingona to propose an amendment
by
substitution on Section 3 (5), page 2, beginning on line 15. The proposed
amendment reads: The Senate shall have the sole power to try
impeachment CASES
AFFECTING THE VICE-PRESIDENT, MEMBERS OF THE SUPREME COURT AND
MEMBERS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS. When the President is on
trial, the Supreme Court
shall BE CONVENED AS THE COURT OF IMPEACHMENT. No person shall be
convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of all the Members of the
Senate IN THE
CASE OF THE. VICE-PRESIDENT, MEMBERS OF THE SUPREME COURT AND
MEMBERS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS OR OF THE MEMBERS OF
THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE
OF THE PRESIDENT.
MR. ROMULO: For reasons we have already explained, the Committee regrets
that we cannot accept that amendment principally because we believe this is
a
political act. The Presidents peers who are equally elected are a better judge
of the matter; finally, we feel it would politicize the Supreme Court.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Does Commissioner Aquino ask for a
vote?
MS. AQUINO: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
VOTING
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): As many as are in favor of the
proposed amendment of Commissioner Aquino, please raise their hand. (Few
Members raised
their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised
their hand.)
The results show 13 votes in favor and 25 votes against; the proposed
amendment is lost.
MR. BENGZON: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
words, it
is just like a provision in the rules of court. Instead, I propose that this
procedural requirement, like indorsement of a complaint by a citizen to avoid
harassment or crank complaints, could very well be taken up in a new
Section 4 which shall read as follows: THE CONGRESS SHALL PROMULGATE
ITS RULES ON
IMPEACHMENT TO EFFECTIVELY CARRY OUT THE PURPOSES THEREOF. I think
all these other procedural requirements could be taken care of by the Rules
of the
Congress.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Has Commissioner Regalado circulated
the proposed amendment to all the Members?
MR. REGALADO: I already did this morning, Mr. Presiding Officer, although
after consultation I decided to add something more.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Maambong is
recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: May I suggest that we suspend the session for two or three
minutes so we can approach the Committee. Probably, we can iron this out
without
clogging so much our records.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The session is suspended.
It was 6:10 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 6:15 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): The session is resumed.
The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: May I request that Commissioner Regalado be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Commissioner Regalado is recognized.
MR. REGALADO: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. RODRIGO: Mr. Presiding Officer, in order that the body can vote, I
propose an amendment to the amendment. Instead of one-third, I propose
one-half of
all the Members of the House. I will explain in two or three sentences.
Impeachment is a very serious matter, that is why in the 1935 Constitution, a
two-thirds vote of the House was required. Now, we are reducing it to
one-third, which is too drastic a drop. Let us reduce it to one-half. Secondly,
the proponent himself was afraid of harassment but one-third is easy to
get. The President as well as the Members of the Senate can be harassed
because if one-third of the Members of the House voted in favor of the
impeachment,
the Members of the Senate will be compelled to sit in judgment. Even the
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court will be harassed because he will be
compelled
constitutionally to preside in the Senate during the impeachment trial.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): What does Commissioner Regalado say
on the proposed amendment of Commissioner Rodrigo?
MR. REGALADO: Mr. Presiding Officer, I think one-third is a happy
compromise between the exacting requirements under the 1935 Constitution
and the very
liberal requirements under the 1973 Constitution, either of which has its
dangers.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Therefore, will the Gentleman not
accept?
MR. RODRIGO: The requirement under the 1973 Constitution was different
because we had a unicameral body and the body itself was the one to try.
Whereas,
here it is a bicameral body.
MR. REGALADO: But whether it was unicameral or bicameral, the fact
remains that the initiation proceedings are in the same House of
Representatives.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Treas): Yes, the matter has been sufficiently
discussed. What does the Acting Floor Leader desire?
MR. BENGZON: We should vote now, Mr. Presiding Officer.
R.C.C. NO. 42
Tuesday, July 29, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
At 9:40 a.m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia Muoz Palma, opened the
session.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is called to order.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please rise to sing the National Anthem.
Everybody rose to sing the National Anthem.
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please remain standing for the Prayer to be
led by the Honorable Jose E. Suarez.
Everybody remained standing for the Prayer.
PRAYER
MR. SUAREZ: Dear Lord, I am not much at saying prayers. I do not have to
tell You because You already know that I have been privately communicating
with
You rather frequently since the beginning of June, seeking Your divine
guidance in making correct decisions for our people.
I entered this Commission awed by the enormity of the task before us.
Having just emerged from the streets battling the evil forces of the
dictatorship, I
did not feel exactly comfortable in the presence of a select group. Midway to
our common goal, however, I feel so relaxed with my colleagues. Everybody
is
so contributive and supportive. I have never worked with a nicer bunch of
ladies and gentlemen. Imbued with a deep sense of nationalism, they serve
as an
inspiration to me.
And, dear Lord, there is so much talent and decency around me that I pray to
see the day when, in the not-too-distant future, these colleagues of mine will
walk the corridors of power. Then, perchance, if they see me pounding once
again the streets of Central Luzon clamoring for justice for our people, they
will give me a knowing smile of recognition, or perhaps even a shaking of the
head which, after all, if we are to believe Dick, could signify an approval.
Dear Lord, take good care of my colleagues, especially the frail and fragile
Fely, the ailing Pepe, Cosoy and Efrain who, I was cheered to learn last
night, has not changed his sex at all. I pray that our dear leader, the kindly
Celing, shall be in good health in order that we may continue making honest
decisions for our country and our people, that we may succeed in finally
establishing a just and humane government. Amen.
ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will please call the roll.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Abubakar
Present *
Natividad
Present *
Alonto
Present *
Nieva
Present
Aquino
Present
Nolledo
Present
Azcuna
Present *
Ople
Present *
Bacani
Present *
Padilla
Present
Bengzon
Present *
Quesada
Present
Bennagen
Present
Rama
Present
Bernas
Present
Regalado
Present
Rosario Braid
Present
Reyes de los
Present *
Brocka
Present
Rigos
Present
Calderon
Present *
Rodrigo
Present
Castro de
Present
Romulo
Present *
Colayco
Present
Rosales
Present
Concepcion
Present
Sarmiento
Present
Davide
Present
Suarez
Present
Foz
Present
Sumulong
Present
Garcia
Present *
Tadeo
Present
Gascon
Present
Tan
Present
Guingona
Present
Tingson
Present *
Jamir
Present
Treas
Present
Laurel
Present *
Uka
Present
Lerum
Present
Villacorta
Present
Maambong
Present
Villegas
Present
Monsod
Present *
Letter from Mr. Meletico Palomata of 31 Camias St., Zone 1, Purok 2, Signal
Village, Taguig, Metro Manila, containing some revelations regarding the
Sabah issue.
(Communication No. 365 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of
Principles.
Position paper submitted by Mr. William H. Quasha of Don Pablo Bldg., 114
Amorsolo St., Makati, Metro Manila, proposing that foreign investors be
allowed
to acquire and own land in the Philippines as an investment incentive, with
appropriate restrictions.
(Communication No. 366 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on the National Economy and Patrimony.
Communication from Mr. Moises B. Dayon, Acting Secretary, Sangguniang
Panlungsod, Davao City, submitting Resolution No. 240, S. 1986 of said
sanggunian,
supporting the move in the Constitutional Commission to incorporate in the
Constitution provisions on free secondary education in public schools.
(Communication No. 367 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Human Resources.
Communication signed by Miss Josefa de Lange of 39 11th St., New Manila,
Quezon City, and four hundred ninety-eight others with their respective
addresses,
seeking the inclusion in the Constitution of a provision obliging the State to
protect the life of the unborn from the moment of conception.
(Communication No. 368 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of
Principles.
Letter from Mr. Dionito B. Aplacador of Cataingan West, Masbate, containing
suggestions on the various issues in the Constitutional Commission.
(Communication No. 369 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Steering Committee.
Letter from Sr. Luz Emel Soriano, r.a., and two hundred seventy-six others,
saying that the issue of U.S. military bases should not be in the Constitution
and should be left to the government to negotiate so as to protect the
national interest.
(Communication No. 370 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on General Provisions.
Letter from Ms. Perla Golez of Bacolod City and sixty-nine others also of
Bacolod City and other municipalities/cities in Negros Occidental, requesting
the
inclusion of provisions providing for religious instruction during regular school
hours to be materially and financially supported by the government.
(Communication No. 371 Constitutional Commission Of 1986)
To the Committee on Human Resources.
Letter from Mr. Vicente Roy L. Kayaban, Jr. of 1649 Concepcion Aguila St., San
Beda Subdivision, San Miguel, Manila, submitting a paper, entitled: Land
Re-form: a Landowners Introspection, and requesting that small landowners
be accorded legislative seats: at least one for the agrarian sector and at
least one for small apartment owners.
(Communication No. 372 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Social Justice.
Letter from Mr. Laufred I. Hernandez for the students of the College of Public
Administration, University of the Philippines, submitting recommendations on
the right of civil servants to collective bargaining, prohibition of government
resources for electioneering purposes, prohibition of nepotism and
provisions for human resources development.
(Communication No. 373 Constitutional Commission Of 1986)
To the Committee on Constitutional Commissions and Agencies.
Communication from Muslim and Christian leaders who attended a
SOLIDARITY-sponsored seminar on Mindanao, urging a clear policy statement
regarding Mindanao
and Muslim affairs, among others.
(Communication No. 374 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
Section Embodied In
No. 07
15
No. 107
15
No. 151
15
No. 152
15
No. 158
15
No. 55
17
No. 56
13
No. 59
18
No. 124
18
No. 118
20
No. 128
19
No. 183
19
No. 156
No. 198
No. 255
No. 257
No. 352
No. 433
No. 197
16
No. 234
14
(Sgd.) Lorenzo M. Sumulong
Chairman
Committee on the Executive
(Sgd.) Florenz D. Regalado
Vice-Chairman
Jose D. Calderon
qualifications and
term of office. He may be removed from office in the same manner as the
President as provided in this Constitution.
The Vice-President may be appointed as a member of the Cabinet.
SECTION 4. The President shall be elected by direct vote of the people for a
term of six years which shall begin at noon on the thirtieth day of _________
following the day of the election and shall end at noon of the same date six
years thereafter. He shall be disqualified from immediate reelection.
The returns of every election for President and Vice-President duly certified
by the board of canvassers of each province or city shall be transmitted to
the seat of the National Government, directed to the President of the Senate.
Upon receipt of the certificates of canvass, the President of the Senate
shall, not later than thirty (30) days after the day of the election, open all the
certificates in the presence of the Senate and the House of
Representatives in joint public session, and upon determination of the
authenticity and due execution thereof in the manner provided by law,
canvass the
votes.
The person having the highest number of votes shall be proclaimed elected,
but in case two or more shall have an equal and highest number of votes,
one of
them shall forthwith be chosen by the vote of a majority of all the members
of the Congress.
The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests
relating to the election, returns and qualifications of the President or
Vice-President.
SECTION 5. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of his term, the Presidentelect shall have died, the Vice-President-elect shall become President. If a
President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning
of his term, or if the President shall have failed to qualify, then the
Vice-President shall act as President until a President shall have qualified.
The Congress shall by law provide for the case where neither a
President-elect nor a Vice-President-elect shall have been chosen or shall
have qualified, or both shall have died at the time fixed for the beginning of
their term, declaring who shall then act as President or the manner in which
one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly
until a President or Vice-President shall have qualified.
SECTION 6. Before he enters on the execution of his office, the President or
Acting President shall take the following oath or affirmation:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully and conscientiously fulfill
my duties as President (or Acting President) of the Philippines,
preserve and defend its Constitution, execute its laws, do justice to every
man, and consecrate myself to the service of the Nation. So help me God.
(In
case of affirmation, last sentence will be omitted)
SECTION 7. The President shall have an official residence. The President and
Vice-President shall receive a salary to be fixed by law, which shall not be
increased or decreased during their term of office. They shall not receive
during their tenure any other emolument from the government or any other
source.
Unless the Congress shall provide otherwise, the President and the VicePresident shall receive an annual salary of _________ and ________ pesos,
respectively.
SECTION 8. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice-President
during the term for which he was elected, the President shall nominate a
Vice-President from among the members of the Senate and the House of
Representatives who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of
all the
members of both Houses of Congress.
SECTION 9. In case of permanent disability, death, removal from office or
resignation of the President, the Vice-President shall become the President to
serve the unexpired term. The Congress shall by law provide for the case of
permanent disability, death, removal from office or resignation of both the
President and Vice-President, declaring which officer shall then become
Acting President or the manner in which one shall be selected.
The Congress shall by law provide for the case of death, permanent disability
or resignation of the Acting President at the time the vacancy in the Office
of the President occurs or subsequently thereafter, declaring who shall serve
as President until the President and the Vice-President shall have been
elected and qualified, subject to the same restrictions of powers and
disqualifications as the Acting President.
SECTION 10. The Congress shall, at ten oclock in the morning of the third
day after the vacancy occurs, convene in accordance with its rules without
need
of a call and within seven days enact a law calling for a special election to
elect a President and a Vice- President to be held not earlier than
forty-five days nor later than sixty days from the time of such call. The bill
calling such special election shall be deemed certified under paragraph
____, Section _______ Article VIII of this Constitution and shall become law
upon its approval on third reading by the Congress. Appropriations for the
special election shall be charged against any current appropriations and shall
be exempt from the requirements of paragraph _______, Section _______
Article VIII of this Constitution. The convening of the Congress cannot be
suspended nor the special election postponed. No special election shall be
called if the vacancy occurs within seventy days before the date of the next
presidential election.
SECTION 11. Whenever the President transmits to the President of the
Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written
declaration that he
is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he
transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and
duties
shall be discharged by the Vice-President as Acting President.
Whenever a majority of all the members of the Cabinet transmit to the
President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives
their
written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and
duties of his office, the Vice-President shall immediately assume the powers
and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President of the Senate and
to the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that
no
inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless a
majority of all the members of the Cabinet transmits within five days to the
President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives
their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers
and duties of his office. Thereupon, the Congress shall decide the issue,
convening within forty-eight hours for that purpose, if not in session. If the
Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written
declaration, or, if not in session, within twenty-one days after it is required to
assemble, determines by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress that
the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the
Vice-President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President;
otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
SECTION 12. An Acting President shall not declare martial law or suspend the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus without the concurrence of at least a
majority of all the members of the Congress.
Appointments extended by an Acting President shall remain effective, unless
revoked by the elected President within ninety days from his assumption or
reassumption of office.
SECTION 16. The President shall nominate and, with the consent of a
Commission on Appointments, shall appoint the heads of the executive
departments and
bureaus, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, or officers of the
armed forces from the rank of colonel or naval captain and all other officers
of the Government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by
law, and those whom he may be authorized by law to appoint. The Congress
may by law
vest the appointment of inferior officers in the President alone, in the courts,
or in the heads of departments.
SECTION 17. Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise provided in
this Constitution, the President may grant reprieves commutations, and
pardons, and
remit fines and forfeitures, after conviction. However, the power to grant
executive clemency for violations of corrupt practices laws may be limited by
legislation.
He shall also have the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of a
majority of all the members of the Congress.
SECTION 18. The President may contract or guarantee foreign and domestic
loans on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines with the prior concurrence
of
the Monetary Board. The Monetary Board shall, within thirty (30) days from
the end of every quarter of the calendar year, submit to the Congress a
complete
report of its decisions on applications for loans to be contracted or
guaranteed by the government or government-owned and controlled
corporations which
would have the effect of increasing the foreign debt and containing other
matters as may be provided by law.
SECTION 19. The President, Vice-President, members of the Cabinet, and
chiefs bureaus or offices and their assistants shall not, during their term, hold
any other office or employment, nor may they practice any profession;
participate directly or indirectly in any business, or be financially interested
directly in any contract with, or in any financial or special privilege granted
by the government or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof,
including any government-owned or controlled corporation, and shall strictly
avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their office.
The spouse and relatives by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil
degree of the President shall not be appointed as minister, deputy minister
or
head of bureau or office.
After giving a brief sketch of how our Committee worked, I shall now
enumerate the salient constitutional changes or reforms that the members of
the
Committee, in collaboration with the authors of the many resolutions referred
to us, have introduced in the Article on the Executive now submitted to the
body for consideration.
The first constitutional change that I will mention is the canvassing of votes
for President and Vice-President. In the 1973 Constitution, the provision on
canvassing of votes for President and Vice-President is as follows:
The returns of every election for President, duly certified by the board of
canvassers of each province or city, shall be transmitted to the Speaker of
the
Batasang Pambansa, who shall, not later than thirty days after the day of the
election, and in the presence of the Batasang Pambansa, open all the
certificates, and the votes shall then be counted.
It will be remembered that many of the certificates of canvass received from
each province and city by the Batasang Pambansa were objected to by the
supporters of Aquino and Laurel. But based on this provision of -the 1973
Constitution, after the certificates of canvass had been opened, the Speaker
immediately announced the results of the canvass and proclaimed President
Marcos and Mr. Tolentino as elected President and Vice-President,
respectively.
In the Article on the Executive that is submitted for consideration, it is now
provided that after the certificates of canvass had been opened, the
counting and canvassing of the votes for President and Vice-President shall
not immediately be made because, first, there should be a determination of
the
authenticity and due execution of the certificates of canvass before the votes
may be canvassed. That appears in Section 4 of the Article. It is also
provided in Section 4 that the Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the
sole judge of all election contests relating to the election, returns and
qualifications of the President and Vice-President. The term of office of the
President and the Vice-President is also in Section 4. We wish to call the
attention of the Members that we have introduced some changes in this
section so that it will conform with the decision reached by the Commission
disqualifying the President from any reelection after a term of six years and
allowing the Vice-President one reelection provided he shall serve for not
more than 12 years. So that, subject to the Transitory Provisions in this
Constitution, Section 4 of the Article should read as follows:
SECTION 4. The President shall be elected by direct vote of the people for a
term of six years which shall begin at noon on the thirtieth day of June
following the day of the election and shall end at noon of the same date six
years thereafter. He shall be disqualified from reelection.
We deleted the word immediate. That is the change we made in Section 4.
The next constitutional change concerns the powers of the President as
Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. This appears in Section 15, page 6
of the
Article and reads as follows:
The President shall be the commander-in-chief of all the armed forces of the
Philippines and, whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed
forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. In case
of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a
period not exceeding sixty days, and, with the concurrence of at least a
majority of all the members of the Congress, suspend the privilege of the
writ of
habeas corpus, or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law.
The Congress, by a vote of at least a majority of all its members in regular
or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, or extend
the same if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires
it.
The next paragraphs read:
The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any
citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law
or
the suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof and must
promulgate its decision on the same within thirty (30) days from its filing.
A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor
supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor
authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over
civilians where civil courts are able to function, nor automatically suspend
the privilege of the writ.
The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply only to persons
judicially charged for rebellion or for offenses inherent in or directly
connected
with invasion.
Thus, one will note that insurrection has been eliminated as a ground for
declaring martial law or for suspending the writ of habeas corpus and the
phrase
imminent danger thereof has also been deleted. So that under this Article,
the grounds for declaring martial law or suspending the writ of habeas
corpus
are invasion and rebellion when public safety requires it.
It will also be noted that if martial law were to be declared, it has to receive
the concurrence of a majority of the Members of the Congress in order for
it to be effective, and it will only be for 60 days. This 60-day period may be
shortened or extended by a majority vote of the Members of the Congress.
And, whereas before the Supreme Court cannot review the grounds relied
upon by the President in declaring martial law or in suspending the privilege
of the
writ of habeas corpus, the Supreme Court now has the power of review upon
the filing of an appropriate petition by any citizen, and then the Supreme
Court
is required to promulgate its decision on the matter within 30 days from the
filing of the petition.
It is also stated in this Article the meaning and effect of martial law. It is
made clear that a state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the
Constitution and it does not supplant the functioning of our civil courts or of
our legislative assemblies. A state of martial law does not authorize the
conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians
where civil courts are able to function. It will be remembered that when
President Marcos proclaimed martial law on September 21, 1972, at the
same time, he issued a general order, as I remember it, stating that our civil
courts
shall continue to exercise the jurisdiction and powers they have been
exercising. But it was also stated there that our courts cannot take
cognizance of
cases where the validity of the acts performed by President Marcos is in
question. In other words, when an order or letter of instructions or
presidential
decree is issued by President Marcos, that cannot be taken cognizance of by
the civil courts but rather, it will be the military courts that will decide
the matter.
Also, the declaration of martial law does not automatically suspend the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, which was not the case when
President
Marcos declared martial law in September 1972. He issued an order, I think it
was General Order No. 3, which allowed the arrest and detention of any
person
simply upon an order authorized by him and issued by the Minister of
National Defense. So that many persons were arrested and detained without
any warrant
of arrest. Soldiers simply went to the houses of these persons and arrested
for that. But drawing from the experience of the United States, the Office of
the Vice-President there had been vacant 18 times and that is where the
purpose of mis-position becomes important. Although he is sometimes
derisively called just a spare tire, he assumes importance especially in the
order of
succession because just as it is in the Philippines, the order of succession is
from the President to the Vice-President and, in the absence of both, then
it is provided by law.
In the United States, as I said, the Office of the Vice-President has been
vacant 18 times. Although there was an amendment to the American
Constitution
that is the Twenty-Fifth Amendment which was ratified on February 10, 1967
Section 2 regarding the vacancy in the Office of the Vice-President
received
very little attention at that time. The first time that it assumed significance
was in the unanticipated set of circumstances created by the resignation of
Vice-President Agnew, if the body will recall, to avoid federal criminal
charges. And at the same time, President Nixon himself was under a cloud of
suspicion generated by the Watergate affair. President Nixon nominated
Gerald Ford, a Republican, who was then the minority leader in the House.
But the
Democratic Party controlled both chambers of Congress, and Congress, in
keeping with the Constitution, limited its investigation only to questions of
the
fitness of Mr. Ford. During the interim, between Fords nomination by Nixon
and his confirmation by Congress, there were constitutional questions raised:
What would happen if President Nixon resigns or is removed from office? Who
would now recommend to the Congress the acting President? That is the
importance of this constitutional provision in case there is a vacancy in the
Office of the Vice-President.
With respect to the question of incapacity of the President, of course, the
concomitant question is: Who will determine whether or not he is capable of
discharging the functions of his office? Just in the recent past, in we had the
problem where our President disappeared from public view and there were
speculations and rumors. Despite the contentions that he was incapable, he
stayed on and insisted that he was capable of discharging the functions of
his
office, and the reason for his disappearance from public view for a number of
weeks was that he was writing a book. So, again, we took into account
Section
3 of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, because
it deals with that situation. And that is translated in Section 11 of our
proposed draft Article, that whenever the President transmits to the National
Assembly his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers
and duties of his office, well and good, because he has transmitted it. But he
may not be in a position to make a written declaration or he may not want to
send a declaration or a recognition of his incapacity. Consequently, if he just
agrees or admits that he is incapable of performing the duties of his
office, then the powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice-President
as acting President. But if the President fails or refuses to do so, then the
remedy is to have a majority of all the members of the Cabinet transmit to
the National Assembly their written declaration that the President is unable
to
discharge the powers and duties of his office, in which case the VicePresident shall immediately assume the powers. However, if after that the
President
again transmits to Congress his written declaration that the no inability
exists and he wants to resume the powers of his office, then a majority of all
the members of the Cabinet shall transmit their written declaration within
five days to Congress that the President is unable to discharge the powers
and
duties of his office. There is, therefore, a deadlock here the President
contending that he is capable and the majority of the members of the
Cabinet
saying that he is incapable. And the solution, under this Twenty-Fifth
Amendment to the United States Constitution, is that thereupon Congress
shall decide
the conflicting contentions, convening within 48 hours for that purpose if not
in session. And Congress shall, within 21 days after receipt of the written
declaration of the Cabinet, or if not in session within 21 days after it is
required to assemble, determine by a two-thirds vote of all the Members
whether
the President is in truth unable or is able to discharge the functions or his
duties. In the United States, they have had that experience four times: 1)
When President Garfield suffered a lingering death from an assassins bullet;
2) when President Wilson had a physical breakdown during the closing years
of
his second term; 3) when there was concern about the health of President
Roosevelt prior to his fatal attack; and 4) when President Eisenhower was
temporarily disabled by a heart attack at first and later by a serious
operation.
So far, we have not had such problems which could have precipitated a
constitutional crisis, but it is best to anticipate that possibility and withdraw
from the experience of those who had to go through that constitutional
ordeal without a settled rule in the Constitution.
MR. SUMULONG: I will just bring to the attention of the body a last
constitutional change concerning the pardoning power of the President. In
the 1935
Constitution, it is clearly stated and provided that the pardoning power of the
President may be exercised after conviction. But in the 1973 Constitution,
as amended, the phrase after conviction was deleted, so that President
Marcos was able to pardon accused persons even be- fore they have been
tried and
convicted. That was a scandalous situation and that is the reason why we
restore the phrase after conviction in- Section 17 of the Article now
submitted
for consideration. The provision reads:
Except in cases of impeachment, or as otherwise provided in this
Constitution, the President may grant reprieves, commutations, and pardons,
and remit
fines and forfeitures, after conviction. However, the power to grant executive
clemency for violations of corrupt practices laws may be limited by
legislation.
He shall also have the power to grant amnesty with the concurrence of a
majority of all the members of the Congress.
With these explanations, the Committee will now welcome interpellations.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
MR. RAMA: Madam President, we have very important and very beautiful
ladies who are visiting us here, so I move that we suspend the session for a
few
minutes so we can meet them.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair suspends the session for a brief time. The women
have requested that they be allowed to present a scroll on womens rights
through
the honorable Deputy Foreign Minister Leticia Ramos-Shahani.
It was 10:47 a.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 11:08 a.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: May I ask the Chairman and the members of the Committee to
take their seats at the committee table?
reference
to the certificates of canvass covering the positions of President and VicePresident, am I right if I say that the duty of the legislature, that is, the
Congress in joint session assembled, is no longer ministerial in the canvass
of the returns for the offices of the President and Vice-President?
MR. SUMULONG: I will refer the Gentleman to Commissioner Maambong, who
is a member of the Committee and the one who discussed this very
extensively during
the committee meetings.
Will Commissioner Maambong answer that interpellation, please.
MR. MAAMBONG: I did not get the question quite well.
MR. NOLLEDO: I am referring to the use of the words upon determination of
the authenticity and due execution thereof on lines 7 and 8, page 2,
referring
to the certificates of camass of the President and Vice-President. Am I right if
I say that because of the use of these words, the duty of the legislature
to canvass is no longer ministerial?
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, the word ministerial has always been
interpreted by the Supreme Court as applicable to the canvass made by the
National
Assembly, and the reason why we did not put the word ministerial in the
Article is, it has been understood in the case of Roxas vs. Lopez and in other
cases. When we used the words authenticity and genuineness, the
question refers to the problem of whether or not the ministerial function is
already
nonministerial. The answer is, it is still ministerial but when we say
authenticity and due execution, what it really means is that the National
Assembly
will look at the certificates of canvass and find out from the face of the
document whether there are flaws in the execution and authenticity of the
document. That is what it means.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, in the event that the legislature finds out
that there are serious defects in the certificates of canvass as when the
seals
are broken, there are a lot of erasures and then many of them are unsigned
and, therefore, authenticity appears to be questionable what will happen?
MR. MAAMBONG: The answer to that is in the phrase in the manner
provided by law. The Committee had to insert the phrase in the manner
provided by law
so that the legislature itself will find out and will make it very specific as to
what flaws or deficiencies in the certificates of canvass can be taken
cognizance of by the canvassing board of tellers, because as of now the
guiding regulations that govern the National Assembly, as I mentioned in the
Committee, are: the rules and regulations of the COMELEC, the Omnibus
Election Code, the jurisprudence from the decisions of the Supreme Court. All
these
things taken together, the legislature is given a notice by using the phrase
in the manner provided by law, so that it will make a determination now of
what are the points which the board of tellers can take cognizance of,
because it is not very clear right now under the laws and regulations, and as
a
matter of fact, that was one of the controversies which arose during the
canvassing of the votes of President Aquino and former President Marcos in
the
last Batasan.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you, Madam President.
I would like to propound the next question to any member of the Committee,
of course, including the Chairman.
I notice that in case of vacancy in the position of the President, as well as
Vice-President, the Committee is leaving it to Congress to determine the
manner of succession. Why do we not provide in the Constitution now that in
case of vacancy in the offices of the President and Vice-President. Congress,
in joint session assembled, may elect the person who will act as President
until the President and Vice-President shall have qualified I do not see any
valid reason for the Committee not to adopt that latter provision because
there may be some constitutional chaos that may happen if there should be
no one
who will assume immediately the President and Vice-President in case of
vacancy. Why do we not simplify matters?
MR. REGALADO: We will appreciate the formulation of an amendment to that.
But the reason why we did so is that we felt that a constitutional provision
specifically stating the order of succession after the Vice-President would
make any future changes a little less flexible, because then we will have to
have a plebiscite to amend the Constitution. In the United States, up to now,
the order of succession after the Speaker is also provided by law, not by a
constitutional provision.
MR. NOLLEDO: The next question is with respect to the incapacity of the
President. It is said here that in case of conflict between the claim of the
President that he is capacitated and the claim of the members of the Cabinet
I think the majority thereof that he is incapacitated, it seems to me that
and submit the same to the Congress for concurrence? It seems to me that
with
the word revoke, the report of the Committee implies that the President
may immediately declare martial law or suspend the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus without the simultaneous concurrence of the legislature. Am I
right?
MR. SUMULONG: The Committee refers that interpellation to Commissioner
Concepcion.
MR. CONCEPCION: The draft of the proposals submitted by the Committee
requires the concurrence of Congress.
MR. NOLLEDO: Therefore, the declaration of martial law shall take effect
without the concurrence?
MR. CONCEPCION: No. It must be with the concurrence.
MR. NOLLEDO: With respect to the word citizen on line 27, page 6, I
understand that a citizen need not be a taxpayer. Martial law may involve
additional
disbursement of public funds and it has been a uniform ruling of the
Supreme Court, not only in the Philippines but in the United States, that only
a
taxpayer who is a citizen of the Philippines may question such act of the
government official concerned. Must he be a taxpayer?
MR. CONCEPCION: The proposal of the Committee does not require the
citizen to be a taxpayer.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you.
Lines 23. 24 and 25 are an entirely new provision, but let me begin from the
latter part of line 23:
However, the power to grant executive clemency for violations of corrupt
practices laws may be limited by legislation.
May we know the rationale behind this provision?
MR. SUMULONG: That interpellation is referred to Commissioner Davide.
MR. DAVIDE: Thank you.
This particular proposal was lifted from a resolution filed by this Member
limiting the power of the President to grant executive clemency. Among the
there was a move on the part of businessmen to ask for more participation
as members of the Monetary Board.
The reason we put the Monetary Board here is that it is the present central
monetary authority. I understand that in another committee, they are
planning
to change its name to Central Monetary Authority or retain the name
Monetary Board.
We were impaled on the horns of a dilemma. If we were to give the President
unlimited power to contract foreign loans, then we may have a repeat
performance of what we went through. On the other hand, if we were to be
very strict with the President so much so that by the time the authorities
here or
the legislature give their consent, that foreign loan sought to be contracted is
no longer available, or the purpose which it was intended to subserve is
already academic. Instead, we put this as a medium arrangement, a middle
ground, but with the participation also of the legislature in the sense that any
action of the Monetary Board shall periodically be reported quarterly to the
legislature. instead of requiring approval of the Congress which might defeat
the purpose for contracting the foreign loan, at least a quarterly report
should be submitted within 30 days from the beginning of each quarter to
inform
the legislature about the foreign loans that it has acted upon or still to be
contracted. Then, the legislature now participates either to give its
concurrence if it is for a meritorious purpose or to curtail by law the powers
of the Monetary Board.
While it is not stated here although it says here that the prior concurrence
of the Monetary Board is required it is, of course, implicit therein that
the Monetary Board shall act as may be provided by law. In fact, right now
the powers of the Monetary Board are provided by law.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you.
MR. SUMULONG: May we give the floor to Commissioner Villegas.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Villegas is recognized.
MR. VILLEGAS. I will just volunteer an information about the Monetary Board
or the central monetary authority. There is a provision in the committee
report
on the national economy stipulating that the Monetary Board should have
majority membership from the private sector, and there is even the
possibility that
in the future, there will be no government official in the Monetary Board, very
much like the Federal Reserve System in the United States.
So, definitely the thinking is that the Monetary Board should be released
from any dependence on the executive, on the Presidents men, so to speak.
However. in the last meeting Central Bank Governor Fernandez said that
temporarily they want to have at least the Finance Minister as a member of
the
Monetary Board for coordination purposes. But definitely the thinking is that
the Monetary Board should be completely independent of the executive.
MR. SUMULONG: Thank you for that information
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, I would like to commend the Committee for
deleting Section 17, Article VII, one of the most immoral provisions of the
1973
Constitution, granting the President and his cronies immunity from suits.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. REGALADO: Incidentally, my intention has been called by our committee
secretary, that some of the Commissioners may be using the previous
version of
the committee report. I request the Commissioners to look at their copies. It
is the one that has on the upper right hand corner, in parentheses, the words
Substitute Resolution, so that we will not be confused with the pages and
the lines.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner de Castro be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de Castro is recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you, Madam President.
I have a few observations and questions on Section 15, page 6.
I understand that during the hearing on the Article on the Legislative, the
term imminent danger thereof was eliminated in the proviso authorizing
the
President to declare martial law or to suspend the writ of habeas corpus
because of the alleged abuse of the previous regime. So the term now is
invasion
or rebellion. When there is an actual rebellion or invasion, the President still
cannot declare martial law nor suspend the writ of habeas corpus because
If there is actual invasion in the Philippines, that is already a state of war. The
possibility that we may capture prisoners, enemy agents and spies is
not remote and we may put them in jail. However, to require a judicial action
before they can be jailed will be very difficult for our Commander-in-Chief.
We are clipping the powers of our Commander-in-Chief because of our
experience with the previous regime.
We should consider that our President is the Commander-in-Chief of the
Armed. Forces. He is responsible for everything that may happen in this
country. We
should not clip his powers.
Will the honorable Committee allow certain amendments to this when the
proper time comes?
MR. REGALADO: Of course. we will welcome amendments.
MR. SUMULONG: Certainly, at the appropriate time.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you.
I an only most concerned with what is happening in our country today. There
are strikes here and there; loyalties are rallying here; and there is shooting
in the countryside. If these escalate into a worse situation as an actual
rebellion, we have clipped the powers of the President to suspend the writ of
habeas corpus or to declare martial law.
My next point is on page 7, line 14. When we say that the confirmation by
the Commission on Appointments on appointees of the President must begin
from the
rank of colonel or captain in the navy, this provision is taken from the 1935
Constitution. During that time, a full colonel in the Armed Forces was a rare
breed, more so a captain in the navy. I think there were only two generals
then. But now, we have so many generals, colonels, major generals, rear
admirals
and so on. This is brought about by the increase of our Armed Forces to some
250,000. About 1.2 percent of these are the general officers. Our general
officers up to brigadier generals are the front line generals. They are the
ones fighting the war for us against insurgency. The major generals are
normally the major service commanders of the Armed Forces, such as the
commanding general of the army, flag officer of the navy, the commanding
generals of
the air force add the constabulary. But now, we are limiting the confirmation
to colonels. They are the hardworking grades; these are the fighting grades
up to brigadier general. May we not raise this a little, so that the
confirmation will only be required beginning with the grade of major general,
the
service commanding general of the Armed Forces? This was recommended
to me very strongly by General Ramos and Deputy Minister Ileto. I fully
appreciate
their stand on the matter considering that those with the rank of one-star
general are the front line generals against insurgency. May the Committee
relent
when the proper time comes?
MR. REGALADO: In other words, Commissioner de Castro would go beyond
the prescription in the 1973 Constitution which would require confirmation
from the
rank of brigadier general or commodore in the navy.
MR. DE CASTRO: No, from major general or rear admiral in the navy.
MR. REGALADO: We will consider that at the proper time and subject to the
corresponding justification.
MR. DE CASTRO: I will do that.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I am a member of the Committee on the
Executive and I was the one who lowered the rank from general to colonel.
The reason for
this is that if we study history, both the recent and the older history, we will
find out that most of the coup d etats were staged by colonels.
MR. RAMA: Coming closer home, we would notice that the February
revolution was staged mostly by the colonels in the Reform the Armed Forces
Movement. I
know because I interviewed most of them. They were the ones who executed
the plan which culminated in the revolution.
I was thinking that the President should have a hand in appointing the
colonels in order to help stop this political instability. So that is the reason for
the insertion of that word.
MR. DE CASTRO: We should take note that the President appoints even the
newly graduated cadets in the Philippine Military Academy as second
lieutenants.
So, the appointment in the military by the President is from the time one
becomes a cadet up to the time he retires from the Armed Forces. So, the
President does not only appoint generals; he appoints the lowest lieutenants
in the Armed Forces.
Talking of the last February revolution and the RAM, I beg to disagree so far
that the RAM is instrumental in the February revolution. I have always
questioned the position of the RAM because there must not be another
organization within the entire military organization as this will create
divisiveness,
as what has been noted now by the present Chief of Staff of the Armed
Forces. In fact, during the February revolution, we, the retired generals of the
Armed Forces, questioned the existence of the RAM. We have questioned its
members one by one on many occasions about their business in the Armed
Forces
creating an organization within the organization.
This is the first time in the history of the armed forces anywhere in the world
that an organization was created within the military organization.
I repeat that I beg to differ with the Commissioners belief that the RAM is
instrumental in the February revolution of 1986. History will show that it is
not colonels but normally majors and captains who stage coup d etats. We
have not had any coup d etat yet in our country.
MR. RAMA: I would like to tell the Commissioner that my statement about the
role of the RAM in the last February revolution is based upon my interviews
with the members of the RAM about their history, how they formed that
organization, their objectives, et cetera, harking back to about three years
ago. So,
I came to the conclusion that they played a very big role in the 1986
revolution.
MR. DE CASTRO: I hate to say this but the leaders of the RAM are asking civic
organizations to invite them so that they can project themselves in the
country and put themselves in the newspapers. I know this because an
organization in my town of Binan, Laguna invited me to interpellate a
member of the
RAM who was supposed to be their guest speaker. I asked them: Why is the
guest speaker a RAM member? The answer was that the leadership of the
RAM asked
themselves to be invited. So I said I cannot question them because if I do,
the truth will come out, and if I do not question them on the truth, I might as
well not be there. So, I did not go there. But I know for a fact that the RAM
induced this civic organization in my hometown to invite them as guest
speakers so they can be projected in the newspapers.
Now, let us go back to our subject matter.
THE PRESIDENT: Any other question?
the operation of the Constitution; therefore, it does not suspend the principle
of separation of powers.
The question now is: During martial law, can the President issue decrees?
The answer we gave to that question in the Committee was: During martial
law, the
President may have the powers of a commanding general in a theatre of war.
In actual war when there is fighting in an area, the President as the
commanding
general has the authority to issue orders which have the effect of law but
strictly in a theatre of war, not in the situation we had during the period of
martial law. In other words, there is an effort here to return to the traditional
concept of martial law as it was developed especially in American
jurisprudence, where martial law has reference to the theatre of war.
SR. TAN: Thank you.
That clarifies my questions. I still have a little doubt on Section 18 which was
already mentioned by Commissioners de Castro and Monsod. I notice the
omission of the congressional approval for foreign loans. My dilemma is on
the reason for requiring congressional approval for treaties, while for foreign
loans, we do not have any, as if to say these are not equally crucial. Is the
concurrence of the Monetary Board sufficient?
MR. REGALADO: I have already given my answer to the same question and
Commissioner Villegas has also clarified the participation of the Monetary
Board and
its membership. The purposes of not requiring congressional concurrence
are: First, it would take some time before such concurrence may be obtained
and
there might be an urgent need for the loan or, thereafter, if concurrence is
finally obtained, the offered loan may no longer be available; second, it was
thought that if the congressional concurrence is required, an obstructionist
Congress could prevent the President from contracting foreign loans which
may
be urgently needed especially in case of a national calamity which requires
immediate action.
SR. TAN: Thank you.
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President, point of clarification.
THE PRESIDENT: The Acting Floor Leader wants to say something.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, in view of the time, I ask for a suspension of
the session.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended and we will resume at two-thirty in
the afternoon.
It was 12:19 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 2:41 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, this Member is now the Acting Floor
Leader.
I request that Commissioner Quesada be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Quesada is recognized.
MR. SUMULONG: May I request the members of the Committee on the
Executive to come forward and join us here.
May I inform the Members of the Commission that the latest copy which we
will use has just been distributed and on the first page, right upper hand
corner,
we will read the following as stated: Substitute Resolution-Adjusted to
Bicameral Legislature. So this will be the copy which will guide our
discussions
from now on.
Thank you.
MS. QUESADA: Madam President, honorable members of the Committee on
the Executive, I would like to raise three points for clarification. The first one
is
on page 6, line 8 which reads:
He shall exercise general supervision over all local governments as may be
provided by law, and shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
MR. REGALADO: Is that on page 6?
MS. QUESADA: Page 6, Section 14, line 8.
MR. REGALADO: That is line 23 here. The Commissioner will please look at
her copy. Is that the one which bears on the upper right hand corner the title:
Substitute Resolution-Adjusted to Bicameral Legislature?
MS. QUESADA: I am sorry, I do not have the amended copy, but this has
something to do with the local governments.
MR. MAAMBONG: In what section?
MS. QUESADA: Sorry, I have a different copy.
MR. MAAMBONG: Can we go by section so that we will not get lost?
MS. QUESADA: Is it going to be by section now?
MR. SUMULONG: Yes. by section.
MR. MAAMBONG: The Commissioner must refer to the correct section so that
we will not get lost.
MS. QUESADA: This is Section 14 already. I do not have any question as
regards the other sections. I just would like to seek clarification about Section
14
but I do not know where it is found in the amended copy.
MR. REGALADO: That is on page 6; Section 14 starts from line 21.
MS. QUESADA: My question: Would this particular section now define the
specific areas for general supervision by the Office of the President over local
governments?
MR. REGALADO: May I answer that, please?
MS. QUESADA: It says here as may be provided by law, but I was
wondering how it would dovetail with the autonomy that we are now trying
to give local
governments.
MR. REGALADO: The entire Section 4 is an exact copy of the 1935
Constitution, Section 10 (1) thereof. The phrase general supervision over all
local
governments is used to distinguish it from control over executive
departments, bureaus and offices. Since 1935, the phrase exercise general
supervision has already had a settled meaning. The powers of the President
over local governments are defined by law as to whether he can cause the
investigation of a lower official of a local government or his suspension but
Board
without having to go through Congress. I wonder if the Committee would still
be amenable to amendments on how we could put a check to this particular
right
of the President.
MR. REGALADO: I have given the answer to Commissioner Tan and another
one who asked me this morning. But, of course, we will entertain
amendments at the
proper time.
MS. QUESADA: So the Committee is not entirely closed on the subject?
MR. REGALADO: It is not closed. Incidentally, the Commissioner is requested
to please take note that the Committee has caused the deletion of the
phrase
and domestic on line 14, so this refers only to foreign loans now.
MS. QUESADA: I am really interested in foreign loans that we are contracting,
so maybe at the proper time, we will try to propose some amendments.
The third point is on page 9. Section 20 line 7 which reads:
No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless
concurred in by at least two-thirds of all the members of the Senate.
I would like to ask some clarification on the coverage or the scope of these
treaties or international agreements.
MR. REGALADO: The phrase international agreement here was used by the
Committee because, formerly, the provision spoke only of treaties. However,
treaties alone are not the only vehicles for international accord. Later, there
developed in the United States things like executive agreements which did
not require the concurrence of the U.S. Congress, although in the Philippines,
our President entered into an executive agreement with the United States on
the Bell Trade Act but with prior approval of Congress.
There are other agreements in other countries which are called
administrative agreements instead of executive agreements. This kind is
the one existing
between the United States and Japan. The reason for that is simple; they
could not call it an executive agreement because at the time the agreement
was
signed, Emperor Hirohito had been virtually divested of powers because it
was General MacArthur who was running the show. So, they called it an
this was touched upon by Commissioner Nolledo but just the same, let me
ask the question.
How does the Congress the Senate and the House of Representatives in
joint public session determine the authenticity and due execution of the
certificates of canvass?
A corollary question, will it require the testimony or affirmation of the very
persons who executed the certificates?
MR. REGALADO: May we refer this to Commissioner Maambong who
introduced a resolution to that effect and which was adopted by the
Committee.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: We explained early this morning, in answer to the query of
Commissioner Nolledo, that under the present laws, the authenticity and due
execution are determined by the rules and regulations promulgated by the
Commission on Elections by the exact provisions of the Omnibus Election
Code and
by the rulings and decisions of the Supreme Court. But the Gentleman will
notice in the formulation of the present section that we inserted the words
IN
THE MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW because in the last canvassing of votes of
the President and Vice-President before the Batasang Pambansa, there were
so many
objections as to the manner of determination of due execution and
authenticity. So, in future canvassings we will expect that the national
legislature will
promulgate or enact a law where they will set out in formal terms the guide
lines to be followed by the board of tellers of the Congress in the canvass of
votes of the President and the Vice-President. But as I have mentioned
earlier, as of this moment we are guided by the rules and regulations of the
COMELEC, by the provisions of the Omnibus Election Code and by the rulings
of the Supreme Court.
MR. FOZ: Under existing provisions of law and the rules of the old Batasan.
how is it determined?
MR. MAAMBONG: There are so many corollary factors in the determination of
the due execution and genuineness of the document. The first thing that the
board
of canvassers or the board of tellers if we call it that will look at is the
certificate of canvass coming from the different provincial board of
canvassers, city board of canvassers, or in the case of Metro Manila, the
district board of canvassers. The first step taken is to look at the document
itself to find out if it is regular on its face, whether it is signed, for example,
by the members of the city, provincial or district board of canvassers,
whether the thumbmarks are there, and more importantly, whether the
words and figures are clearly indicated. With these, the board of tellers will
start
tabulating the votes. But the problem, as I said, is that there are corollary
factors like whether or not the envelope in which the certificate of canvass
was contained is the genuine envelope furnished by the COMELEC, whether
the COMELEC paper seal is affixed on the envelope, whether the certificate
of
canvass has the COMELEC paper seal. These are corollary issues, and in
resolving these issues, the board of canvassers were guided by the
resolutions and
regulations of the COMELEC, the exact provisions of the Omnibus Election
Code and the rulings of the Supreme Court. Just to give an example, in one
ruling
of the Supreme Court where election returns transmitted to the board of
canvassers were contained in jute sacks and not in the proper boxes, the
Supreme
Court said that these are mere formalities; if the election returns do not
contain irregularities on their face, they may be considered in the canvassing
of votes.
MR. FOZ: Is the question of whether signatures appearing on the certificates
are genuine or not also considered?
MR. MAAMBONG: It is considered, in the sense that in the actual canvassing
of votes, the opposition party has a copy of the certificate of canvass being
used by the Speaker and the board of canvassers with the signature
appearing on the copy of the opposition party and the ruling party, then the
Speaker and
the board of tellers can determine whether there is a deviation in the
signatures in the three copies. That is how it is done.
MR. FOZ: Thank you, Madam President.
May I go to the next question? This is about the declaration of martial law or
the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus on page 7, on
the second to the last paragraph of Section 15. Is it possible to delete the
clause where civil courts are able to function? In the earlier portion of
the same sentence, it says, nor supplant the functioning of the civil
courts . . . I was just thinking that if this provision states the effects of the
declaration of martial law one of which is that it does not supplant the
functioning of the civil courts I cannot see how civil courts would be
unable
to function even in a state of martial law.
MR. SUMULONG: May we refer that interpellation to Commissioner Bernas?
FR. BERNAS: This phrase was precisely put here because we have clarified
the meaning of martial law; meaning, limiting it to martial law as it has
existed
in the jurisprudence in international law, that it is a law for the theater of
war. In a theater of war, civil courts are unable to function. If in the
actual theater of war civil courts, in fact, are unable to function, then the
military commander is authorized to give jurisdiction even over civilians to
military courts precisely because the civil courts are closed in that area. But
in the general area where the civil courts are opened then in no case can
the military courts be given jurisdiction over civilians. This is in reference to a
theater of war where the civil courts, in fact, are unable to function.
MR. FOZ: It is a state of things brought about by the realities of the situation
in that specified critical area.
FR. BERNAS: That is correct.
MR. FOZ: And it is not something that is brought about by a declaration of
the Commander-in-Chief.
FR. BERNAS: It is not brought about by a declaration of the Commander-inChief. The understanding here is that the phrase nor authorize the
conferment of
jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians has reference to
the practice under the Marcos regime where military courts were given
jurisdiction over civilians. We say here that we will never allow that except in
areas where civil courts are, in fact, unable to function and it becomes
necessary for some kind of court to function.
MR. FOZ: Thank you, Madam President.
The last question on Section 19, page 8 of the revised draft has to do with
the disqualification or disability imposed on the President, the
Vice-President, members of the Cabinet and chiefs of bureaus or offices and
their assistants. First of all, the term assistants, to whom does it refer?
MR. REGALADO: Our understanding of that would be with respect to
members of the Cabinet, then the deputy minister. With respect to chiefs of
bureaus, then
it would be the assistant bureau director. With respect to other governmental
offices, then the one next in line to the head of that office. The word
assistants does not refer to one particular head of an office; it refers to the
assistants of those different heads of offices.
MR. FOZ: So. one assistant for each of those enumerated.
MR. REGALADO: Yes, that is right.
MR. FOZ: This provision would put a mere chief of an office or a mere director
of a bureau and his assistants on the same level as members of the Cabinet
and their assistants, the President and the Vice-president, and would prohibit
them from doing so many things as enumerated here. The philosophy of this
provision, I understand, is to avoid conflict of interest. What are the other
purposes?
MR. REGALADO: They are all enumerated there.
MR. FOZ: Prohibiting them from having any financial interest in any
transaction with the government and from practicing any profession.
MR. REGALADO: Yes, like the prohibition against the practice of a profession.
MR. FOZ: In other words, I think we can sum up the purpose in conflict of
interest.
MR. REGALADO: Not necessarily, because practicing a profession does not
necessarily conflict with their financial interest.
MR. FOZ: Would it be that the reason is to enable them to devote all their
time or most of their time to their offices?
MR. REGALADO: The most desirable trait of any public officer is to give full
attention and devotion to his duties.
MR. FOZ: Has the Committee not considered also the reality that a director of
a bureau or a chief of an office and his assistants do not receive sufficient
remuneration and, therefore, should not be unduly prevented from engaging
in certain activities that would enable them to meet the rising cost of living?
What I am trying to say is that maybe their inclusion in such a provision
prohibiting them from engaging, for instance, in the practice of their
profession which would not after all conflict with the functions of their office
and thus, being placed on the same level as the President,
Vice-President and members of the Cabinet and their assistants would be
quite harsh. After all, they are not vested with vast powers. So, the evil
sought
to be prevented in the case of the President, the Vice-President and
members of the Cabinet is perhaps not present. So, in their case, the
provisions of
the Anti-Graft Law would be sufficient to make sure that there is no conflict
of interest whatsoever in the discharge of their duties and in whatever
activities they may engage in on the side, private in nature but completely
legal and moral, which would sustain themselves and their family.
MR. REGALADO: In the first place, we have stated that the purpose here is
not only conflict of interest but to enable them to give full-time attention to
their duties. It is assumed that when they sought appointment to this office.
they were aware that there are limitations in the Constitution.
The mere fact that bureau directors are not on the level of the President is
not a correct stratification because whether one is a bureau director, a
deputy or a minister, the same devotion to duty is required.
If we say that we have to be realistic considering the rising cost of living,
aside from the low salaries they are receiving, this can be remedied by
increasing their compensation if the government can afford it or by their
engaging in other activities not contrary to these specific disqualifications.
Some of them teach to augment their income; that is why we pointed out to
Commissioner de Castro that teaching is not a practice of a profession. In
other
words, they can engage in any other revenue-producing, income-producing
activity legitimate in nature provided it does not conflict with the objective
sought in this section.
MR. FOZ: But as the provision is worded there is practically no other activity
from which they would derive additional income because the provision
prohibits one to practice any profession, participate directly or indirectly in
any business. I cannot see any other activity from which a lowly chief of
office getting, let us say, P1,500 a month with a family of five can possibly
derive income that would sustain himself and his family.
MR. REGALADO: This does not preclude the members of their families from
engaging in business. It is a personal disqualification to insure full-time
attention to duties.
MR. FOZ: What will happen here is that there will be circumventions of the
prohibition in view of realities.
MR. REGALADO: It is not circumvention because it is not prohibited.
MR. FOZ: Yes, but there will be circumvention somewhere because the
prohibition will be against the harsh realities of modern living now. It is very
difficult to comply with . . .
MR. REGALADO: Yes, Madam President. Actually I was for following the
standard rule against nepotism up to the fourth civil degree, which the
Gentleman will
notice is a standard norm in most statute books. However, the Committee
overruled me by limiting it to the third civil degree.
MR. FOZ: So, the Committee thinks that if it is within the fourth civil degree,
it would be a harsh prohibition.
MR. REGALADO: Because there might be a first cousin who is competent and
acceptable to the people.
MR. FOZ: But in the same manner, a brother of the President might also be
as competent.
MR. REGALADO: We have to draw a line somewhere. Why is it that the age of
majority is 21 years and not 20 or 22?
MR. FOZ: Would the Committee consider an amendment to this provision.
that would include government-owned or controlled corporations and their
subsidiaries?
MR. REGALADO: That is on line 32 of page 8 up to the first word of line 1 on
page 9. We will entertain any proposed amendment with its justification.
MR. FOZ: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Rodrigo be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, I have a few questions.
My first question has reference to Section 8 on page 3, starting with line 28,
which reads:
Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice-President during the
term for which he was elected, the President shall nominate a Vice-President
from among the members of the Senate and the House of Representatives
who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of all the members
of both
Houses of Congress.
My question is, in view of the fact that the Vice-President is elected by the
whole country, is it not logical that the nomination or choice of his
successor be limited to the Members of the Senate who are also elected
nationally?
MR. REGALADO: We took this from the Twenty-Fifth Amendment of the
Constitution of the United States which, as I have mentioned this morning,
was ratified
on February 10, 1967. It was stated in the Twenty-Fifth Amendment that the
Senate and the House of Representatives should have a say. For that
matter,
President Nixon appointed Gerald Ford upon the recommendation of the
House. Ford was then the Republican leader in the House of Representatives.
So, we felt that the President should be given the freedom of choice not only
of the legislators whom he may wish to appoint and regardless of the House
to
which he belongs.
MR. RODRIGO: Of course, the Committee realizes that there is a difference
between the Senate of the United States and the Senate proposed in our
Constitution.
MR. REGALADO: That is true, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: Our Senators are elected by the whole country like the VicePresident, while in the United States, two Senators are elected by every
state.
MR. REGALADO: We will entertain amendments at the proper time.
MR. RODRIGO: Thank you.
My next question has reference to Section 11, line 12, which states:
Whenever a majority of all the members of the Cabinet transmit to the
President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives
their
written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and
duties of his office, the Vice-President shall immediately assume the powers
and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President of the Senate and
the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no
inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office . . .
In the first paragraph, the Vice-President takes over. In the second
paragraph, after the President transmits his message, the President takes
over unless
a majority of all the members of the Cabinet transmit within five days to the
President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives
their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers
and duties of his office.
What happens then?
MR. REGALADO: Then the next sentence says: Thereupon, the Congress
shall decide the issue.
MR. RODRIGO: Yes, but while Congress is deciding the issue, who takes over?
Does the President continue or does the Vice-President take over?
MR. REGALADO: The President continues; he reassumes . . .
MR. RODRIGO: No, not reassume because at this stage, he is already the
one holding office. Before this, the first stage is when majority of the Cabinet
members send their message to the Senate President and to the Speaker.
MR. REGALADO: That is right.
MR. RODRIGO: After that, the Vice-President takes over. Then, the second
stage is: the President sends a message. He says, No, I am all right. I jog
every
morning.
MR. REGALADO: He shall resume the powers and duties of the office.
MR. RODRIGO: So, he assumes the powers. Then the Cabinet again sends a
message, No, he is sick.
MR. REGALADO: In the meantime, the President continues. In other words, he
shall resume powers and duties and shall continue to do so unless a majority
of
the Cabinet members transmit a written declaration and until Congress
decides on the issue.
MR. RODRIGO: Why is it then that at the end of the paragraph on pages 5
and 6, it is stated. and I quote:
If the Congress . . within twenty-one days after it is required to assemble,
determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress that the President
is
unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice-President
shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President . . .
This means that the Vice-President is the one in office. Then the provision
continues: . . . otherwise the President shall resume the powers and duties
of
his office. This means he was not the one holding the office.
MR. REGALADO: That can be replaced with the word continue. The VicePresident shall then discharge the same as acting President. That is the
purpose.
MR. RODRIGO: What is the intention of the Committee? Let us go over it
again. The first step is when the Cabinet sends the message.
MR. REGALADO: No, the very first step is when the President himself
informs . . .
MR. RODRIGO: Yes, that is the first step. There is no controversy there. Then
the Cabinet sends the message; the Vice-President takes over. The President
sends the message and he takes over. The Cabinet again sends the
message. Does the President continue?
MR. REGALADO: When the Cabinet sends the message, the President in the
meantime shall continue while Congress decides the issue.
MR. RODRIGO: So, that is the intention?
MR. REGALADO: Yes, Madam President. If the Congress decides in favor of
the Vice-President, then the Vice-President shall take over to discharge the
duties.
MR. RODRIGO: On page 5, lines 21 to 23. it is stated:
. . . unless a majority of all the members of the Cabinet transmits within five
days to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives their written declaration . . .
If the five days elapsed, what happens? Can the Cabinet still send the
message?
MR. REGALADO: If the Cabinet members do not question the certification of
the President that he is no longer unable, that means they agree with him.
MR. RODRIGO: But let us say that it takes the Cabinet six days to find out if
the President is telling the truth or not, so on the sixth day they transmit
their message.
MR. REGALADO: They should act within the period. In the Twenty-Fifth
Amendment to the United States Constitution, it is four days. I suggested five
days
because we do not have the same transportation and communication
facilities.
MR. RODRIGO: Does this mean to say that after the lapse of five days, the
Cabinet may no longer send the message?
MR. REGALADO: In other words, the Cabinet impliedly acquiesces with the
Presidents declaration.
MR. RODRIGO: Let us say the Cabinet not only implies but agrees that the
President is capable. The five days lapsed. Then after 15 days the President
gets
seriously ill; may the Cabinet again send a message?
MR. REGALADO: Then we start the process all over again.
MR. RODRIGO: Even after the lapse of five days?
MR. REGALADO: Yes, because this is a new supervening and subsequent fact.
MR. RODRIGO: Why place the five-day limit? That can be confusing. Let us
say on the seventh day, there was a relapse. So, the five-day period had
already
elapsed. May the Cabinet still send a message so the Vice-President can take
over?
MR. REGALADO: The process starts all over again because there was that
supervening fact that the President was capable. So, why should we deprive
him of
his office?
MR. RODRIGO: In spite of the fact that the five-day period had lapsed?
MR. REGALADO: Yes, because that was the five-day period within which they
should have objected to the Presidents declaration.
MR. RODRIGO: Yes.
MR. REGALADO: And since they did not object thereto, they agreed that he
was already capable, as in fact he was capable. So, in the meantime, they
could
not deprive him of the power to discharge the functions of his duties. But
when on the seventh or eighth day the President gets sick, in other words he
is
really unable to discharge his duties, then finding that he is unable to
discharge his duties they can again ask for the declaration and transmit it to
the
Speaker and the Senate President.
MR. RODRIGO: And nobody can say that they cannot send the declaration
anymore because five days have lapsed.
MR. REGALADO: No, it is not so.
MR. RODRIGO: Is it necessary to provide this period of five days which can
lead to confusion?
FR. BERNAS: If they give the declaration within the five-day period, then their
message is not automatically effective: it has to be reviewed by the
Congress.
MR. RODRIGO: Yes.
FR. BERNAS: But if they give it after the five-day period because there is a
new ailment, then we start the process again and the Vice-President can take
over right away.
MR. RODRIGO: So, if the Cabinet want the Vice- President to take over
immediately, they might as well allow the five days to lapse and start all over
again
on the seventh day. That can be done.
FR. BERNAS: It can be done, as we can see although we hope this will not
happen.
MR. RODRIGO: Thank you.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Bacani be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: I have a few questions for the Committee, Madam President.
The first one is on Section 4, page 2, lines 5 and 6. We have here a substitute
resolution which was already adopted. I am wondering whether the
Committee took account of the approved amendment that there should be
no reelection
whatsoever.
The spouse and relatives by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil
degree of the President shall not be appointed as minister, deputy minister
or
head of bureau or office.
I remember that the Article on the Civil Service Commission provides for
exceptions in the case of policy determining, highly technical or primarily
confidential positions. Does the Gentleman not want to provide here for the
same exceptions with respect to the President so that the President will have
more leeway?
MR. REGALADO: We feel that the powers of the Civil Service Commission
would not be at par with the powers vested in the President. We would like to
be a
little bit more strict because of the vast cornucopia of powers of the
President.
BISHOP BACANI: But suppose it is only the head of an office, would the
Gentleman accept a greater leniency in that regard?
MR. REGALADO: In the first place, as Commissioner Bernas has just noted,
we cannot conceive of the position of minister, deputy minister, or head of a
bureau or office that is primarily confidential. The very nature of the position
shows that it is not primarily confidential.
BISHOP BACANI: Thank you.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Villacorta
be recognized?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Villacorta is recognized.
MR. VILLACORTA: Madam President, may I ask the Committee some
questions?
The first sentence of Section 5, page 2, provides:
If, at the time fixed for the beginning of his term, the President-elect shall
have died, the Vice-President-elect shall become President.
My question refers to the situation in which the President-elect is
incapacitated and cannot assume office at the time fixed for the beginning of
his term.
Shall the Vice-President-elect merely assume office until the President-elect
is able to assume office and qualify, or will the Vice-President-elect become
President? In the latter case, would it be possible to amend this section by
inserting on line 27 after the word died and before the comma (,) the
words
OR INCAPACITATED TO ASSUME OFFICE?
MR. REGALADO: That presupposes that the President-elect shall have died
which, in a manner of speaking, is a permanent incapacity and, therefore,
the
Vice-President-elect shall become President. But if the President-elect is
merely temporarily incapacitated, that is without prejudice to his recovery, of
course, then the Vice-President may, in the meantime, act as President.
MR. VILLACORTA: Yes, but a President-elect can be permanently
incapacitated without having died.
MR. MAAMBONG: Regarding the incapacity of the President, I think we should
make it clear considering that the provision the Gentleman is referring to is
Section 5.
MR. VILLACORTA: That is right.
MR. MAAMBONG: Section 5 should be read together with Section 9. But just
for the sake of clarity, there are several points to consider when it comes to
election. The first point of reference, of course, is the election by the people.
The second point of reference would be the canvass of the votes and
proclamation. The third point of reference would be the qualification wherein
the person who has been proclaimed takes his oath. And the fourth point of
reference will be the beginning of the term which is the assumption of office.
If the Gentleman will go over the provision of Section 5 and Section 9,
whenever the President is permanently disabled, either before he is
proclaimed or
even after he has qualified and has begun his term of office, if it is a
permanent disability or death, the rule of thumb is always that the VicePresident
becomes President. So, in all these cases. whether he has been proclaimed,
he has taken his oath, or he has actually assumed office, as long as the
incapacity is permanent or it is outright death, the Vice-President becomes
President. The only instance where the Vice-President shall act as President
is
in the case where the President is not elected; he is elected but not
proclaimed; he is proclaimed but he fails to qualify, or he qualifies but did not
assume office. In all these instances, the Vice-President shall only act as
President for the simple reason that there is always the possibility that the
President who has been elected but has not yet been proclaimed might be
proclaimed; or if he has been proclaimed but has not yet qualified, might
qualify;
or if he has qualified but has not yet assumed office, will assume office. So,
in these instances, naturally, the Vice-President will act as President.
I hope that is clear, Madam President.
MR. REGALADO: Perhaps at the proper time, we may consider a possible
amendment to line 27 wherein the President died or has been definitively
established
to be permanently incapacitated.
MR. VILLACORTA: So, perhaps we could present that as an amendment,
Madam President.
MR. MAAMBONG: Incidentally, there is the possibility that we will realign the
sections Sections 5 and 9 so that we will not be confused. The
Gentleman
will notice that I mention Section 9 in relation to Section 5. These sections
should be sequential in the sense that Section 9 should actually follow
Section 5. We will do that later on.
MR. REGALADO: That is what happens when we try to beat the deadline, like
newspapermen.
MR. VILLACORTA: Thank you very much, Madam President.
I am not sure whether Commissioner Suarez has expressed his point. On
page 2, the fourth paragraph of Section 4 provides:
The Supreme Court, sitting en banc, shall be the sole judge of all contests
relating to the election, returns and qualifications of the President or
Vice-President.
May I seek clarification as to whether or not the matter of determining the
outcome of the contests relating to the election returns and qualifications of
the President or Vice-President is purely a political matter and, therefore,
should not be left entirely to the judiciary. Will the above-quoted provision
not impinge on the doctrine of separation of powers between the executive
and the judicial departments of the government?
MR. REGALADO: No, I really do not feel that would be a problem. This is a
new provision incidentally. It was not in the 1935 Constitution nor in the 1973
Constitution.
MR. VILLACORTA: That is right.
MR. REGALADO: We feel that it will not be an intrusion into the separation of
powers guaranteed to the judiciary because this is strictly an adversarial
and judicial proceeding.
MR. VILLACORTA: May I know the rationale of the Committee because this
supersedes Republic Act 7950 which provides for the Presidential Electoral
Tribunal?
FR. BERNAS: Precisely, this is necessary. Election contests are, by their
nature, judicial. Therefore, they are cognizable only by courts. If, for
instance, we did not have a constitutional provision on an electoral tribunal
for the Senate or an electoral tribunal for the House, normally, as composed,
that cannot be given jurisdiction over contests.
So, the background of this is really the case of Roxas vs. Lopez. The
Gentleman will remember that in that election, Lopez was declared winner.
He filed a
protest before the Supreme Court because there was a republic act which
created the Supreme Court as the Presidential Electoral Tribunal. The
question in
this case was whether new powers could be given the Supreme Court by law.
In effect, the conflict was actually whether there was an attempt to create
two
Supreme Courts and the answer of the Supreme Court was: No, this did not
involve the creation of two Supreme Courts, but precisely we are giving new
jurisdiction to the Supreme Court, as it is allowed by the Constitution.
Congress may allocate various jurisdictions.
Before the passage of that republic act, in case there was any contest
between two presidential candidates or two vice-presidential candidates, no
one had
jurisdiction over it. So, it became necessary to create a Presidential Electoral
Tribunal. What we have done is to constitutionalize what was statutory but
it is not an infringement on the separation of powers because the power
being given to the Supreme Court here is a judicial power.
MR. VILLACORTA: Thank you very much, Madam President.
On page 6, Section 14 says: The President shall have control of all the
executive departments, bureaus and offices. I know this was the wording in
both
the 1935 and the 1973 Constitutions. In the 1973 Constitution, there were
two conflicting provisions. Article IX, Section 9 says that the Prime Minister
shall have supervision over all ministries, while Article VII, Section 10 says
that the President shall have control of the ministries. My question has to
do with the word control. Our experience in the past was that the then
President had absolute control over the actions and decisions of people in
the
executive departments bureaus and offices. Even their extra-official actions
were infringed upon by the then President. I wonder if the Committee would
consider using another term because control smacks of tyrannical control.
Could we use a softer term or a more objective term such as ADMINISTER or
SUPERVISE? The President shall ADMINISTER all the executive
departments.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President, this is based on the principle that under a
presidential form of government, there is only one executive and it is the
President. And the power of control in jurisprudence is acquired very
definitely. It means the authority of a superior to substitute his judgment for
the
judgment of an inferior. It has reference only to the exercise of judgment. It
has nothing to do with discipline but just the exercise of discretion. The
discretion of the superior who has power of control can always be substituted
for that exercise of jurisdiction of the inferior. This is to be
distinguished from the power of general supervision which is nothing more
than the power to see to it that the inferior follows the law. The power of
general supervision does not allow the superior to substitute his judgment.
Just to give an example, there is a power of general supervision over local
governments. Let us suppose now that the local legislative body passes a
law. The President does not like it. Can he substitute his judgment for the
judgment of the local government? No. All he can do is say: Well, you did
not do it according to law and you have to do something about it. But if
everything was done according to law, he cannot substitute his judgment for
that of the inferior. But in the case of those covered by the first sentence
they all belong to the executive department and under the principle that
there is only one executive, this executive has the final say on the exercise of
judgment.
MR. VILLACORTA: Thank you, Madam President.
Just two more short questions. Section IS, lines 26 to 28, states:
The President shall be the commander-in-chief of all the armed forces of the
Philippines and, whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed
forces . . .
I wonder if it would be better to transfer the phrase whenever it becomes
necessary after the phrase armed forces, so that it would read: The
President shall be the commander-in-chief of all the armed forces of the
Philippines and HE MAY CALL OUT SUCH ARMED FORCES WHENEVER IT
BECOMES NECESSARY to
prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. My point here is
that the calling out of the Armed Forces will be limited only to the
necessity of preventing or suppressing lawless violence, invasion or rebellion.
As it is situated now, the phrase whenever it becomes necessary becomes
too discretionary on the part of the President. And we know that in the past,
it had been abused because the perception and judgment as to necessity
was
completely left to the discretion of the President. Whereas if it is placed in
the manner that I am suggesting, the necessity would only pertain to
suppression and prevention of lawless violence, invasion or rebellion. May I
know the reaction of the Committee to that observation?
MR. REGALADO: We feel that substantially there would be no difference
because that is the qualificative basis for his calling out the Armed Forces. It
is,
of course, a matter of style and it does not violate the rules on syntax, but
the idea is still there. These are taken from the provisions of the 1935
Constitution, Section 10 (2) and also the 1973 Constitution, as amended,
under Section 11 thereof.
MR. VILLACORTA: I see. Therefore, the Committee does not see any
difference wherever the phrase whenever it becomes necessary is placed.
FR. BERNAS: It will not make any difference. I may add that there is a
graduated power of the President as Commander-in-Chief. First, he can call
out such
Armed Forces as may be necessary to suppress lawless violence; then he can
suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus; then he can impose
martial
law. This is a graduated sequence.
When he judges that it is necessary to impose martial law or suspend the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, his judgment is subject to review. We
are
making it subject to review by the Supreme Court and subject to concurrence
by the National Assembly. But when he exercises this lesser power of calling
on
the Armed Forces, when he says it is necessary, it is my opinion that his
judgment cannot be reviewed by anybody.
MR. VILLACORTA: I see. Thank you, Madam President.
One last question, Madam President. On page 9, Section 19, lines 3 to 4
states: The spouse and relatives by consanguinity or affinity within the third
civil degree of the President . . . Could we add OR THE VICE-PRESIDENT
since the Vice-President could take over the position of the President? Should
we
not apply this prohibition to the Vice-President?
MR. REGALADO: We considered that in the Committee and we felt that it
should not apply to the Vice-President because he has no appointing power
unless of
course, he is acting as President. But then, there are safeguards insofar as an
acting President, in the person of the Vice-President, is concerned.
MR. VILLACORTA: It is true that the Vice-President has no appointing power,
but does the Gentleman not think that the President should be prevented
from
appointing relatives of his or her Vice-President as minister, deputy minister
or as bureau head?
MR. REGALADO: We could possibly consider that but I think it would be
extending the ban a little too far, and depriving the country of services of
people
who by the accident of relationship, happen to be within the restricted ambit.
MR. VILLACORTA: I was just anticipating the possibility that this VicePresident might be President one day, and the same argument that the
Gentleman
posited in defense of this prohibition as applied to the President should
probably also apply to the Vice-President who could be a President.
Nonetheless,
thank you very much.
MR. REGALADO: We will consider that at the proper time, but we will try to
find a remedy to qualm the Gentlemans apprehensions.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Garcia be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Before the Chair does that, we wish to acknowledge the
presence in the gallery of high school students from Maryknoll, and also the
students
of a political science class of the University of the Philippines.
Commissioner Garcia is recognized.
MR. GARCIA: Thank you, Madam President.
I would simply like to make two brief comments regarding Sections 18 and
20. I think we have here two instances where we can democratize the
exercise of
MR. GARCIA: I was thinking of a general direction. The direct experience I had
which led me to think along this line was the public consultation in Legaspi
where the fishermen spoke against the treaty of friendship with Japan. I
remember also in Capiz where the fishermen told us that trawlers were
coming in
and they felt that if they had a say regarding the friendship treaty, these
rights of fishermen regarding aquatic reforms could have benefited them
largely.
MR. REGALADO: I am completely sympathetic to the objective because after
all it would be the people who will ultimately have to pay for these loans. But
does the Gentleman not think that if the matter were brought directly to the
attention of the Cabinet minister concerned, that could also eventually end in
the Office of the President, properly articulated with the proper in-depth
research and the corresponding statistical support?
MR. GARCIA: Yes, I think that would be a very good contribution. But I would
still feel that if we could institutionalize a mechanism of popular
consultation, it would genuinely democratize the exercise of political power
by the Chief Executive. I think it will provide a built-in mechanism to ensure
that presidential prerogatives are constantly within the constraints of public
good.
FR. BERNAS: Correct me if I am wrong, the friendship treaty. I guess, was
under President Marcos during the martial law period.
MR. GARCIA: Exactly.
FR. BERNAS: And it was entered into without the safeguards we have here.
MR. GARCIA: Yes, that is it.
FR. BERNAS: Let us consider that a treaty is an international agreement and
shall not be valid and effective unless concurred in by at least two-thirds of
all the members of the legislature. That by itself is a safeguard. This may be
modified since the House of Representatives is the more popular body, and
one way of institutionalizing it is to give a role to the House of
Representatives which is more directly in touch with the people.
MR. GARCIA: I think that would be a good safeguard. But still I would
subscribe for a far more direct mechanism of popular consultation which I
think is
built-in in the Office of the President. We will make the President keep in
touch far more regularly and directly. The other point I wanted to make is
regarding the Monetary Board. It was mentioned by Commissioner Villegas in
his earlier remark regarding this question of contracting foreign loans that
the
Monetary Board will be more and more in the hands of the private sector
with the participation of private interest. I consider important for the
Monetary
Board the character of independence as well as a social character in order to
safeguard public interest. I was wondering whether the Committee on the
National Economy and Patrimony, when they were suggesting private
interest to be part of the Monetary Board, had in mind who would compose
the Board,
together with presidential appointments like the Minister of Finance and the
Central Bank Governor.
MR. REGALADO: We can ask Commissioner Villegas to explain to us the
present membership.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Villegas is recognized.
MR. VILLEGAS: Madam President, the situation can still be worked out by the
legislature so we are leaving it up to the legislature. But when we talk about
private interest, they could be either full-time members of the Board taken
from the private sector and the private sector can mean the business sector,
labor sector, private foundations so anything non-governmental. It could
be from private volunteer organizations. During the transition, the members
from
the private sector could be the majority chosen from any one of these
sectors referred to and qualified as private. But eventually the ideal situation
would be for all of them to really be full-time members of the Board, and the
moment they are full-time, they become government officials. That is going
to
be a problem that the legislature will have to work on. As I said, in countries
like the United States, the Federal Reserve System is completely
independent of the President and the executive branch, but they are full-time
officials of the government. So that is also one way of keeping its
independence to have a board made up of full-time members chosen in a
way that will be designated by the legislature.
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de Castro is recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: May I ask one question of Commissioner Villegas.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Garcia has still the floor.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you.
MR. REGALADO: The Committee considered that, and the Gentleman will
recall that in the 1935 Constitution the phrase imminent danger thereof
did not
appear in the Bill of Rights. However, the framers of the 1973 Constitution
wanted to have a strong President and they added the phrase imminent
danger
thereof in the provisions on the Commander-in Chief which in turn was
taken, I think, from the Philippine Bill of 1902 which granted that power to
the
then military governor. I suppose they considered the insurrectos a serious
threat to their attempt to colonize the Philippines, but recent events have
shown that the phrase imminent danger thereof is fraught with possibilities
of abuse. Where the President states that there is an imminent danger of
rebellion, it appears that he would have to rely on his word on that because
he could always say that this is the military intelligence report. The
military intelligence report consists of generally classified documents which,
even with the Supreme Court trying to look into their factual basis under
the present proposed Constitution, can still be thwarted because the
Supreme Court cannot just disregard a so-called classified, highly reliable
intelligence report coming from different intelligence agencies which for all
we know could easily be contrived in the hands of a scheming President. So,
in choosing between two evils, we felt that this was the lesser evil the
elimination of the phrase imminent danger thereof.
FR. BERNAS: Let me just add that when we only have imminent danger, the
matter can be handled by the first sentence: The President . . . may call out
such
armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion.
So we feel that that is sufficient for handling imminent danger.
MR. DE LOS REYES: So actually, if a President feels that there is imminent
danger of invasion or rebellion, instead of imposing martial law or
suspending
the writ of habeas corpus, he must necessarily have to call the Armed Forces
of the Philippines as their Commander-in-Chief. Is that the idea?
MR. REGALADO: That does not require any concurrence by the legislature nor
is it subject to judicial review.
MR. DE LOS REYES: But is not the suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus and the imposition of martial law more of the preparatory
steps
before the President should call the Armed Forces of the Philippines as
Commander-in-Chief? In other words, before calling the Armed Forces of the
Philippines should he not take the preparatory step of suspending the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or imposing martial law?
MR. REGALADO: As a matter of fact, the former President outlined the steps
and we have put them here as follows: (1) When it is only imminent danger,
although, of course, he did not use that term, he can already call out the
Armed Forces just to prevent or suppress violence; (2) if the situation has
worsened and there is a need for stronger measures, then aside from merely
calling out the Armed Forces he goes into the suspension of the privilege of
the
writ; (3) but if both measures calling out the Armed Forces and the
suspension of the privilege of the writ still prove unavailing in the face of
developments and exacerbated situation, this time he goes to the ultimate
which would be martial law.
MR. DE LOS REYES: As I see it now, the Committee envisions actual rebellion
and no longer imminent rebellion. Does the Committee mean that there
should be
actual shooting or actual attack on the legislature or Malacaang, for
example? Let us take for example a contemporary event this Manila Hotel
incident
everybody knows what happened. Would the Committee consider that an
actual act of rebellion?
MR. REGALADO: If we consider the definition of rebellion under Articles 134
and 135 of the Revised Penal Code, that presupposes an actual assemblage
of men
in an armed public uprising for the purposes mentioned in Article 134 and by
the means employed under Article 135. I am not trying to pose as an expert
about this rebellion that took place in the Manila Hotel, because what I know
about it is what I only read in the papers. I do not know whether we can
consider that there was really an armed public uprising. Frankly, I have my
doubts on that because we were not privy to the investigations conducted
there.
Commissioner Bernas would like to add something.
FR. BERNAS: Besides, it is not enough that there is actual rebellion. Even if
we will suppose for instance that the Manila Hotel incident was an actual
rebellion, that by itself would not justify the imposition of martial law or the
suspension of the privilege of the writ because the Constitution further
says: when the public safety requires it. So, even if there is a rebellion but
the rebellion can be handled and public safety can be protected without
imposing martial law or suspending the privilege of the writ, the President
need not. Therefore, even if we consider that a rebellion, clearly, it was
something which did not call for imposition of martial law.
MR. DE LOS REYES: I ask that question because I think modern rebellion can
be carried out nowadays in a more sophisticated manner because of the
advance of
technology, mass media and others. Let us consider this for example: There
is an obvious synchronized or orchestrated strike in all industrial firms, then
there is a strike of drivers so that employees and students cannot attend
school nor go to their places of work, practically paralyzing the government.
Then in some remote barrios, there are ambushes by so-called subversives,
so that the scene is that there is an orchestrated attempt to destabilize the
government and ultimately supplant the constitutional government.
Would the Committee call that an actual rebellion, or is it an imminent
rebellion?
MR. REGALADO: At the early stages where there was just an attempt to
paralyze the government or some sporadic incidents in other areas but
without armed
public uprising, that would only amount to sedition under Article 138, or it
can only be considered a tumultuous disturbance.
MR. DE LOS REYES: The public uprisings are not concentrated in one place
which used to be the concept of rebellion before.
MR. REGALADO: No.
MR. DE LOS REYES: But the public uprisings consist of isolated attacks in
several places for example in one camp here; another in the province of
Quezon;
and then in another camp in Laguna; no attack in Malacaang but there is
complete paralysis of the industry in the whole country. If we place these
things together the impression is clear that there is an attempt to
destabilize the government in order to supplant it with a new government.
MR. REGALADO: It becomes a matter of factual appreciation and evaluation.
The magnitude is to be taken into account when we talk about tumultuous
disturbance, to sedition, then graduating to rebellion. All these things are
variances of magnitude and scope. So, the President determines, based on
the
circumstances, if there is presence of a rebellion.
MR. DE LOS REYES: With the concurrence of Congress.
MR. REGALADO: And another is, if there is publicity involved, not only the
isolated situations. If they conclude that there is really an armed public
uprising although not all over the country, not only to destabilize but to
overthrow the government, that would already be considered within the
ambit of
rebellion. If the President considers it, it is not yet necessary to suspend the
With respect to the statement of the Gentleman regarding the Batasan being
blockaded by people, I am reminded of a question asked of me by Justice
Concepcion when I was in the fourth year political law review. He said, You
are talking about Congress. where is Congress? So I said. The legislative
building over there. Suppose, he said, that is destroyed by fire,
earthquake or any other calamity, where is Congress? Then I realized that
when I
thought I knew, I did not really know because the Congress as projected here
is any place wherein the Members of the House of Representatives and the
Senate lawfully congregate, assemble, deliberate and hold sessions, whether
it is in the Batasan building or under a grove of mango trees.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Anywhere, in other words. I would like to direct this last
question to Commissioner Maambong.
Commissioner Maambong stated earlier that it is still the ministerial duty of
the National Assembly to canvass the votes and examine the certificate of
canvass. In other words, the National Assembly has no alternative but to
proceed with the certificate of canvass without necessarily being bound by
the
alleged authenticity of the canvass. Is that correct?
MR. MAAMBONG: That is correct. That is what I said.
MR. DE LOS REYES: The Commissioner also said upon determination of the
authenticity and due execution thereof in the manner provided by law. The
phrase
manner provided by law does not only refer to statutory law, but to
jurisprudence; in other words, stare decisis or decisions of the Supreme
Court on the
matter. Is that correct?
MR. MAAMBONG: That is correct.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Thank you.
Although I have other points, I will just limit my points to these two and
reserve other matters during the presentation of amendments.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: May I just ask one follow-up question with respect to the
interpellation of Commissioner de los Reyes?
THE PRESIDENT: The Gentleman may proceed.
MR. MONSOD: If I heard Commissioner de los Reyes right, he mentioned that
it is a ministerial right of Congress to canvass the presidential elections, and
if I also heard him right, he said that Congress has no choice but to go ahead
regardless of the authenticity of the canvassing results. Is that correct?
MR. DE LOS REYES: No. I said, without being bound. This means that the
Congress still has the power to determine the genuineness and authenticity
of the
certificates, but the duty to canvass is there. The Congress should canvass,
but with respect to the determination of the genuineness and authenticity of
the certificates of canvass based on existing laws and jurisprudence. I just
clarified whether it is limited to statutory laws or to the decisions of the
Supreme Court or what constitutes genuine and authentic certificates.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, if a prudent examination will show that
canvassing results are not authentic, not duly executed, and do not reflect
the votes
because the canvassing results do not have the attached statement of votes
of each polling place, what is the responsibility of the Congress?
MR. MAAMBONG: May I respond to that? In the present law that we have, we
have only one copy of the certificate of canvass. According to the Omnibus
Election Code and the law which mandated the holding of the special
presidential election, attached to this copy of the certificate of canvass is the
statement of votes. That is a legal requirement. When the board of tellers
goes over the certificate of canvass and the words, figures, signatures and
thumbmarks are clearly written, the question probably, Madam President, is,
what will they do if there is no attachment of statement of votes? The answer
to that is: The board of tellers would have to suspend the canvass and inform
the Commission on Elections to produce before the body their copy of the
certificate of canvass wherein the statement of votes is also attached. The
board of tellers could also inform the opposition party to produce their copy
of the certificate of canvass and the statement of votes attached to the
same, and also inform the majority party. That would be the proper sequence
of
procedure, Madam President.
MR. MONSOD: Suppose the numbers in the certificate of canvass do not
coincide with the attachments which are really the votes per polling place?
MR. MAAMBONG: If the figures which are the total figures appearing in the
certificate of canvass will not tally with the figures that would pose quite a
problem. That is precisely the reason why in the present configuration of the
provision, we placed there determination of the authenticity and due
execution thereof in the manner provided by law because to my knowledge,
there is no law which gives a guideline in such a circumstance. As a matter of
fact, in the actual canvass of votes of the President in the last presidential
election. we did not encounter that kind of problem. And there is no such
equivalent provision in the Omnibus Election Code or in the Special Election
Law for the President.
MR. MONSOD: Were there instances where the certificates of canvass after
examination were shown not to have been authentic on their faces or had
irregularities and the Assembly still read those certificates of canvass? I am
asking now if there were instances like those, Madam President.
MR. MAAMBONG: That is a very valid question. The usual objection was that
not all the members of the board of canvassers, whether by the province or
city
or district, signed some certificates of canvass. But that is remedied by the
provision of the Omnibus Election Code which says that in case one or two
members of the board of canvassers did not sign, but a majority of the
membership thereof signed, then that particular certificate of canvass can be
used
in the tabulation. But that was the decision because there was a law. But the
problem is when there is such a circumstance and there is no law covering it.
That is the reason we placed here in the manner provided by law so that
we can more or less anticipate problems of this nature.
MR. MONSOD: Commissioner de los Reyes also mentioned that in the
absence of a law, jurisprudence would be taken into account. Does that in
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 4:57 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: The Commissioners have carefully studied the Article on
Accountability of Public Officers; I move that we put it to a vote on Second
Reading.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
RECONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 456
(Article on Accountability of Public Officers)
Continuation
PERIOD OF AMENDMENTS
MS. AQUINO: Thank you. Madam President.
I am constrained to seek a reconsideration of the voting on Section 14 which
included the judiciary in the prohibition of the availments of loans and
guarantees from government-owned or controlled banks. There is an
overwhelming reaction against the approval of the inclusion of the judiciary,
without
distinction, among the groups prohibited from availing of the loans and
guarantees of government-owned or controlled banks.
Madam President, I am actually taking up the cudgels for the senior citizens
of the Commission who, for one reason or another, have appointed me and
designated me to seek reconsideration of this section. They may be a little
timid about it, but just the same, I share their sentiment on this matter.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the motion to reconsider, as
submitted by Commissioner Aquino? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is
approved.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
amendment is approved.
MR. MONSOD: We will leave it to the Committee on Style whether to put it
before or after the word notify, Madam President.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: I would just like to move for a reconsideration of the
approval of Section 3 (3). My reconsideration will not at all affect the
substance,
but it is only in keeping with the exact formulation of the Rules of the House
of Representatives of the United States regarding impeachment.
I am proposing, Madam President, without doing damage to any of this
provision, that on page 2, Section 3 (3), from lines 17 to 18, we delete the
words
which read: to initiate impeachment proceedings and the comma (,) and
insert on line 19 after the word resolution the phrase WITH THE ARTICLES,
and
then capitalize the letter i in impeachment and replace the word by
with OF, so that the whole section will now read: A vote of at least one-third
of all the Members of the House shall be necessary either to affirm a
resolution WITH THE ARTICLES of Impeachment OF the Committee or to
override its
contrary resolution. The vote of each Member shall be recorded.
I already mentioned earlier yesterday that the initiation, as far as the House
of Representatives of the United States is concerned, really starts from the
filing of the verified complaint and every resolution to impeach always
carries with it the Articles of Impeachment. As a matter of fact, the words
Articles of Impeachment are mentioned on line 25 in the case of the direct
filing of a verified complaint of one-third of all the Members of the House. I
will mention again, Madam President, that my amendment will not vary the
substance in any way. It is only in keeping with the uniform procedure of the
House of Representatives of the United States Congress.
Thank you. Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: May we hear from Commissioners Davide and Regalado
because I understand they are co-authors of this section.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President may we have one minute to confer with
Commissioner Regalado?
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.
It was 5:04 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 5:06 p.m., the session is resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, I have conferred with the principal
proponent of this provision on impeachment, Commissioner Regalado, in
collaboration with
the Chairman of the Committee on Accountability of Public Officers, and they
have no objection to the amendment. I will just make it of record, Madam
President, that with regard to the last phrase of line 20 which says: to
override its contrary resolution, whenever the body will override the
resolution
of impeachment of the Committee, it is understood that the body itself will
prepare the Article of Impeachment. That is the only clarification which
Commissioner Regalado and the Chairman of the Committee wanted me to
put on record.
Thank you. Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Let us first submit to the body the motion of Commissioner
Maambong to reconsider the approval of Section 3 (3).
Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is
approved.
The proposed amendment which has been submitted by Commissioner
Maambong was clarified and has been accepted by the Committee on
Accountability of Public
Officers.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, may I read again the whole section?
THE PRESIDENT: Please proceed.
MR. MAAMBONG: As amended, the whole Section 3 (3) will read: A vote of at
least one-third of all the Members of the House shall be necessary either to
the
Batasang Pambansa; however, we finally ended up with only one participant
from the Batasang Pambansa. Because of this rather traumatic experience,
we
thought that we should direct our efforts to the peoples organizations
themselves. For this reason, we set up the Resources for the Peoples
Program to
allow social scientists to work directly with the peoples organizations as well
as advocates of peoples organizations.
It is one of our main concerns that those in the public service should indeed
maintain high standards of ethics and efficiency. For this reason, I just
want to point out in relation to Section 12 (7), which has something to do
with efforts to determine and make recommendations for the observance of
high
standards of ethics and efficiency, the root causes of inefficiency, red tape,
mismanagement, frauds and corruption in the government that most of the
provisions that have to do with the functions of the Tanodbayan or
Ombudsman are reactive and corrective in character. We thought that these
provisions
should allow for anticipation and, therefore, should be preventive of
bureaucratic corruption. Nonetheless, the provisions, I think, fail to
underscore the
fact that we cannot isolate bureaucratic corruption from the larger problems
of society. Let us quote, for instance, from a study of bureaucratic
corruption in Asia, which says:
The major lacuna in the anticorruption policies adopted by all of these
countries is that they seem to view the problem of governmental corruption
in very
myopic terms in isolation from other forms of white-collar crime.
Underlying most anticorruption policies, there is the assumption that the
problem of
corruption in government has very little to do with the other forms of whitecollar criminality. This in fact accounts for a sizable part of the
ineffectiveness of their anticorruption policies or strategies. As a matter of
fact, corruption in public bureaucracy and government as will be shown
below constitutes a part of the wider area of white-collar crimes. Whitecollar crime in every sense is real crime. It has been overlooked and
underplayed far too long.
For the record, let me just read the definition of white-collar crimes by the
United States Department of Justice:
Those classes of non-violent illegal activities which principally involve
traditional notions of deceit, deception, concealment, manipulation, breach
of
trust, subterfuge or illegal circumvention.
The point is that we really should not isolate efforts at combating
bureaucratic corruption from the larger crimes that take place in the larger
society. I
think that it should be part of the duties of the Ombudsman to anticipate and
make necessary corrections with respect to bureaucratic corruption.
Thank you, Madam President.
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 456 ON SECOND READING
(Article on Accountability of Public Officers)
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I move that we vote on Proposed
Resolution No. 456, as amended, on Second Reading.
THE PRESIDENT. Those who are in favor of Proposed Resolution No. 456, as
amended, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
Those who are against, please raise their hand. (One Member raised his
hand.)
Those who are abstaining, please raise their hand. (One Member raised his
hand.)
The results show 35 votes in favor, one against and one abstention.
Proposed Resolution No. 456, as amended, is approved on Second Reading.
CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 517
(Article on the Executive)
Continuation
PERIOD OF SPONSORSHIP AND DEBATE
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President. may we proceed to the period of
interpellations of Proposed Resolution No. 517?
I ask that Commissioner Bennagen be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
MR. REGALADO: Under the rules of statutory construction, when we use the
word shall alone there may be instances when it may be considered
may, but
when this is used in a negative shall not then that is mandatory.
MR. BENNAGEN: We take it to mean, therefore, that may in the second
sentence is also mandatory?
MR. REGALADO: Yes, it is mandatory.
MR. BENNAGEN: Thank you.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, we have four more interpellators. May I
ask that Commissioner Rosario Braid be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rosario Braid is recognized.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Madam President and honorable sponsors, my
comment is on Section 18, page 8, which has to do with the powers of the
President to
contract foreign loans. I quite concur with my fellow Commissioners that
perhaps we should have a more specific provision not necessarily in the
Article on
the Executive, and that the Committee on the National Economy and
Patrimony come up with specific criteria and mechanisms that would ensure
the broadening
of the membership of this Monetary Board to include those in the social
sector and would ensure the Boards independence.
My second comment has to do with Section 17, the last sentence of the first
paragraph which does not appear in the previous Constitutions. Is there a
reason for including it in the section? What is its rationale?
MR. REGALADO: May we know what last sentence the Commissioner is
referring to.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID. The last sentence of the first paragraph of Section 17
which reads:
However, the power to grant executive clemency for violations of corrupt
practices laws may be limited by legislation.
MR. REGALADO: Actually this is an addition to the already existing limitations
to the pardoning power of the President. The Commissioner will notice that
we took into account those crimes which are of such magnitude as to affect
not only the political but also the economic life of the country, as, for
MR. REGALADO: We will ask Commissioner Rodrigo, the defender of the fair
sex and Chairman of the Committee on Style, to look for a felicitous
substitute
for that.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Lastly, on page 3, which refers to the salary of the
executive, lines 24 to 27 may be deleted perhaps because we may not want
to specify
the salary on account of the fluctuating value of the peso.
MR. REGALADO: For the information of Commissioner Rosario Braid, there
was a proposal from Commissioner Monsod to follow what they did in the
salaries of
the judiciary so that we could adopt that formulation for the salaries of the
executive as well as of the legislative departments
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Thank you.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I ask that the honorable
Commissioner Suarez be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Madam President.
May I go over this Article and let me begin with page 2, Section 4, line 5. I do
not know if this point had already been clarified but the term National
Assembly is being used. In conducting the canvass of presidential and vicepresidential elections, is our understanding correct that this will be done
jointly by the House of Representatives and the Senate in joint session
assembled?
MR. REGALADO: May we ask for the page, section and line number.
MR. SUAREZ: This is on page 2, line 5, Section 4.
MR. REGALADO: Page 2. I think Commissioner Suarez might be using the
original resolution. Does the copy of the Commissioner have on the upper
right hand
corner this parenthetical phrase Adjusted to Bicameral Legislature?
MR. SUAREZ: No, what I have is the one with the parenthetical phrase
Substitute Resolution.
MR. REGALADO: There is a subsequent one.
Will the Secretariat kindly furnish Commissioner Suarez a copy of the latest
adjustment.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
Under the latest draft, it says:
. . . open all the certificates in the presence of the Senate and the House of
Representatives in joint public session.
Is joint public session equivalent to in joint session assembled that was
used under the 1935 Constitution?
MR. REGALADO: That is right. It was emphasized that it should be in joint
public session.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you. Let me proceed to line 23, page 2, wherein it is
provided, and I quote:
The Supreme Court, sitting en banc shall be the sole judge of all contests
relating to the election, returns and qualifications of the President or
Vice-president.
Are we not giving enormous work to the Supreme Court especially when it is
directed to sit en banc as the sole judge of all presidential and
vice-presidential election contests?
MR. SUMULONG: That question will be referred to Commissioner Concepcion.
MR. CONCEPCION: This function was discharged by the Supreme Court twice
and the Supreme Court was able to dispose of each case in a period of one
year as
provided by law. Of course, that was probably during the late 1960s and
early 1970s. I do not know how the present Supreme Court would react to
such
circumstances, but there is also the question of who else would hear the
election protests.
MR. SUAREZ: We are asking this question because between lines 23 to 25,
there are no rules provided for the hearings and there is no time limit or
duration
for the election contest to be decided by the Supreme Court. Also, we will
have to consider the historical background that when RA 1793, which
organized
the Presidential Electoral Tribunal, was promulgated on June 21, 1957, at
least three famous election contests were presented and two of them ended
up in
withdrawal by the protestants out of sheer frustration because of the delay in
the resolution of the cases. I am referring to the electoral protest that
was lodged by former President Carlos P. Garcia against our kabalen former
President Diosdado Macapagal in 1961 and the vice-presidential election
contest filed by the late Senator Gerardo Roxas against Vice-President
Fernando Lopez in 1965.
MR. CONCEPCION: I cannot answer for what the protestants had in mind. But
when that protest of Senator Roxas was withdrawn, the results were already
available. Senator Roxas did not want to have a decision adverse to him. The
votes were being counted already, and he did not get what he expected so
rather than have a decision adverse to his protest, he withdrew the case.
MR. SUAREZ: Also, there is the case of the late Senator Sergio Osmea filed
against President Marcos in 1969.
MR. CONCEPCION: The same thing happened. These withdrawals took place
when the results were already about to be announced.
MR. SUAREZ: I see. So the Commissioner would not have any objection to
vesting in the Supreme Court this matter of resolving presidential and
vice-presidential contests?
MR. CONCEPCION: Personally, I would not have any objection.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
Would the Commissioner not consider that violative of the doctrine of
separation of powers?
MR. CONCEPCION: I think Commissioner Bernas explained that this is a
contest between two parties. This is a judicial power.
MR. SUAREZ: We know, but practically the Committee is giving to the
judiciary the right to declare who will be the President of our country, which
to me is
a political action.
MR. CONCEPCION: There are legal rights which are enforceable under the
law, and these are essentially justiciable questions.
MR. SUAREZ: If the election contest proved to be long, burdensome and
tedious, practically all the time of the Supreme Court sitting en banc would
be
occupied with it considering that they will be going over millions and millions
of ballots or election returns, Madam President.
MR. CONCEPCION: The time consumed or to be consumed in this contest for
President is dependent upon the key number of teams of revisors. I have no
experience insofar as contests in other offices are concerned.
MR. SUAREZ: Although there is a requirement here that the Supreme Court is
mandated to sit en banc?
MR. CONCEPCION: Yes.
MR. SUAREZ: I see.
MR. CONCEPCION: The steps involved in this contest are: First, the ballot
boxes are opened before teams of three, generally, a representative each of
the
court, of the protestant and of the protestee. It is all a question of how
many teams are organized. Of course, that can be expensive, but it would be
expensive whatever court one would choose. There were times that the
Supreme Court, with sometimes 50 teams at the same time working, would
classify the
objections, the kind of problems, and the court would only go over the
objected votes on which the parties could not agree. So it is not as awesome
as it
would appear insofar as the Court is concerned. What is awesome is the cost
of the revision of the ballots because each party would have to appoint one
representative for every team, and that may take quite a big amount.
MR. SUAREZ: If we draw from the Commissioners experience which he is
sharing with us, what would be the reasonable period for the election contest
to be
decided?
MR. CONCEPCION: Insofar as the Supreme Court is concerned, the Supreme
Court always manages to dispose of the case in one year.
MR. SUAREZ: In one year. Thank you for the clarification.
May I now go to page 4, Section 9, lines 17 and 18. Let me just read it so the
Committee will understand me.
MR. MAAMBONG: Will the Commissioner refer by section.
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, I thought I was working on the amended draft. Section 11,
lines 10 to 11, states: such powers and duties shall be discharged by the
Vice-President as Acting President. It is not Section 9, Madam President.
MR. MAAMBONG: Section 11.
MR. REGALADO: Where are we now?
MR. SUAREZ: Section 11, second paragraph states: Whenever a majority of
all the members of the Cabinet transmit to the President. This is different
again, is it not?
MR. REGALADO: Page 5, Section 11.
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes.
MR. SUAREZ. No, I have it on Section 9 of my copy. Section 9, page 4, lines
11 to 18 states:
The Congress shall by law provide permanent disability or resignation of the
Acting President at the time the vacancy in the Office of the President occurs
or subsequently thereafter, declaring who shall serve as President until the
President and the Vice-President shall have been elected and qualified,
subject to the same restrictions of powers and disqualifications as the Acting
President.
My clarificatory question, Madam President, is this: Is it necessary for the one
declared as Acting President to be a Member of Congress or could he or
she, if I may be clear on that point, be drawn even from the private
nonpolitical sector?
MR. REGALADO: Will Commissioner Suarez please repeat the question. Is he
referring to page 4, lines 11 to 18?
MR. SUAREZ: It is the whole Section 9 which reads:
In case of permanent disability, death, removal from office or resignation of
the President, the Vice-President shall become the President to serve the
unexpired term.
There is no problem in this provision, but the next sentence reads:
The Congress shall by law provide for the case of permanent disability,
death, removal from office or resignation of both the President and Vice
President,
declaring which officer shall then become Acting President or the manner in
which one shall be selected.
My question is: Is it necessary to draw this officer from the ranks of the
Members of Congress or is it theoretically possible that even a nonpublic
official can be appointed by Congress as Acting President of our country?
MR. REGALADO: The contemplation here, in line with the other relevant
provisions of this Article, was that he shall be chosen from the elected
representatives of the people.
MR. SUAREZ: Does the Commissioner not agree with me that that is not clear
in this particular section?
MR. REGALADO: We will entertain an amendment at the proper time to make
this particular section very clear.
MR. SUAREZ: So it is clear that the intention of the Committee in proposing
this provision is to the effect that the Acting President should come from the
Members of Congress.
MR. REGALADO: That is right, from the Members of Congress.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
May we now go to Section 11, page 5. This refers to the Presidents written
declaration of inability to discharge the powers and duties of the Office of
the President. Can this written declaration be done for and in behalf of the
President if, for example, the President is in no position to sign his name,
like if he suffers an accident and both of his arms get to be amputated?
MR. REGALADO: We have not had a situation like that even in the jurisdiction
from which we borrowed this provision, but we feel that in that remote
situation that the Commissioner has cited in that the President cannot make
a written declaration, I suppose an alternative would be considered wherein
he
can so expressly manifest in an authentic manner what should be contained
in a written declaration. The purpose of a written declaration is to establish
authenticity.
MR. SUAREZ: But the phrase written declaration precludes any other kind
of declaration. I am thinking in terms of what happened to President Wilson.
Really, the physical disability of that Gentleman was never made clear to the
historians. But suppose a situation will happen in our country where the
President may suffer a coma and gets to be unconscious, which is practically
a total inability to discharge the powers and duties of his office, how can he
MR. SUAREZ: That means it is then incumbent, after a certain period of time,
for the members of the Cabinet to transmit to the President of the Senate
their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge his
functions.
FR. BERNAS: Yes, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: And they will not have to wait for the written declaration
coming from the President who is in coma?
FR. BERNAS: Precisely, because he will never be able to make the written
declaration.
MR. SUAREZ: That is why we really have to interpret the first sentence of
Section 11, first paragraph with the second paragraph.
FR. BERNAS: Yes.
MR. REGALADO: With the indulgence of Commissioner Suarez, what it means
is that the second paragraph comes into play whenever the President,
although
capable of making a written declaration, refuses to do so or although he is
willing to make that written declaration, he is incapable of doing so, then the
initiative shall be taken by the majority of the members of the Cabinet.
MR. SUAREZ: That changes the complexion of the answer of the Honorable
Bernas insofar as the first paragraph of Section 11 is concerned, Madam
President.
MR. REGALADO: Under Section 11, Commissioner Bernas was correct in that
if the President is capable of making the written declaration himself, he may
do
so; but if he is really incapable or in coma, as the Commissioner said, I think
Commissioner Bernas answer was that it can be done.
MR. SUAREZ: Under paragraph 2? But we are precluding that under the
second paragraph.
FR. BERNAS: Yes. The situation the Commissioner contemplates under the
first paragraph is that of a person whose only defect is that both his hands
were
amputated.
MR. SUAREZ: Or he is completely or totally unconscious.
prevent a recurrence of such a situation. Besides, it was not only the Wilson
matter. As I have already mentioned here, they have had five situations in
the United States, including those of President Garfield, President Wilson,
President Roosevelt and President Eisenhower.
MR. SUAREZ: Let me go to Section 19. I do not know if in the latest draft this
has already been amended because what was stated here was only
directly,
and probably the Commissioner would have noticed that in the matter of
special or financial privilege, it should also include indirectly.
I wonder if the Committee had already taken note of the phrase in Section
19, line 29 which states: financially interested directly in any contract . .
. Did the Committee deliberately omit the phrase or indirectly, which
refers to financial or special privilege?
MR. REGALADO: We will entertain an amendment to that. We took that from
Section 11(2) of the 1935 Constitution. But I suppose the Committee will
entertain
a perfecting amendment at the proper time.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
The last question is with reference to the Committees omitting in the draft
proposal the immunity suit provision for the President. I agree with
Commissioner Nolledo that the Committee did very well in striking out this
second sentence, at the very least, of the original provision on immunity
from
suit under the 1973 Constitution. But would the Committee members not
agree to a restoration of at least the first sentence that the President shall be
immune from suit during his tenure, considering that if we do not provide
him that kind of an immunity he might be spending all of his time facing
litigations, as the President-in-exile in Hawaii is now facing litigations almost
daily?
FR. BERNAS: The reason for the omission is that we consider it understood in
present jurisprudence that during his tenure he is immune from suit.
MR. SUAREZ: So, there is no need to express it here.
FR. BERNAS: There is no need. It was that way before. The only innovation
made by the 1973 Constitution was to make that explicit and to add other
things.
MR. SUAREZ: On that understanding, I will not press for any more query,
Madam President.
Could we not do something by way of making it definite that the VicePresident, even as we have enumerated the functions of the President in his
responsibilities, shall be I do not know if Commissioner Monsod would
laugh at this the Ombudsman and the champion of the people so that by
being in
that category, he will become a knowledgeable, effective kind of a leader
when he becomes President? I am just wondering about that.
FR. BERNAS: Similar points were raised this morning by the Honorable
Rodrigo, and our answer was that we certainly would entertain amendments
which would
attempt to give an important position to the Vice-President. However, with
respect to lines 19 and 20, which say: The Vice-President may be appointed
as a
member of the Cabinet, we said that it is necessary not to make this
mandatory because of the nature of the presidential system.
In the presidential system, a member of the Cabinet is necessarily in the
bosom of the President, and under the principle of qualified political agency,
an
act of a Cabinet member is an act of the President, unless specifically
repudiated by him. So that necessarily, therefore, any member of the
Cabinet must
be somebody whom the President absolutely trusts. We cannot impose
Cabinet members on him. So we give him the liberty to make the VicePresident a Cabinet
member or not.
So while we would not yield on forcing the President to take him as a Cabinet
member, he would entertain other positions for him, perhaps, as President of
the Senate.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, that is another consuelo de bobo because if
we make him the presiding officer of the Senate, we even take away the
privilege
of voting because he only votes when there is a tie.
FR. BERNAS: It is just an example, Madam President, and if the Commissioner
can think of a preeminent position for the Vice-President, we will entertain
it.
MR. TINGSON: Yes, I already sent a note to Commissioner Rodrigo this
morning regarding this matter Being my seatmate, he was the one who told
me what the
technicalities were, so I told him to kindly support me in my proposed
amendment about which I am very much concerned, which is to make the
position of the
Vice-President more dignified, more respectable and more meaningful. And I
think Commissioner Rodrigo is in sympathy with it now that the
Commissioner
mentioned that he asked questions about it.
So I would be very happy if the Committee would entertain an amendment
regarding the position of the Vice-President at the proper time.
Thank you very much.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I ask, Madam President, that the honorable Chancellor
and Commissioner Guingona be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Guingona is recognized.
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you, Madam President.
In reply to the interpellation of Commissioner Suarez regarding the first
paragraph of Section 9, the Committee said that the officer who shall be
declared
Acting President will be chosen from among the Members of Congress; am I
correct?
FR. BERNAS: That was the answer given.
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you.
FR. BERNAS: And we also said that that does not come out very clearly in the
text so that, therefore, we will entertain amendments to clarify it.
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you.
With regard to the second paragraph, I suppose the same answer will hold
regarding the person declared by Congress to become the Acting President.
When we say that the Congress shall declare which officer shall become the
Acting President, I presume that we are talking of Congress in joint session
assembled, which means that in practically all cases, it will be a Member of
the House who will be selected because of its sheer number of Members.
FR. BERNAS: Section 9, second paragraph says that Congress shall by law
provide for it.
MR. GUINGONA: So it will have to be by law, if both Houses will have to
concur?
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, we have the last two interpellators, and I
hope there will be no more interpellators after them. I ask that the honorable
Commissioner Jamir be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Jamir is recognized.
MR. JAMIR: This is not exactly an interpellation, Madam President, but merely
a clarification. I refer to Section 4, lines 20 to 22, page 2, where two or
more candidates for President obtained equal and the highest number of
votes, which says:
. . . one of them shall forthwith be chosen by the vote of a majority of all the
members of the Congress.
May I know whether the two Houses of Congress will be sitting together in
joint session or separately.
MR. REGALADO: The antecedent to that in the matter of the canvass already
speaks of a joint public session as we will note on lines 14 to 15. So in case
there is a tie, that very same joint public session will so determine.
MR. JAMIR: Thank you. My last clarificatory question is with reference to
Section 6, page 3 of the draft Article regarding the oath to be taken by the
President or Acting President, where there is no mention of the VicePresident. Is he going to take the same oath as provided here or not?
MR. REGALADO: There is no mention of the Vice-President in this section
because he may already be the President himself in case of death or
permanent
incapacity of the elected President, in which case he takes the oath as
President.
MR. JAMIR: No, but when the President and the Vice-President take their oath
together upon inception to office, what oath shall the Vice-President take?
MR. REGALADO: Actually, in the previous Constitutions there were no such
provisions. It was assumed that he would take the same oath as the
President since
after all, he is just a heartbeat away as has been mentioned here. I think in
actual practice, they take the same oath.
MR. JAMIR: What made me doubt was the phrase here President or Acting
President. It seems that he will take his oath only when he becomes the
Acting
President.
MR. REGALADO: No, we added the phrase Acting President because there
are actually three situations where there can be an Acting President. But we
have
not provided for any oath, I think, in the 1935 or the 1973 Constitution
insofar as the Vice-President is concerned, it being assumed that he would
also
take the same oath as the President but in his capacity as Vice-President.
MR. JAMIR: Will there be any harm if instead of putting there or Acting
President, we put President and Vice-President?
MR. REGALADO: Perhaps, we can include under Section 6, line 9 the VicePresident. I do not think there will be any harm if we now specify that he
should
take the same oath.
MR. JAMIR: When the time for the period of amendments comes, we will
introduce an amendment.
Thank you.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, I ask that the honorable Vice-President,
Commissioner Padilla, be recognized as the last interpellator.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Padilla is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: Thank you, Madam President.
I agree with most of the changes introduced by the Committee as explained
by its distinguished Chairman.
I would like to go back to Section 15, on the commander-in-chief provision of
the Constitution on the Armed Forces.
I realize that without the restrictions or limitations that were inserted, this
provision is basically a copy of both the 1935 and the 1973 Constitutions.
The first sentence speaks of calling the Armed Forces to prevent or suppress
lawless violence, although it mentions also invasion or rebellion and, I would
feel, also lawless violence or public disorder. The second sentence joins
together the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and the
proclamation of martial law, partly or wholly, throughout the Philippine
Archipelago.
In the following paragraphs of that Section 15, the Committee correctly
distinguished between a state of the declaration of martial law and the
suspension
of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. Will the Committee consider
dividing the second sentence of the first paragraph of Section 15 to the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and to the
declaration or proclamation of martial law, since the Committee correctly
distinguished
between a state of the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus and the state
of the proclamation of martial law because according to the Committee itself,
there is a substantial difference between the two situations?
MR. REGALADO: I think the Committee will appreciate an amendment at the
proper time.
MR. PADILLA: Thank you.
The way it now appears, the President as the Commander-in-Chief of all the
Armed Forces cannot immediately suspend the writ or proclaim martial law. I
agree with the period mentioned of 60 days, but it requires the concurrence
of at least a majority of all the Members of the Congress.
Should we not allow the President to suspend the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus or even proclaim martial law without requiring a prior, or
beforehand, the concurrence of the majority of the Members of Congress? If
we wait for the congressional concurrence, the suspension of the writ or the
proclamation of martial law may be unduly delayed. Will the Committee
consider an amendment to the effect that the President may suspend the
privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus or even proclaim martial law, but the period shall
be limited unless there be subsequent concurrence of the Congress since the
Committee itself provides that the Congress may revoke, reduce or even
extend the period of 60 days? The point is for the insipiency of the
suspension or
the proclamation, it must not be preaccompanied by the concurrence of a
majority of the Members of the Congress.
MR. REGALADO: If the Commissioner will propose an amendment at the
proper time, I think we can even subject it to the reactions of the body.
MR. PADILLA: Yes, thank you very much. And probably because of some
substantial difference between the state of the suspension of the privilege of
the writ
of habeas corpus and the state of the proclamation of martial law, perhaps
we can also make some distinctions as to the grounds for each of these two
situations.
MR. REGALADO: Yes.
Footnotes:
* Appeared after the roll call.
* See appendix.
R.C.C. NO. 43
Wednesday, July 30, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
At 9:43 a.m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia Muoz Palma, opened the
session.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is called to order.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please rise to sing the National Anthem.
Everybody rose to sing the National Anthem.
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please remain standing for the Prayer to be
led by the Honorable Efrain B. Treas.
Everybody remained standing for the Prayer.
PRAYER
MR. TREAS: Heavenly Father, we humbly ask Your divine guidance in our
noble task to fulfill the sacred trust reposed in us to frame a fundamental law
for
our people.
Imbue us with Your Holy Spirit to enable us to enshrine in a Constitution the
principles of brotherhood, liberty, justice and democracy which You have so
kindly restored to us in Your miracle last February.
Inspire us with the same fervor of Your Holy Passion of the Cross so that we
may be able to overcome the hatred and vindictiveness that are the natural
fruits of more than a decade of ruthless suppression and persecution.
Lead us along the path of forgiveness and reconciliation towards the altar of
wisdom and statesmanship so that in the end we may achieve our solemn
goal of
Present*
Natividad
Present*
Alonto
Present*
Nieva
Present*
Aquino
Present*
Nolledo
Present
Azcuna
Present*
Ople
Present*
Bacani
Present*
Padilla
Present
Bengzon
Present
Quesada
Present
Bennagen
Present
Rama
Present
Bernas
Present*
Regalado
Present
Rosario Braid
Present
Reyes de los
Present*
Brocka
Present*
Rigos
Present
Calderon
Present
Rodrigo
Present
Castro de
Present
Romulo
Present
Colayco
Present
Rosales
Present
Concepcion
Present
Sarmiento
Present*
Davide
Present
Suarez
Present
Foz
Present*
Sumulong
Present
Garcia
Present*
Tadeo
Present*
Gascon
Present*
Tan
Present
Guingona
Present
Tingson
Present
Jamir
Present
Treas
Present
Laurel
Present
Uka
Present
Lerum
Present*
Villacorta
Present*
Maambong
Present*
Villegas
Present
Monsod
Present
chances to bloom into full flowering if implemented along the lines of the
new governments humane concern and sincere call for self-renewal.
(Communication No. 376 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Social Justice.
Letter from Mr. Jeremias U. Montemayor and Mr. Democrito T. Mendoza for
the Trade Union Congress of the Philippines (TUCP), submitting its position
paper
on the American military bases in the Philippines recommending that the
present Philippine-U.S. Mutual Defense Treaty be respected until its
expiration in
1991.
(Communication No. 377 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on General Provisions.
Resolution from the Olongapo Jaycees, Inc., No. 12 Aquarius St., Lower
Kalaklan, Olongapo City. signed by its President. Mr. Johnny B. Choa,
recommending
the retention of the United States bases in the Philippines after 1991.
(Communication No. 378 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
Letter from Stop Trafficking of Pilipinos Foundation Inc. signed by its
President. Minerva G. Laudico, and the other officers and members of the
Board of
Directors calling attention to the alarming resurgence of in decency in mass
media and entertainment and expressing alarm at the manner in which the
courts
have ruled in favor of those who have no apparent regard for the dignity of
women and for decent family relationship.
(Communication No. 379 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on General Provisions.
Communication signed by Ms. Elsa M. Gavino and one hundred fifty others.
urging that regulations on foreign investments and the determination of the
areas
of investment should be left to the legislature.
(Communication No. 380 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
same qualifications and term of office and then add the word AND, so that
the first sentence now will read as follows: There shall be a Vice-President
who shall HAVE THE SAME QUALIFICATIONS AND TERM OF OFFICE AND be
elected with and in the same manner as the President.
MR. SUMULONG: The Committee accepts the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Will Commissioner Davide restate his amendment?
MR. DAVIDE: The first line of Section 3, as amended, would read as follows:
There shall be a Vice-President who shall HAVE THE SAME QUALIFICATIONS
AND
TERM OF OFFICE AND be elected with and in the same manner as the
President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Committee has accepted the amendment. Is there any
objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is approved.
MR. DAVIDE: On line 18 of the same section, I move for the deletion of the
phrase as provided in this Constitution.
MR. SUMULONG: The Committee accepts, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Committee has accepted the amendment.
Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is
approved.
MR. DAVIDE: On line 20, I seek to introduce a new sentence after the period
(.) following the word cabinet. It reads: SUCH APPOINTMENT REQUIRES NO
CONFIRMATION.
MR. REGALADO: For the record, will Commissioner Davide state the reason
for his proposed amendment?
MR. DAVIDE: The reason for this is to appoint the Vice-President as a member
of the Cabinet and to require a confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments
on this might rather be degrading to the Office of the Vice-President. As a
matter of fact, for the judiciary and for the Ombudsman as well, we do not
require confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. In line, therefore,
with the prestige of the Office of the Vice-President, I propose that the
appointment of the Vice-President to any Cabinet position should also not
necessitate a confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.
MR. SUMULONG: With the explanation given by the proponent, we accept the
amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the Commissioner read once more his proposed
amendment?
MR. DAVIDE: The amendment would be another sentence after the period (.)
following cabinet on page 1, line 20: SUCH APPOINTMENT REQUIRES NO
CONFIRMATION.
THE PRESIDENT: The Committee has accepted the amendment.
Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is
approved.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, on page 2, more particularly Section 4, line 5,
the amendments are: (I) Delete the word He and substitute it with the
words
THE PRESIDENT; (2) delete also the following words found on lines 5 and 6:
disqualified from immediate and substitute the same with INELIGIBLE FOR
ANY, so
that the sentence will only read as follows: THE PRESIDENT shall be
INELIGIBLE FOR ANY reelection.
The purpose of this amendment is to be consistent with what the body had
approved in the matter of the term of the President.
THE PRESIDENT: What does the Committee say?
MR. REGALADO: May we inquire from Commissioner Davide why he proposes
that the President shall be completely ineligible for any future elective office
lower than the presidency?
MR. DAVIDE: The reason is that last Friday when we voted on the term of
office of different officials, our early resolution allowing the President no
immediate reelection was reconsidered by the body and the body opted to
allow no reelection for him at any time. To convey, therefore, that decision of
the
Commission, the rewording, as proposed, is necessary.
MR. REGALADO: During the deliberations on that issue, I think what was
contemplated there was a complete ban for reelection for the same position
as
President.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, Madam President.
On Section 16, I would like to suggest that the power of the Commission on
Appointments be limited to the department heads, ambassadors, generals
and so on
but not to the levels of bureau heads and colonels.
I would like to request that if it is at all possible, maybe we should discuss
again the question of immediate or future reelection.
The last one is on the question of judicially charged persons in case of
suspension of the writ of habeas corpus which I believe Commissioner
Bengzon will
also raise at the proper time. Madam President, these are the sections I
would like to amend. I am sorry that I took some of my colleagues time, but I
wanted to set the bases of these amendments and inform the body why I
would like to propose these amendments.
THE PRESIDENT: We request the Commissioner to please submit his
amendments to the Committee so that the members can study them. But in
the meantime, we
will go ahead because we adopted already the procedure of calling the
amendments section by section as requested.
MR. MONSOD: Yes, Madam President, and as the appropriate section comes, I
will ask for recognition.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Rigos be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rigos is recognized. Is this for an anterior
amendment, Mr. Floor Leader?
MR. RAMA: Yes; it is on Section 5.
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner may now proceed.
REV. RIGOS: Madam President, before I submit my proposed amendment
which is co-authored by Commissioner Nolledo, may I ask the Committee one
question?
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner may proceed.
REV. RIGOS: In the Article the Commission approved the other day and
reiterated by Commissioner Davide this morning. the President may serve
only for one
full term without reelection. It was made clear, however, by Commissioner
Regalado that a President or a former President may run for another position,
probably for Senator or for Vice-President.
MR. REGALADO: That was Commissioner Davides amendment.
REV. RIGOS: Suppose this former President runs for Vice-President and he
gets elected. During his term, after a year or two the President becomes
incapacitated. Can the Vice-President, who was a former President, take the
place of the President?
MR. REGALADO: As it stands now, he can because that is not reelection. That
is succession to the Office of the President by the Vice-President as provided
for in the Constitution.
REV. RIGOS: I thought we approved sometime last week that a President who
has served the full term of six years could not serve as President again.
M.R. REGALADO: He cannot serve as President again by running for
reelection. so he can run for Vice-President.
REV. RIGOS: But he can hope that something happens to the President so he
becomes President again.
MR. REGALADO: Possibly with that hope which may either be an emptio spei
or an emptio rei speratae.
REV. RIGOS: That answers my question.
Thank you very much.
Our proposed amendment now is on pages 2 and 3, starting from line 32
which states:
The Congress shall by law provide for the case where neither a Presidentelect nor a Vice-President-elect shall have been chosen or shall have
qualified,
or both shall have died at the time fixed for the beginning of their term,
declaring who shall then act as President or the manner in which one who is
to
act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President
or Vice-President shall have qualified.
Our proposed amendment is to delete the whole sentence which begins with
The Congress shall and in lieu thereof substitute the following sentence:
WHERE
NEITHER A PRESIDENT-ELECT NOR A VICE- PRESIDENT-ELECT SHALL HAVE
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
A t 10:58 a.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Acting Floor Leader, Commissioner Sarmiento, is
recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: This Member is now the Acting Floor Leader. I ask that
Commissioner Jamir be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Jamir is recognized.
MR. JAMIR: Thank you, Madam President.
I propose to insert a new paragraph between the first and second paragraphs
of Section 4, on page 2, which reads: NO PERSON WHO HAS SERVED MORE
THAN THREE
YEARS AS PRESIDENT SHALL BE QUALIFIED FOR ELECTION TO THE SAME
OFFICE AT ANY TIME.
May I state my reasons very briefly. If the President dies, let us say, two
years after assuming office, and the Vice-President takes over, the
Vice-President will be serving for four years. In that case he cannot run for
election as President, according to my proposed amendment. But if the
President dies, let us say, three years after assuming office, then the VicePresident will serve for less than three years. In this case, he can run for
election as President. That is why I propose: NO PERSON WHO HAS SERVED
MORE THAN THREE YEARS AS PRESIDENT SHALL BE QUALIFIED FOR
ELECTION TO THE SAME
OFFICE AT ANY TIME.
May I know the response of the Committee?
MR. REGALADO: I notice that the amendment of Commissioner Jamir is
almost the same as the Twenty-Second Amendment to the United States
Constitution,
ratified on March 1, 1951, which says:
No person who has held the office of President or acted as President for more
than three years of a term to which some other person was elected President
shall be elected to the office of the President in the next succeeding election.
MR. JAMIR: So, for the time being, I am withdrawing my motion to insert until
the right time comes.
MR SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Rama be
recognized for an anterior amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rama is recognized.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I have this anterior amendment after a
conference with the Vice-Chairman of the Committee on the Executive and
the former Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court, Commissioner Concepcion.
My proposed amendment is on page 1, Section lines 19 and 20. The proposal
is to provide a constitutional function for the Vice-President So we delete the
words may be appointed as a member of the Cabinet on lines 19 and 20
and in lieu thereof substitute the following: THE VICE-PRESIDENT SHALL BE
THE EX
OFFICIO PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE. The reason for this is that we have to
address a problem that has existed for many years. All the Vice-President of
this
country had complained that they did not have any job. Because of their
joblessness a lot anomalies and aberrations had arisen. For instance, there
was one
Vice-President who did nothing but campaign all over the country for four
years against the President. Likewise, there was President Marcos who,
because of
this experience with the joblessness of the Vice-President. perceived the
Vice-President as a vulture whose main and only job is to wait for the
President
die. Mr. Marcos developed a phobia so that he did not want to create a
position for Vice-President. I think this anomaly can be solved now by the
Constitutional Commission by providing the Vice-President a constitution;
function such as ex officio President of the Senate. We should eliminate this
portion may be appointed as a member of the Cabinet because this is a
little derogatory to the Vice-President, but the argument proposed and set
forth by
Commissioner Bern. and the rest of the Committee members that the
President should not be compelled to appoint a Vice President as a Cabinet
member because
a Cabinet member is an alter ego of the President and he should not be
compelled to appoint somebody in whom he has no complete trust are
powerful
arguments. Therefore, we come up with the same problem that a VicePresident really does not have a function or a job to do. So I propose that we
give him
a constitutional function, the same function that is given to the VicePresident of the United States.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: Will the Gentleman yield to a few questions?
MR. RAMA: Gladly, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: In the beginning I was of the same thinking that the VicePresident should be the President of the Senate. However, may I ask the
proponent,
the person concerned is constitutionally the President of the Senate may he
be appointed to a Cabinet position?
MR. RAMA: Not anymore, because the position of Senate President is a very
high position and the matter of appointing him as a minister or a member of
the
Cabinet is really just an appointment at the pleasure of the President and
there is the principle that a minister is an alter ego of the President. Hence,
the President should not be compelled to appoint him as Cabinet member.
MR. RODRIGO: I know that. Madam President. So my next question is this: Let
us take the situation now of Vice-President Laurel. If we 11ave a
constitutional provision such as this, he would be the Presiding Officer or the
President of the Senate which is another powerless position. Now, which
will give Vice-President Laurel more power, his position as Minister of Foreign
Affairs or as President of the Senate or Presiding Officer of the Senate
with no right to vote except to break a tie?
MR. RAMA: Madam President, the most important sit thing is that he is the
head of a powerful body. The Senate is next to the presidency which is the
highest office in the country. It determines the policies of the nation. Through
its powers, it determines even the decision to enter into treaties to a
certain extent. In the United States, the Vice-President is happy to have that
position of Senate President. It is much better than being a jobless
Vice-President or a minister of the Cabinet, where the position is subject to
the pleasure of the President.
MR. RODRIGO: As I said, I was of the same thinking until I started analyzing
the power of a President of the Senate. If a Vice-President is powerless, so
is the Presiding Officer of the Senate, especially if he cannot vote except in
case of a tie. He cannot even argue on the floor of the Senate. So, that is
my misgiving.
Are we not giving him another useless, inutile position? Is it not better or will
he not have more power being a member of the Cabinet?
I will give as an example, the case of Vice-President Laurel as Minister of
Foreign Affairs. I think he has more power than if he were a Presiding Officer
of the Senate .
MR. RAMA: Madam President I think former Senator Rodrigo has forgotten the
battles that they fought to get somebody to be Senate President. As a matter
of
fact, one of the strategies of President Marcos was precisely to capture that
very prestigious office of Senate President as a launching pad to become
President. That was his strategy and he was correct. The people in the
Senate would die just to get the presidency of the Senate. It may not have
tremendous power, but it has tremendous prestige.
MR. RODRIGO: A Senate President who is elected by the Senate from among
the Senators is powerful because he can vote in the Senate. He can yield the
Chair
to somebody else and go to the floor and argue. But the Vice-President as
honorary ex officio President of the Senate cannot do that. He can just
preside.
I do not know if he can vote in case of a tie. But he, certainly, cannot yield
the Chair to somebody else and come down and argue. He certainly cannot
file
bills motions and resolutions of his own. His is a purely honorary ex officio
function. That is why I changed my mind about such a constitutional
provision. I think we will just be giving the Vice-President two useless
positions.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: What does the Committee say? May we have first the
reaction of the Committee to this particular amendment of Commissioner
Rama?
MR. SUMULONG: We would rather leave the decision to the Commission.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President. I would like to raise a point of order.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide may raise his point of order.
Houses
of Congress.
May I explain my amendment?
THE PRESIDENT: The Gentleman may proceed; he is given five minutes.
MR. RODRIGO: This Section 8 has reference to a situation where the VicePresident dies. In such a case. according to this section, the President shall
nominate somebody to be the Vice-President, if confirmed by both Houses of
Congress.
The section as it is now gives the President the power to choose either from
the Senate or the House of Representatives. My amendment would limit the
choice of the President to the Members of the Senate.
The reasons are: First, a Vice-President is a national official; he is elected
nationwide by the people. I believe that the one who should be nominated to
succeed him should also be an official elected nationwide by the people. and
those are Senators. For example, if a Member of the House from Bulacan
with
four districts would be elected only by six municipalities, it would be
incongruous for such an elected official to be the Vice-President who has the
nationwide mandate of the people. Another reason is that the term of Office
of the Vice-President is six years; the term of office of the Senators is also
six years but the term of office of the Members of the House is only three
years. So, I believe it is logical and practical that the choice by the
President of who should succeed a Vice-president who dies should be limited
to Senators.
THE PRESIDENT: What does the Committee say?
MR. SUMULONG: The Committee would leave the matter to the Commission.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Madam President, I object to the amendment. I think the
choice should not be limited to the Senate which is only composed of 24
Senators.
In the House of Representatives, we have as many as 250 Members and the
President will have a wider choice. It really does not depend on whether one
is a
Member of the Senate or whether one is a Member of the House of
Representatives. A Member of the House of Representatives can have a
national outlook like
that of a Member of the Senate. Just because he was elected by
Representatives does not mean that he has a parochial outlook. An example
is our Commission.
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised
their hand.)
The results show 13 votes in favor and 18 against; the amendment is lost.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I ask that Commissioner Tingson be recognized for an
anterior amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tingson is recognized for an anterior
amendment.
MR. TINGSON: Again on the subject of the vice-presidency, I would like to add
a sentence on line 20, page 1, of the amended committee report. The
amendment
would be: THE VICE-PRESIDENT SHALL HEAD THE NATIONAL SECURITY
COUNCIL.
May I reason out my amendment?
THE PRESIDENT: The Gentleman may proceed.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, members of the Committee, as I have
stated earlier, the office of the Vice-President should be vested with a
responsibility
as the next in rank in the pyramid of government. As such, he should hold an
office with a definite function and task that do not necessarily encroach on
the functions of the President. I agree with Commissioner Bernas
explanation that the Vice-Presidents appointment to the Cabinet is not
mandatory due to
the principle of qualified political agency. And human nature will tell us that
the President sometimes finds the presence of the Vice-President in his
office awkward since, as two contending stars, the Vice-President may steal
the glory from the President.
My concept, therefore, of the functional role of the Vice-President is that of
an entity that is independent, constitutionally mandated, relevant and of
national importance.
Let me, therefore, expound my idea based on the concept of the National
Security Council of the United States. As everyone knows, historically, United
States Presidents have relied on their Secretaries of State to handle the
questions of policy in international relations or had personally stepped in, as
Wilson and F.D. Roosevelt did, and did the job themselves. But the change in
the nature of foreign policy-making, the significance of trade and economic
aid programs, particularly the impossibility of treating diplomatic and military
decisions as if they had no bearing on each other was reflected in the
National Security Act passed by Congress in 1947. Under this statute was
established, the National Security Council headed by the President, and
including
the Vice-President, the Secretaries of State and Defense, the Director of the
Office of Civil and Defense Mobilization, and such agency heads as the
President may appoint to it or invite to attend the meetings.
Not that I am an expert in the United States or other foreign countries
policy-making, but based on my readings, among those invited in regular
attendance were the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Atomic Energy
Commission, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Director of the Budget, and
the
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, among many other vital agencies
of the government.
The National Security Council has a full-time staff with a planning board
whose function is to clarify issues and present possible alternative courses of
action to the Council for consideration. Actually, the National Security Council
is more of an advisory body than a decision-making or operating one. In
our case, we can institutionalize perhaps the entity having a National
Advisory Council which can be headed by the Vice-President, not by the
President
himself, if only to give the Vice-President one definite and very important
position mandated in our Constitution uniquely for him.
Sectoral representations will also be fully enshrined in this body, if ever they
shall not be able to ventilate their ideas in interest in the legislature.
While the National Security Council of the United States was created by
statute, we can adopt a novel idea or view perhaps in our new Constitution
by
making it a creation of the Constitution like the Monetary Board or the NEDA.
My proposal then is to make the Vice-President much more effective because
he is next in line to the presidency of the Philippines and in case, indeed, he
takes over the national leadership, his will be a knowledgeable and effective
leadership.
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de Castro is recognized.
really
elevate his position. Now we want to make him constitutional head of a
nonexisting advisory body. It seems to me that is even worse.
MR. TINGSON: Some of us naturally have to give our ideas here knowing or
half-knowing whether that body has already been incorporated in one of our
committee reports. If, indeed, it is a sensible suggestion, then probably the
answer would also sound sensible. Probably, the Committee would consider
the
suggestion on the National Advisory Council as another sensible idea now
being propounded . . . But let us not make the office of the Vice-President a
very
solitary one, an almost half-hearted kind of office, considering that we are all
agreed that it is important in case the President dies, almost
overnight, he automatically becomes our President.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: In order to intelligently vote on the subject matter, the
Committee would like to inform the body of the following facts. Under
Executive
Order No. 708 promulgated in 1981, the following bodies and entities, among
18 agencies, were under the chairmanship of the President of the Philippines:
The Council of Leaders, the Foreign Policy Council, the General Military
Council, the National Security Council, the National Economic and
Development
Authority and the Special Presidential Reorganization Committee. The
National Advisory Council mentioned by Commissioner Tingson is not here.
Assuming that
it was under the Office of the President which actually it was not we
also do not know whether Executive Order No. 708 has already been affected
by the
proposed reorganization being worked on presently by Minister Luis
Villafuerte. So, we really do not know as of this moment if a National
Advisory Council
exists. But definitely, under Executive Order No. 708 in 1981, there is no
such thing as a National Advisory Council.
MR. TINGSON: It seems to me that the idea of a National Advisory Council
would fit in in any kind of national revision of our governments scheme. I am
personally wondering why we are almost half-forgetting the Vice-President.
The idea is to propose, by way of an amendment, that a National Advisory
Council
be headed by the Vice-President.
THE PRESIDENT: I think the body is ready for a vote.
MR. SARMIENTO: Yes, Madam President.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of the proposed amendment of
Commissioner Tingson which has been sufficiently explained, please raise
their hand.
(One Member raised his hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised
their hand.)
The results show one vote in favor and 26 against; the amendment is lost.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, the joint proposed amendment of VicePresident Padilla and Commissioners Nolledo, Rigos, de los Reyes,
Maambong and Davide
has been formulated. May I ask that Commissioner de los Reyes be
recognized?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de los Reyes is recognized.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Madam President, the proposed amendment on Section 5
has been distributed to the Members of this Commission and it reads as
follows: THE
PRESIDENT-ELECT SHALL QUALIFY AT THE BEGINNING OF HIS TERM. IF HE
HAS NOT BEEN CHOSEN OR IF HE FAILS TO QUALIFY, THE VICE-PRESIDENTELECT SHALL ACT AS
PRESIDENT UNTIL A PRESIDENT SHALL HAVE BEEN CHOSEN AND QUALIFIED.
IF THE PRESIDENT-ELECT DIES OR BECOMES PERMANENTLY DISABLED, THE
VICE-PRESIDENT-ELECT
SHALL BECOME PRESIDENT. WHERE NEITHER A PRESIDENT-ELECT NOR VICEPRESIDENT-ELECT SHALL HAVE BEEN CHOSEN OR SHALL HAVE QUALIFIED OR
BOTH SHALL HAVE DIED OR
BECOME PERMANENTLY DISABLED AT THE TIME FIXED FOR THE BEGINNING
OF THEIR TERMS, THE SENATE PRESIDENT OR, IN HIS ABSENCE, THE
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES SHALL THEN ACT AS PRESIDENT UNTIL A PRESIDENT OR
VICE-PRESIDENT SHALL HAVE BEEN ELECTED AND QUALIFIED.
A PRESIDENT SHALL
HAVE BEEN CHOSEN AND QUALIFIED as suggested by Commissioner
Regalado. I think there are some words missing before the word
QUALIFIED. Maybe, the missing
words are OR HAVE; otherwise, there is an ungrammatical construction.
Anyway, it is a matter of style, I suppose.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide was seeking to be recognized.
The Gentleman may proceed.
MR. DAVIDE: My comment is on the proposed Committee amendment to
change the word OR to AND because CHOSEN and QUALIFIED would
refer to two
different situations: one, where the President-elect fails to qualify, or the
President-elect has not been chosen. So, if we put AND in lieu of OR, we
destroy the two concepts.
FR. BERNAS: But the thing is, the office is not filled until he is both chosen
and qualified.
MR. DAVIDE: That is correct.
FR. BERNAS: So, if either one is missing, the office is vacant, and we have a
situation where the office has to be filled.
THE PRESIDENT: Is Commissioner Davide satisfied?
MR. DAVIDE: I am satisfied with the explanation, but that is really the
meaning there. It would have reference to the two instances where there was
failure
to qualify and there was failure to choose.
FR. BERNAS: Yes.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, may I be recognized?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Madam President.
In the proposed draft for Section 5 of the Honorable de los Reyes, he
employed the phrase BECOMES PERMANENTLY DISABLED. I suppose this
would refer to a
physical disability, or does it also include mental disability?
MR. DE LOS REYES: It includes all kinds of disabilities which will disable or
incapacitate the President or Vice-President from the performance of his
duties.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
And who would determine the permanent disability of the President-elect?
MR. DE LOS REYES: I think that is covered in subsequent articles. I think the
same principles will apply.
MR. SUAREZ: Meaning, is it himself or the Cabinet?
MR. DE LOS REYES: As provided in the subsequent articles.
MR. SUAREZ: And is there any period whereby the permanent disability
should be determined in the case of the President-elect because, according
to the
first sentence, he is under obligation to qualify or assume office at the
beginning of his term?
MR. DE LOS REYES: Yes. So, if he is permanently disabled . . . permanent is
permanent. It has no definite period.
MR. SUAREZ: That is correct.
MR. DE LOS REYES: It is forever.
MR. SUAREZ: No. What I am referring to is the period when the Vice-President
should assume office, referring only to the so-called permanent disability.
Let us say that the President-elect, under sentence one of the proposed
Section 5, would have to assume office on January 1, 1987. But because of
some
disability, he is unable to assume office from the beginning of his term. That
disability turns out to be permanent in character after a while. So. is
there no duration for the determination as to whether or not the Presidentelect from the time he should have assumed office at the beginning of his
term
up to the time he is declared permanently disabled in order that the VicePresident-elect can immediately assume the presidency?
MR. DE LOS REYES: There are two situations: If the President-elect has not
been chosen or has failed to qualify, the Vice-President-elect simply acts as
President. So, there will be an election for President. But if the President-elect
dies or becomes permanently disabled, that is no longer simply failing
to qualify or not having been chosen; he actually dies or becomes
permanently disabled. The Vice-President then shall become permanent
President up to the
expiration of the term of the regular President. That is how I understand it.
MR. SUAREZ: So, under the example I have given, if the President-elect for
one reason or another would not assume office or would not qualify on
January 3,
for example, then the Vice-President-elect should automatically assume
office as President?
MR. DE LOS REYES: He shall act as President in case he fails to qualify or he
has not been chosen at the beginning of the term. That is covered by the
first sentence.
MR. SUAREZ: Again, just to be clear, I will get a little closer to the date. Let
us say, the President-elect is supposed to begin his term on January I and
he fails to take his oath or assume office on January 1. So, on the midnight of
January I or January 2, the Vice- President-elect should already assume
office as acting President. Is my understanding correct in interpreting this
Section 5?
MR. DE LOS REYES: Yes, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President. one question for Commissioner de los Reyes.
The first sentence of the consolidated amendment provides that the
President-elect
shall qualify at the beginning of his term. We want to be clarified on the word
shall; we take it to be mandatory. If he does not, can that be
interpreted as abandonment of office?
MR. DE LOS REYES: If he does not qualify . . .
FR. BERNAS: Yes, or refusal to assume office in which permanent vacancy is
created.
MR. DE LOS REYES: If he tails to qualify . . .
FR. BERNAS: Maybe the President shall qualify. Suppose he does not assume
office, is that abandonment of office or refusal to assume office which makes
the
office vacant?
MR. DE LOS REYES: If he does not want to assume office, that can be
construed as abandonment of office. There is no other interpretation.
FR. BERNAS: We could have a problem there. In other words, perhaps we
should specify what beginning of the term means. If on the very first day
he does
not assume, he does not qualify. is that already abandonment of office or
refusal to assume office?
MR. DE LOS REYES: The question is that if he is qualified but does not
assume office.
FR. BERNAS: He does not assume office. He was chosen; he has all the
qualifications but he does not follow this command in the first sentence
which tells
him that he shall qualify at the beginning of his term.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Insofar as Section 5 is concerned. I would say that the
Vice-President can start acting as President. But whether that will be
abandonment of office. I think there are several variables which can be
decided only on a case-to-case basis. When we say abandonment, we should
take into
consideration the intent of the public official whether he would really
abandon the office or whether 11e could not assume office for one reason or
another but may have the intention to assume it later on. That is only my
personal opinion.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President. I would like to ask a few questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Is Commissioner Bernas satisfied with the explanation?
FR. BERNAS: In other words, so long as the intention is clear that the mere
failure to qualify, let us say, on the first day should not be interpreted as
abandonment of office or refusal to assume office, the language now is
subject to that interpretation. In the original language. I think it was not.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: We will just finish with the Committee.
Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Perhaps I could help a little if we will resolve the problem in
relation to the second sentence because the second sentence cites a
situation
where a President-elect has not been chosen or he fails to qualify. In other
words, a President-elect who is well and hearty and in total possession of his
faculties should qualify at the beginning of his term, but if for one reason or
another he fails to qualify, then I assume the second sentence would apply
and in that case the Vice-President shall only act as President.
The reason why the President-elect failed to qualify is another thing; it may
be that he does not really want to take the office or it may be that he is
prevented by some insuperable cause. But just the same, what I am saying is
that we just have to apply the second sentence in that regard, which means
that
whatever the reason he did not qualify, we will apply the fact that he failed
to qualify and the Vice-President will have to act as President.
FR. BERNAS: But then the sentence goes on to say, UNTIL A PRESIDENT
SHALL HAVE BEEN CHOSEN, in which case we are opening the possibility
that in fact a
permanent vacancy was created.
MR. MAAMBONG: UNTIL THE PRESIDENT SHALL HAVE BEEN CHOSEN AND
QUALIFIED means that there is a President who has been chosen but has
not qualified. That
means the first part of the second sentence will apply that he has been
chosen but failed to qualify.
That is just my interpretation, Madam President.
FR. BERNAS: But the first sentence already assumes that he was chosen; the
only thing is he did not qualify.
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes.
FR. BERNAS: That is why I think the original language avoids this one.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, just a few questions for the record for
clarification.
If the Senate President takes over because of the death or disability of both
the President and the Vice-President, does he lose his position as Senate
President?
MR. DE LOS REYES: So under that concept, there will be no more need for an
election of a new President but the same President.
FR. BERNAS: Yes.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Because if it involves the election of another President, it
will fall under the subsequent sentences. ..
FR. BERNAS: That is correct.
MR. DE LOS REYES: I will accept the suggestion of Commissioner Bernas.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Just one more point which I would like to clarify. When the
proponent used the word CHOSEN, I would assume that that is the point in
the
electoral process where the President-elect is proclaimed. Is that the correct
interpretation Madam President? The electoral process goes like this: First,
we have the election at large done by the people; then there is the canvass
and proclamation of the votes during which time we say that the President
has
been chosen. We are referring to the point in time when the votes have been
canvassed and the President-elect has been proclaimed by the proper
canvassing
authority. That is the meaning of the word CHOSEN. Is that the meaning,
Madam President?
MR. DE LOS REYES: I was distracted.
MR. MAAMBONG: I will repeat the question because I feel this is important.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Yes, please.
MR. MAAMBONG: The meaning of the word CHOSEN has harassed several
law students before in the past. In the electoral process, we start with the
election.
The election is being participated in by people at large. After the election,
there is the canvass of votes and proclamation. When the Gentleman used
the
term CHOSEN in this section, is he actually referring to the proclamation?
has been
chosen.
In my original suggestion, I did not have that phrase. I merely suggested:
THE PRESIDENT-ELECT SHALL QUALIFY AT THE BEGINNING OF HIS TERM. IF
HE FAILS TO
QUALIFY, THE VICE-PRESIDENT SHALL ACT AS PRESIDENT UNTIL THE
PRESIDENT SHALL HAVE QUALIFIED. That was our original amendment, but
we conferred with
Commissioners Maambong and Davide who made some distinctions about
CHOSEN and QUALIFIED. So, I think they should answer the question.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, it was actually Commissioner Davide
who caused all these confusions, so he should untangle it.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: May I be allowed to explain why the word CHOSEN must
appear there?
THE PRESIDENT: The Gentleman may proceed.
MR. DAVIDE: It might happen that in a presidential election, a President may
not have been chosen at all. There may be a failure of election for the
President, but not for the Vice-President.
Qualification there presupposes a candidate who had actually been elected
but failed to qualify. So, that is another area. The other is, failure of the
election of a President but a Vice-President is elected. So, in that particular
respect, we allow the Vice-President to act as President until a President
shall have been chosen accordingly. That is the wording of the 1973
Constitution. So, there are two separate instances: first, mere failure to
qualify; and
second, the failure to really choose a President.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, this Section 5 follows Section 4. And under
Section 4, the President and the Vice-President have already been elected.
The
electoral returns have already been verified. There has been proclamation of
those elected.
So, this Section 5 refers to the President-elect and the Vice-President elect. It
should really be simple. If the President-elect fails to qualify, then
the Vice- President-elect shall act as President until the President shall have
qualified. The sections all refer to the President and Vice-President who
have already been elected, proclaimed and, therefore, chosen.
THE PRESIDENT: How about the comment of Commissioner Davide in case
there is a failure of election and no one has been chosen?
MR. PADILLA: That might come under the second sentence which states:
WHERE NEITHER A PRESIDENT-ELECT NOR A VICE-PRESIDENT-ELECT SHALL
HAVE BEEN CHOSEN OR
SHALL HAVE QUALIFIED. Then the Senate President or, if he is unable, the
Speaker of the House shall then act as President until a President or
Vice-President shall have been elected and qualified. So, that situation is
covered by the second sentence. The first sentence refers to a Presidentelect
who, for some reason, fails to qualify. The provision merely says that the
Vice-President-elect shall act as President.
THE PRESIDENT: What does the main sponsor, Commissioner de los Reyes,
say?
MR. DE LOS REYES: In the light of all the views given, the proposed
amendment will read as follows, Madam President: THE PRESIDENT-ELECT
SHALL QUALIFY AT
THE BEGINNING OF HIS TERM. IF HE HAS NOT BEEN CHOSEN, OR IF HE FAILS
TO QUALIFY, THE VICE-PRESIDENT-ELECT SHALL ACT AS PRESIDENT UNTIL
THE PRESIDENT-ELECT
SHALL HAVE QUALIFIED. IF THE PRESIDENT-ELECT DIES OR BECOMES
PERMANENTLY DISABLED, THE VICE-PRESIDENT SHALL BECOME PRESIDENT.
WHERE NEITHER A PRESIDENT
ELECT NOR A VICE-PRESIDENT-ELECT SHALL HAVE BEEN CHOSEN AND HAVE
QUALIFIED, OR WHERE BOTH SHALL HAVE DIED OR BECOME PERMANENTLY
DISABLED AT THE TIME FIXED
FOR THE BEGINNING OF THEIR TERMS, THE SENATE PRESIDENT, OR IF HE IS
UNABLE, THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SHALL THEN
ACT AS PRESIDENT UNTIL
A PRESIDENT OR VICE-PRESIDENT SHALL HAVE BEEN ELECTED AND
QUALIFIED.
THE PRESIDENT: So, the proposal of Commissioner Padilla is not being
considered?
MR. PADILLA: Will Commissioner de los Reyes yield to a suggestion to
eliminate the phrase HAS NOT BEEN CHOSEN OR IF HE on lines 2 and 3,
and simply say:
IF HE FAILS TO QUALIFY?
REMOVED, OR UNTIL THE ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT OR THE VICEPRESIDENT, or the manner in which one shall be selected.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President.
MR. REGALADO: Will the Commissioner state the page and the line again for
the benefit of the other Commissioners?
MR. DAVIDE: On page 4, line 9 with the proposed amendment will now read
as follows: which officer shall then become Acting President AND SUCH
OFFICER
SHALL ACT ACCORDINGLY, UNTIL THE DISABILITY OF THE PRESIDENT OR
VICE-PRESIDENT BE REMOVED, OR UNTIL THE ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT
OR VICE-PRESIDENT, or the
manner in which one shall be selected.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, may we be recognized?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Madam President.
Does Commissioner Davide not think that his proposal is no longer necessary
because this particular sentence assumes a permanent disability, death,
removal
from office or resignation? In other words, the vacancy is permanent.
MR. DAVIDE: No, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: It does not contemplate a return of the permanently disabled,
Madam President.
REV. RIGOS: Madam President, I believe my amendment on this section can
be considered as an anterior amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Commissioners amendment have reference to this
one? So as not to break the line of thought of Section 9, may we consider the
amendment later?
MR. SUAREZ: So may we respectfully suggest that Commissioner Davide
withdraw the amendment.
MR. DAVIDE: I am willing to drop the clause UNTIL THE DISABILITY OF THE
PRESIDENT OR VICE-PRESIDENT BE REMOVED. So I will read again as
amended.
their term of
office, we would be changing the substance and that is not within our
power.
Madam President, this amendment would embrace not only the salaries of
the President and the Vice President but also the salaries of many other
officials
the members of the Supreme Court; justices of the Intermediate Court of
Appeals; those in the constitutional offices and others. So, let us lay down a
general principle a general rule for all. The issue or the question is: In all
these offices, whether in the Supreme Court, in the Congress or in the
constitutional commissions, should we leave it entirely to the Congress to
determine how much their Members would receive, and whether these
salaries be
increased or decreased even during their tenure or term of office? Should we
maintain the present provision of the Constitution, restricting the powers of
Congress to either decrease or increase these salaries?
MR. REGALADO: Madam President, I recall that Commissioner Monsod was
the original Proponent of that uniform rule with respect to salaries and with
respect
to what would be placed in the Transitory Provisions.
May we ask Commissioner Monsod if he has a copy of his original proposal
which applies to all officers, plus his formulation of what he expected to be
placed in the Transitory Provisions, so that there will be an equal application
and a uniform rule?
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, may we just defer this matter for a few
minutes and take up other matters? I will look for the formulation.
THE PRESIDENT: May we call on Commissioner Bacani again later?
BISHOP BACANI: Thank you very much, Madam President.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Jamir be
recognized for an anterior amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Jamir is recognized.
MR. JAMIR: Thank you, Madam President.
My amendment is with respect to Section 6, appearing on page 3 of the
Committees draft. On line 8, I propose to change the word he to THEY and
eliminate
the letter s in enters and change the word his to THEIR. On line 9, after
the word President, put a comma (,) and add THE VICE-PRESIDENT OR THE
ACTING PRESIDENT shall take the following oath or affirmation:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully and conscientiously fulfill
my duties as President (or the VICE-PRESIDENT or the ACTING PRESIDENT)
of the Philippines, preserve and defend its Constitution . . .
In other words, the amendment consists of adding the words VICEPRESIDENT to the pertinent portions of the draft so that the oath provided
herein should be
used by all of the three officers mentioned: the President, the Vice-President
and the Acting President.
May I know the response of the Committee, Madam President?
THE PRESIDENT: what does the Committee say?
MR. SUMULONG: E accept the amendment. Madam President.
MR. JAMIR: Thank you.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I ask that we put this to a vote.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the proposed amendment of
Commissioner Jamir which has been accepted by the Committee? (Silence)
The Chair hears
none; the amendment is approved.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Rigos be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rigos is recognized.
REV. RIGOS: Madam President, I propose to delete the entire Section 10 on
page 4, and in lieu thereof, substitute the following proposed provision: IN
CASE
OF VACANCY IN THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT OCCURRING AT LEAST
EIGHTEEN MONTHS BEFORE THE REGULAR ELECTION, THE SAME SHALL BE
FILLED BY SPECIAL ELECTION TO
BE CONDUCTED BY THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH
LAW AND THE PRESIDENT THUS ELECTED SHALL SERVE FOR THE UNEXPIRED
TERM.
MR. REGALADO: May we ask Commissioner Rigos if we can have that
proposed amendment by substitution reproduced so that copies can be
distributed.
marks, and
might not be understood if I did not make this preliminary explanation. On
page 5, line 21, after the words duties of his office, I propose to place a
period (.), to delete unless and instead substitute the words MEANWHILE,
SHOULD.
Then on line 26, after the word office, change the period (.) to a comma (,)
and delete the word thereupon. On page 6, line 3, delete the words
continue to discharge, and instead place the word ASSUME. On line 4,
delete the word resume, and instead place the word CONTINUE. The whole
paragraph
will now read: Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President of
the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written
declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of
his office. MEANWHILE, SHOULD a majority of all the members of the Cabinet
transmit within five days to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of
the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is
unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Congress shall
decide the issue, convening within forty-eight hours for that purpose, if not
in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter
written declaration or, if not in session, within twenty-one days after it
is required to assemble, determines by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of
Congress that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of
his
office, the Vice-President shall ASSUME the same as Acting President;
otherwise, the President shall CONTINUE the powers and duties of his office.
MR. REGALADO: Madam President, before the Committee makes its decision
on whether to accept the amendment or subject it to a vote on the floor,
may I
verify some points. Line 31 on page 5 says: determines by a two-thirds vote
of both Houses of Congress that the President is unable to discharge; . Does
the Gentleman envision the voting of the two Houses of Congress here as
voting in joint session or voting separately?
MR. RODRIGO: Voting separately, yes., May propose that on page 6, line 1,
after the word Congress, we place a comma (,) and insert VOTING
SEPARATELY and
another comma (,).
MR. JAMIR: Madam President, may I suggest that instead of using the word
MEANWHILE, we use the word HOWEVER.
MR. RODRIGO: The word HOWEVER seems to denote a contrary situation
and it follows very closely the sentence where the President is the Acting
President.
And so, if we follow this sentence with HOWEVER, it might denote that the
President is no longer the one who continues to act but the Vice-President.
MR. SUMULONG: The Committee accepts the amendment.
MR. RODRIGO: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is asked to read the entire paragraph
with his proposed amendments.
MR. RODRIGO: Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President of
the Senate and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written
declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of
his office. MEANWHILE, SHOULD a majority of all the members of the Cabinet
transmit within five days to the President of the Senate and to the Speaker of
the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is
unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Congress shall
decide the issue, convening within forty-eight hours for that purpose, if not
in session. If the Congress within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter
written declaration or, if not in session, within twenty-one days after it
is required to assemble, determines by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of
Congress, VOTING SEPARATELY, that the President is unable to discharge the
powers and duties of his office, the Vice-President shall ASSUME the same as
Acting President; otherwise, the President shall CONTINUE the powers and
duties of his office.
MR. REGALADO: Madam President, just on a matter of style, after all, it is
addressed to the Chairman of the Committee on Style may we say on line
4, the
President shall CONTINUE EXERCISING the powers and duties of his office?
MR. RODRIGO: Yes, Madam President.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, I move that we put the matter to a vote.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this particular amendment which
has been accepted by the committee? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
amendment
is approved.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Guingona
be recognized for an anterior amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Guingona is recognized.
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you, Madam President.
May I say that for this proposed amendment I have the following as my
coproponents: the honorable Commissioners Regalado, Maambong, Davide,
Ople and
Rodrigo. I refer to page 5, Section 10, lines 2 to 4, and the amendment is to
change the word seventy to ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY so that the last
sentence
will read as follows: No special election shall be called if the vacancy occurs
within ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY days before the date of the next
presidential election.
THE PRESIDENT: How many days did the Gentleman propose?
MR. GUINGONA: One hundred and eighty days, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rigos is recognized.
REV. RIGOS: There is a pending motion to delete the entire paragraph, but if
Commissioner Guingona could wait, we would appreciate it very much.
THE PRESIDENT: May we ask if Commissioner Guingona is willing to defer this
amendment?
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Ople be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: Thank you, Madam President.
I propose to insert a new section to be numbered Section 11, immediately
prior to Section 12 on page 6, line 6, and which shall read: IN CASE OF
SERIOUS
ILLNESS OF THE PRESIDENT THE PUBLIC SHALL BE INFORMED OF THE STATE
OF HIS HEALTH THROUGH THE MINISTER OF HEALTH OR OTHER APPROPRIATE
AUTHORITY. THE CABINET
MEMBER IN-CHARGE OF NATIONAL SECURITY AND FOREIGN RELATIONS AND
THE CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES DURING
SUCH TIMES SHALL NOT BE
DENIED ACCESS TO THE PRESIDENT AS COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF.
May I briefly explain the reason for this amendment, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Please proceed.
MR. OPLE: I think throughout history, there had been many recorded
instances when the health of the President, or the emperor in Roman times,
or the
Chinese emperor in dynasties long past was concealed from the public.
Generally, the wife conspires with others in order to conceal the leaders
state of
health. One effect of this has been on the necessary inputs to policy coming
from Cabinet ministers which have been blocked from reaching the attention
of
the President in that state. This illness can occur during an awkward moment
in the life of a nation when national survival ought to be secured in the face
of a major threat short of, let us say, the proclamation of martial law or the
suspension of the writ of habeas corpus when Congress comes in in order to
exercise a monitoring function and, perhaps, a remedial function. We have
not yet, in this example, attained that level of the seriousness of the
situation. And yet the national security might be at stake. The national
survival can hang in the balance and, therefore, the right of the people to
know
ought to be included in this Article on the Executive, not only the right of the
people to urgent access to a President in a state of illness, but
especially those who deal with the safety and survival of the nation. The
Cabinet minister in charge of national security and foreign relations and the
Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces ought to have access to the President as
commander-in-chief. The people as well should have access to this man in
that
kind of dubious state so that even in that critical and awkward moment in
the fortunes of the national leader, we can be sure that the people have
access
to him for purposes of safeguarding the national security. That is the reason
the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces is also mentioned in the proposal. I
think this is based on contemporary experience as well. And if we delegate
this merely to a forthcoming legislature, there will arise situations or
embarrassment considering that many who will compose this legislature will
be very deferential towards those in power and may not even mention this at
all
in their agenda.
Therefore, I feel that there should be a constitutional cognizance of that
danger, and the right of the people to know ought to be built into this Article
on the Executive.
MR. NOLLEDO: Will the Gentleman yield to only one question?
MR. OPLE: Very gladly.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Nolledo is recognized.
MR. NOLLEDO: Will the proposed provisions apply if the President is absent
because he claims to be writing a book?
MR. OPLE: Yes, but we put the burden on him to tell a lie to the people in
derogation of his duties in the Constitution.
REV. RIGOS: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rigos is recognized.
REV. RIGOS: Madam President, will the proponent entertain one very small
amendment? In his proposal, the proponent says, IN CASE OF SERIOUS
ILLNESS OF THE
PRESIDENT. Would he consider deleting the word SERIOUS so that the
phrase only reads: IN CASE OF ILLNESS? If we say serious illness, we
almost have
to have someone who should determine whether his illness is serious or not.
So, I suggest that we delete the word SERIOUS.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, if a President is merely down with flu, I do not
think this safeguard ought to operate. But medical authorities and we
have an
ample supply of them in this country will know exactly when an illness has
become serious.
REV. RIGOS: But the former President was reported to be suffering from flu
and yet nobody believed it.
MR. OPLE: At that time, he had no constitutional standard to satisfy.
MR. ABUBAKAR: May I ask the proponent a few questions?
Concerning the President or the Executive of any state, his health primarily
does not only concern the nation but also his family and probably his own
personal advisers and physician. Then, why should we subject the state of
health of the President to another institution or entity which has no direct
concern over his health and may not know the background of his illness?
MR. OPLE: Is the Gentleman referring to the Minister of Health or other
appropriate authority?
MR. ABUBAKAR: Yes. He could be the Minister of Health in as far as the
President views the health situation of the country and his people. But this is
a
personal matter concerning the health of the President. Like us, the Members
of the Commission, we do have our personal physicians, and this is a matter
between us and our own physicians. So, the state of health or analysis as to
the actual condition of the President should be left to the President and his
doctor.
MR. OPLE: Is Commissioner Abubakar suggesting that we eliminate the
phrase THROUGH THE MINISTER OF HEALTH OR OTHER APPROPRIATE
AUTHORITY?
MR. ABUBAKAR: Yes.
MR. OPLE: We accept the amendment, madam President.
MR. ABUBAKAR: Thank You.
MR. OPLE: The first sentence will now read: IN CASE OF SERIOUS ILLNESS OF
THE PRESIDENT THE PUBLIC SHALL BE INFORMED OF THE STATE OF HIS
HEALTH.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Madam President.
Will the Gentleman yield to only one clarificatory question?
MR. OPLE: Very gladly.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
In all seriousness, will the proponent give us examples of what he would
consider a serious illness? This for purposes of clarification in the record,
Madam President.
MR. OPLE: A serious illness in my laymans opinion ought to be one that
almost but not quite incapacitates the President for that period of the serious
illness.
MR. SUAREZ: Is there no duration as to the physical incapability or incapacity
of the incumbent President?
MR. OPLE: I feel that as the proponent of this amendment, I might be
usurping the competence others technically better prepared to answer this
question. If
there is a doctor in the Commission, maybe we can recruit him right now for
his expert advice.
the
public.
THE PRESIDENT: What does the Committee say?
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President, I was going to propose an amendment
because, from the discussion, it would seem that there are many details that
have to be
filled in. Commissioner Ople mentioned about who should give the
information, and Commissioner Suarez was talking about what kind of illness
would fall
within the perception of the proponent. So, I thought, if the distinguished
proponent would accept, the details should be left to the Congress to
determine
by law, because we have no physician in this body, and perhaps the
legislature would be able to provide the details. I agree fully with the
principle or
the concept expressed by the honorable proponent.
MR. OPLE: I accept the amendment, and so the first sentence will now read:
IN CASE OF SERIOUS ILLNESS OF THE PRESIDENT, THE PUBLIC SHALL BE
INFORMED OF THE
STATE OF HIS HEALTH AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW.
Madam President, I think I have just changed my mind after an expert on
medical matters came around. We are called upon to be more trusting with
respect to
the Office of the President that they will know what appropriate means to
take in order to release this information to the public in satisfaction of the
publics right to know about the presidency.
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President, may I explain? I thought all along that the
honorable proponent was thinking of a situation such as when recently there
was
an attempt on the part of the Executive not to inform the public. And now,
we are going to entrust this obligation or duty . . .
MR. OPLE: Madam President, we will leave something for people power to do.
Maybe Commissioner Aquino can lead a march, if they are not satisfied with
the
information coming from the Office of the President.
THE PRESIDENT: So, the proponent does not accept the amendment.
MR. OPLE: Thank you.
MR. OPLE: Does the Rules allow two interpellations on the same subject by
the same person? If the Rules so allows then I will be happy to yield to
Commissioner Abubakar.
MR. ABUBAKAR: Since the proponent has indirectly expressed a wish not to
be interpellated, I yield.
MR. OPLE: No, Madam President. I will be glad to be interpellated in
accordance with the Rules.
MR. ABUBAKAR: If it is in accordance with the Rules that there be no double
interpellation, I also yield.
THE PRESIDENT: What does the Committee say? Is the Committee reacting
favorably to this proposed amendment of Commissioner Ople?
MR. SUMULONG: The Committee accepts the amendment.
MR. OPLE: Thank you very much, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The proposed amendment has been sufficiently explained
and debated upon.
Is there any objection to this proposed amendment of Commissioner Ople
which has been accepted by the Committee? (Silence) The Chair hears none;
the
amendment is approved.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I ask that Commissioner Davide be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: Thank you, Madam President. On Section 10, line 20, page 4, I
propose to insert between vacancy and occur the following phrase: IN
THE
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND THE VICE-PRESIDENT. The whole line as
amended will read: morning of the third day after the vacancy IN THE
OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDENT AND THE VICE PRESIDENT occurs, convene.
REV. RIGOS: Madam President, I think we have a pending motion on Section
10. The copies of the proposed provision have been distributed.
PRESIDENT
SHALL BE DETERMINED BY LAW AND SHALL NOT BE DECREASED. NO
INCREASE IN SAID COMPENSATION SHALL TAKE EFFECT UNTIL AFTER THE
EXPIRATION OF THE TERM OF THE
INCUMBENT DURING WHICH SUCH INCREASE WAS APPROVED. THEY SHALL
NOT RECEIVE DURING THEIR TENURE ANY OTHER EMOLUMENT FROM THE
GOVERNMENT OR ANY OTHER SOURCE.
That is the first part of the amendment.
MR. REGALADO: May we have it a little slowly, Commissioner Bacani? Do we
maintain the first sentence?
BISHOP BACANI: Yes, the first sentence is maintained.
MR. REGALADO: The President shall have an official residence.
BISHOP BACANI: And then, THE SALARIES OF THE PRESIDENT AND VICEPRESIDENT SHALL BE DETERMINED BY LAW AND SHALL NOT BE DECREASED.
NO INCREASE IN SAID
COMPENSATION SHALL TAKE EFFECT UNTIL AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE
TERM OF THE INCUMBENT DURING WHICH SUCH INCREASE WAS APPROVED.
THEY SHALL NOT RECEIVE
DURING THEIR TENURE ANY OTHER EMOLUMENT FROM THE GOVERNMENT
OR ANY OTHER SOURCE.
The sentence that follows, it is presumed, will be transferred to the Transitory
Provisions.
MR. REGALADO: For the sake of uniformity, and because we have applied this
in the other departments and offices, the Committee accepts the
amendment and
with the reservation for the Transitory Provisions of the corresponding
provision. May we call the attention of Commissioner Suarez to please take
note of
that. Commissioner Suarez has been complaining that there have been no
formulations. So, we will also request Commissioners Bacani and Monsod to
make a
formulation so that there will be less transiting on the part of Commissioner
Suarez.
BISHOP BACANI: Yes, we will do so, Madam President.
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President, I would like to present the situation that
since we are drafting a Constitution not only for a few years but for
centuries,
(Silence) The
Chair hears none; the amendment is approved.
MR. REGALADO: Madam President, before Commissioner de los Reyes
proceeds with the reformulated Section 5 which was made in collaboration
with the Committee
and Commissioners Davide and Maambong, may I call the attention of the
body that in the draft circulated, the word DEATH was omitted on line 19
after the
word OF.
MR. DE LOS REYES: And on line 14, between or and both, we insert
WHERE. That is the amendment of Commissioner Rosario Braid. May I now
proceed to read
the reformulated Section 5, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Please proceed.
MR. DE LOS REYES: SECTION 5. THE PRESIDENT-ELECT AND THE VICEPRESIDENT-ELECT. SHALL ASSUME OFFICE AT THE BEGINNING OF THEIR
TERMS.
Second paragraph: IF THE PRESIDENT-ELECT FAILS TO QUALIFY, THE VICEPRESIDENT-ELECT SHALL ACT AS PRESIDENT UNTIL THE PRESIDENT-ELECT
SHALL HAVE QUALIFIED.
Third Paragraph: IF A PRESIDENT SHALL NOT HAVE BEEN CHOSEN, THE VICEPRESIDENT-ELECT SHALL ACT AS PRESIDENT UNTIL A PRESIDENT SHALL
HAVE BEEN CHOSEN AND
QUALIFIED.
Fourth paragraph: IF AT THE BEGINNING OF THE TERM OF THE PRESIDENT,
THE PRESIDENT-ELECT SHALL HAVE DIED OR SHALL HAVE BECOME
PERMANENTLY DISABLED, THE
VICE-PRESIDENT-ELECT SHALL BECOME PRESIDENT.
Fifth paragraph: WHERE NO PRESIDENT AND VICE-PRESIDENT SHALL HAVE
BEEN CHOSEN OR SHALL HAVE QUALIFIED, OR WHERE BOTH SHALL HAVE
DIED OR BECOME PERMANENTLY
DISABLED, THE SENATE PRESIDENT, OR IN CASE OF HIS INABILITY, THE
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SHALL ACT AS PRESIDENT
UNTIL A PRESIDENT OR A
VICE-PRESIDENT SHALL HAVE BEEN CHOSEN AND QUALIFIED.
Sixth paragraph: THE CONGRESS SHALL PROVIDE BY LAW FOR THE CASE OF
DEATH, PERMANENT DISABILITY OR INABILITY OF THE OFFICIALS MENTIONED
IN THE NEXT
PRECEDING PARAGRAPH AND THE MANNER IN WHICH ONE WHO IS TO ACT
AS PRESIDENT SHALL BE SELECTED UNTIL A PRESIDENT OR A VICEPRESIDENT SHALL HAVE QUALIFIED.
This is a consolidated amendment of Commissioners Padilla, Nolledo, Rigos,
Maambong, Davide and Guingona, in collaboration with Commissioner
Regalado.
MR. REGALADO: The Chairman has asked me to announce that the
Committee accepts the reformulated amendment on Section 5.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: May we ask Commissioner de los Reyes to read the
amendment so that we can put this to a vote.
MR. DE LOS REYES: THE PRESIDENT-ELECT AND THE VICE-PRESIDENT-ELECT
SHALL ASSUME OFFICE AT THE BEGINNING OF THEIR TERMS.
IF THE PRESIDENT-ELECT FAILS TO QUALIFY, THE VICE-PRESIDENT-ELECT
SHALL ACT AS PRESIDENT UNTIL THE PRESIDENT-ELECT SHALL HAVE
QUALIFIED.
IF A PRESIDENT SHALL NOT HAVE BEEN CHOSEN, THE VICE-PRESIDENTELECT SHALL ACT AS PRESIDENT UNTIL A PRESIDENT SHALL HAVE BEEN
CHOSEN AND QUALIFIED.
IF AT THE BEGINNING OF THE TERM OF THE PRESIDENT, THE PRESIDENTELECT SHALL HAVE DIED OR SHALL HAVE BECOME PERMANENTLY DISABLED,
THE VICE-PRESIDENT-ELECT
SHALL BECOME PRESIDENT.
WHERE NO PRESIDENT AND VICE-PRESIDENT HAVE BEEN CHOSEN OR SHALL
HAVE QUALIFIED OR WHERE BOTH SHALL HAVE DIED OR BECOME
PERMANENTLY DISABLED, THE SENATE
PRESIDENT, OR IN CASE OF HIS INABILITY, THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES SHALL ACT AS PRESIDENT UNTIL A PRESIDENT OR A VICEPRESIDENT SHALL HAVE
BEEN CHOSEN AND QUALIFIED.
THE CONGRESS SHALL PROVIDE BY LAW FOR THE CASE OF DEATH,
PERMANENT DISABILITY OR INABILITY OF THE OFFICIALS MENTIONED IN THE
NEXT PRECEDING PARAGRAPH AND
THE MANNER IN WHICH ONE WHO IS TO ACT AS PRESIDENT SHALL BE
SELECTED UNTIL A PRESIDENT OR VICE-PRESIDENT SHALL HAVE QUALIFIED.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, may we just clarify one point from the
distinguished proponent.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Yes, gladly.
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner will please proceed.
MR. SUAREZ: May I call Commissioner de los Reyes attention to the first and
second paragraphs, lines 1 to 5, of his draft.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Yes, madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: On line 2, the word ASSUME was used and on line 3, the
phrase FAILS TO QUALIFY was used. Suppose the President-elect does not
assume office
at the beginning of his term? Questions have already been raised here
sometime ago that that could possibly constitute an abandonment of office,
and that
is not equivalent to failure to qualify which appears on line 3.
So in a situation which I envision in that a President-elect will not assume
office at the beginning of his term, who would assume the presidency, and in
what character would the assumption be?
MR. DE LOS REYES: Although the situation is rather remote, the successor
will, of course, be the Vice-President.
MR. SUAREZ: In a permanent capacity?
MR. DE LOS REYES: If the failure to assume office reaches that stage where it
constitutes abandonment, then the Vice-President assumes presidency in a
permanent capacity.
FR. BERNAS: But, Madam President, I think it is clear that failure to assume
office is something that is temporary, and that is explained by lines 4 and 5
that the Vice-President-elect shall act as President until the President-elect
shall have qualified.
It is the same President-elect, on line 2, who fails to qualify, and on lines 4
and 5, who shall have qualified. So it is clear that it is not an
abandonment of office.
But if we have a situation where there is a clear abandonment of office, then
this section is not applicable.
MR. DE LOS REYES: No. The idea of the proponents of this proposal is that
instead of still making the Congress provide a law of succession to the
presidency or the vice-presidency in case of permanent disability, death or
removal from office or resignation of the President or Vice-President, the
Senate President or the Speaker of the House of Representatives, as the case
may be, shall be the successor.
FR. BERNAS: As a matter of fact, if the Commissioner is to take that out, what
would be applicable would be lines 19 to 23 of Section 5.
MR. DE LOS REYES. Lines 19 to 23 of Section 5.
FR. BERNAS. Yes, of Section 5. That would be the only portion that the
Commissioner could make applicable. So there is no harm in repeating this.
MR. DE LOS REYES: I withdraw the amendment.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Davide be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, my amendment is on page 5, Section 11,
lines 27 to 31.
On line 27, after convening, add the following: IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS
RULES WITHOUT NEED OF CALL and a comma (,), and between if and
not, insert IT
IS.
On line 28, delete twenty-one and substitute TEN.
On lines 29 to 31, delete the phrase or, if not in session, within twenty-one
days after it is required to assemble, so that lines 26 to 31 will now
read: There-upon, the Congress shall decide the issue, convening IN
ACCORDANCE WITH ITS RULES WITHOUT NEED OF CALL, within forty-eight
hours for that
purpose, if IT IS not in session. If the Congress, within TEN days after receipt
of the latter written declaration determines by a two-thirds vote of both
Houses . . .
MR. REGALADO: Will Commissioner Davide kindly explain why he requests to
delete or if not in session within twenty-one days after it is required to
assemble?
MR. DAVIDE: So I will begin from line 26. The proposed amendment as
modified and as accepted by the Committee is as follows: The Congress
shall decide the
issue convening IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS RULES WITHOUT NEED OF CALL,
within forty-eight hours for that purpose, if IT IS not in session. If the
Congress
within TEN days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if not in
session, within TWELVE days after it is required to assemble, determines by
a two-thirds vote of both Houses . . .
MR. REGALADO: No, two days plus 10 days.
FR. BERNAS: No, but if it is after it has assembled, we might as well make it
10 days.
The additional two days was precisely to give the Congress the opportunity
to assemble.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes.
FR. BERNAS: If we make the starting point after it has assembled, then we
might as well make it 10 days also.
MR. DAVIDE: That was the original proposal, to make it uniform.
FR. BERNAS: That is why my recommendation was: if not in session, within
TWELVE days after it is required to assemble.
MR. DAVIDE: So the amendment is as is then, TWELVE days after it is
required to assemble.
FR. BERNAS: The additional two days is to give the Congress time to
assemble.
MR. DAVIDE: So lines 28 to 31 will read: If the Congress within TEN days
after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if not in session, within
TWELVE days after it is required to assemble . . .
FR. BERNAS: . . . within TEN days . . .
MR. DAVIDE: . . . within TEN days, rather.
FR. BERNAS: No, TWELVE days after it is required to assemble. The
additional two days is for them to assemble.
MR. DAVIDE: That is it, within TWELVE days after it is required to assemble.
FR. BERNAS: Otherwise, he will have more powers than the President. So it
would seem to me that the first paragraph of Section 12 is unnecessary.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes. I think we better delete Section 12.
FR. BERNAS: Not the whole Section 12, but its first paragraph.
MR. DAVIDE: The first paragraph of Section 12 should be deleted.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, we can delete the first paragraph of Section 12. I agree.
MR. REGALADO: There were those in the Committee who wanted this
clarified because Section 15 refers to a President. There might always be a
little loophole
where the Acting President whose position is only temporary in character will
say: Well, that was with respect to the President who is permanent in
nature. So to avoid precisely the possibility of hairsplitting technicalities, we
make it specific that just like the President, the Acting President also
cannot just declare martial law, and conjointly with the second paragraph,
the limitations on his power of appointment. Making it specific will avoid any
questions later because we know how lawyers are; they can always try to
squeeze out of a situation and make distinctions where distinctions should
not
really exist.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, the idea of deleting the first paragraph is
simply this: An Acting President exercises all the powers of the President and,
therefore, he can declare martial law, but the manner under which he may
would be subject to Section 15. So it is not really necessary to insert in the
first paragraph of Section 12 the right of the Acting President to declare
martial law because, in effect, we would be conceding to him a greater
power
than that of a regular President.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rama is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I would like to support the idea of Commissioner Davide that
there is absolutely no need for this Article defining the powers of the Acting,
President which powers will be the same as the President. The situation
stated by Commissioner Regalado that an Acting Presidents power must be
defined
would create a lot of complications because we have to define also the
powers of the Acting Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Acting VicePresident,
etc. There is no need to define their powers because they have the powers of
the office that they are acting in. And I think we should not clutter up the
Constitution with all these unnecessary provisions which would yield to
varying interpretations.
MR. REGALADO: If it is on record that that is the understanding, then the first
paragraph may be deleted.
MR. RAMA: Thank you.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Does everybody agree? Does Commissioner Nolledo agree
to the deletion?
MR. NOLLEDO: I agree, Madam President.
Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: How about Commissioner Davide, does he also agree?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, but only with the deletion of the first paragraph of Section
12.
THE PRESIDENT: So the first paragraph of Section 12 is deleted.
Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is
approved.
May we know the sponsors of this amendment to delete the first paragraph
of Section 12.
MR. SARMIENTO: The sponsors are Commissioners Davide, Nolledo and
Rama.
Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Monsod be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, I would like to propose an amendment to
Section 15, lines 1 and 2, page 7, which is to delete the phrase and, with
the
concurrence of at least a majority of all the members of the Congress.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President.
MR. REGALADO: Madam President, it being our snack time, could the
Commissioner get together with Commissioner Monsod to discuss the
matter?
MR. PADILLA: Yes, and with all other Commissioners who may have proposed
amendments to Section 15.
MR. DE CASTRO: May we omit the first paragraph, Madam President?
MR. OPLE: Madam President.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.
It was 4:38 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 5:17 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Monsod be
recognized for an amendment on Section 1 5.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, before Commissioner Monsod takes the
rostrum, may I just add this for the record. Upon the request of
Commissioner Ople, I
went to our Medical Service and Dr. Fe Soriano, Chief of the Medical Service
of our Constitutional Commission Secretariat, gave this opinion about serious
illness. So for the record, may I read what she wrote, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tingson will please proceed.
MR. TINGSON: Dr. Fe Soriano, Chief of our Medical Service, said that serious
illness means any condition that could cause imminent death or would
incapacitate the person to the extent, for example, that his mental faculties
would deteriorate.
I thought that that might be good for our record, Madam President.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: If the intention there is to put a definition of serious illness, I do
not think the Commission or those who will interpret the Constitution
should be bound by that particular opinion. We leave the matter to the
Supreme Court to interpret it later.
MR. OPLE: We intended to have nothing more than the persuasive weight of
the definition, Madam President.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: That is the opinion of a doctor; that is all.
Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, we were not able to get together with the
Committee on a consolidated amendment, so we are back to my original
amendment,
except that I believe Commissioner Padilla would like to discuss his proposal
because that is anterior.
So may I request that my proposed amendment be temporarily held in
abeyance in order that Commissioner Padilla may be given a chance to
propose his.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Padilla is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, some of the Commissioners who have
proposed amendments on Section 15 have met together, although we could
not directly confer
with all the members of the Committee, but its distinguished Chairman
knows of these proposed amendments.
On Section 15, page 6, line 26, the first sentence remains: The President
shall be the commander-in-chief of all the armed forces of the Philippines
and,
whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to
prevent or suppress lawless violence My amendment is to substitute OR
PUBLIC
DISORDER in lieu of invasion or rebellion on line 29. That is the first
situation.
On the same page, line 30, insert the word ACTUAL between of and
invasion and on line 31 insert the clause BY PROCLAMATION, PLACE THE
PHILIPPINES OR
ANY PART THEREOF UNDER MARTIAL LAW. THE PERIOD OF SUCH
SUSPENSION OR PROCLAMATION SHALL NOT EXCEED . . .
On page 7, lines 1 to 4, delete and, with the concurrence of at least a
majority of all the members of the Congress, suspend the privilege of the
writ of
habeas corpus, or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial
law.
On the same page 7, lines 21 to 23, substitute the whole paragraph with:
DURING THE SUSPENSION OF THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS, ANY PERSON
WHO HAS BEEN ARRESTED AND DETAINED SHALL BE JUDICIALLY CHARGED
WITHIN FIVE WORKING DAYS OTHERWISE HE SHALL BE RELEASED.
The reason for the substitution of these last three lines is that during the
martial law regime, several innocent persons were arrested by virtue of
ASSO,
PCO and PDA and some of them had been detained not only for one month,
but for one year or more without any charge in court, and some of these
persons did
not know why they were arrested.
As worded, however, it says that it shall apply only to persons judicially
charged. So if the person has been judicially charged, there must have been
a
warrant of arrest issued. There would be no problem as to that because the
person arrested would have his judicial remedies. What we are avoiding or
preventing is the situation wherein a person is arrested during the
suspension of the writ of habeas corpus without any criminal information or
judicial
charge filed.
With regard to the distinction that we try to make among, first, the situation
of lawless violence; second, the suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus; and, third, the proclamation of martial law, it seems to us
that these situations are really three different stages.
We all agree that the suspension of the writ or the proclamation of martial
law should not require beforehand the concurrence of the majority of all the
Members of the Congress. However, as provided by the Committee, the
Congress may revoke, amend, shorten or even increase the period of such
suspension.
I realize that in the provisions of the Article on the Bill of Rights on the
suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, there was a great deal of discussion
regarding the words imminent danger of rebellion or invasion. Many of us
wanted to retain the words imminent danger as provided in the 1935 and
1973
Constitutions. And I know that the majority decision was to delete the words
imminent danger, so that it would be limited to actual invasion or
rebellion.
We feel, Madam President, that if there is already an actual invasion or
rebellion, then the suspension of the writ may become a useless formality.
But,
precisely, the intention is to provide for the suspension of the writ under
certain conditions short of actual rebellion or invasion.
I recall that during the time of President Quirino, he never declared martial
law although he suspended the writ of habeas corpus. So we feel that the
two
situations are not similar. Martial law contemplates a graver situation than
the mere suspension of the writ.
This morning Commissioner Monsod gave us a copy of his reminders stating
that in our effort to prevent abuses by government, we are unduly curtailing
and
restricting the exercise of the powers of the President. One such restriction is
the elimination of the words imminent danger, because under that
provision, the President as commander-in-chief of all the Armed Forces
cannot suspend the writ of habeas corpus unless there be actual invasion or
rebellion.
I realize that there may be many objections to this differentiation between
suspension of the writ and the declaration of martial law, particularly in that
others may attempt to reconsider the provision on the Article on the Bill of
Rights and to reinsert this phrase imminent danger. I believe, Madam
President, that while we respect the majority decision in the consideration of
the Article on the Bill of Rights, particularly that provision on the
suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, this body should not be completely
deprived of an opportunity to reconsider or improve provisions that we have
already approved in past sessions. In fact, it would be healthy if after many
of these committee reports have been considered, discussed, debated on
and
approved, there be an opportunity for all to resubmit a few important and,
perhaps, debatable issues for further deliberation by the Commissioners.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Madam President.
to consult with the House, but then it is a factor that will give support to the
President later on if we are able to get the consent and concurrence of
the House. And in the case of the declaration of martial law, I think the Chief
Executive would need all the friends that he or she can get and, therefore,
getting the nod of the House in a matter of the declaration of martial law, I
think, should not be given up as far as this Constitution is concerned.
MR. PADILLA: Personally, I am not very emphatic as to the change of
Congress to SENATE. It could remain with the Congress. Some other
Commissioners,
especially Commissioner Monsod and, as concurred in by the Chairman of
the Committee, I think that the word Congress could be substituted by
SENATE.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Lastly, the Commissioner pro- posed the substitution of the
whole paragraph on page 7, lines 21 to 23, to: DURING THE SUSPENSION OF
THE
PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, ANY PERSON WHO HAS BEEN
ARRESTED AND DETAINED SHALL BE JUDICIALLY CHARGED WITHIN FIVE
WORKING DAYS OTHERWISE HE
SHALL BE RELEASED.
MR. PADILLA: That is correct.
MR. NATIVIDAD: If the government claims to charge him, then he will have to
be released.
MR. PADILLA: That is correct.
MR. NATIVIDAD: I think this is a satisfactory compromise because this would
prevent the recurrence of the incidents in the past when people under such a
situation were detained for hundreds of days.
MR. PADILLA: That proposal is to prevent that odious occurrence before.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Under any circumstances, they cannot be detained beyond
five working days.
MR. PADILLA: Yes, unless the proper criminal information is filed. In which
case, it becomes the judicial prerogative whether or not the accused will be
entitled to bail.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Yes. By that, the case is filed in court, not in the fiscals
office.
MR. PADILLA: Yes.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Yes, the criminal information must be filed in court. I would
just like to make it of record that the accused must be charged in court. It
is not enough that they are charged in the fiscals office.
MR. PADILLA: We have not changed the wording in the committee report
regarding persons judicially charged.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Judicially, yes. I would just like to clarify the record because
in law enforcement there is always that loophole that the accused had been
properly charged. But what we mean by charged is judicially charged in
court and not in the fiscals office.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. PADILLA: Thank you.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Does Commissioner Padilla agree with that view?
MR. PADILLA: Yes, that is why we maintain the phrase judicially charged.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Thank you.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, Commissioner Suarez would like to
interpellate.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Madam President.
Will the distinguished Vice-President yield to a few clarificatory questions?
MR. PADILLA: Yes, very gladly.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
The Commissioner is suggesting that in connection with Section 15, we
delete the phrase and, with the concurrence of at least a majority of all the
Members of the Congress . . .
MR. PADILLA: That is correct especially for the initial suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or also the declaration of martial law.
MR. SUAREZ: So in both instances, the Commissioner is suggesting that this
would be an exclusive prerogative of the President?
MR. PADILLA: At least initially, for a period of 60 days. But even that period of
60 days may be shortened by the Congress or the Senate because the next
sentence says that the Congress or the Senate may even revoke the
proclamation.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, when we started on this amendment by
Commissioner Padilla, I wanted to present my amendment but I gave way
because of the
anterior proposals of Commissioner Padilla. But I have a series of
amendments on lines 1, 4, 5 and 7, page 7 that would have a different effect
from the
discussions now. I wonder if we can take these because the answers would
be different, depending on whether or not my amendments would be
accepted by the
Committee.
THE PRESIDENT: Has Commissioner Monsod conferred with the Committee?
MR. MONSOD: Yes, Madam President, I have conferred with the Chairman,
Commissioner Sumulong, on the substitution of SENATE for Congress and
with
Commissioner Bernas on the deletion of the phrase revoke such
proclamation or suspension.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there no way of consolidating the proposed amendment
of Commissioner Padilla with that of Commissioner Monsod?
MR. MONSOD: Yes, we tried to do that, Madam President, and, in fact, the
consolidated formulation that we tried to present to the Committee
contained all
of these. Some of the amendments in that consolidated formulation were
accepted and others were not. So I gave way to Commissioner Padilla so he
could
discuss the parts that were not accepted by the Committee.
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de Castro is recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you, Madam President.
We will recall that during the period of sponsorship and debate, I was the first
one who objected to the need for the concurrence of the majority of all
the Members of the Congress before the President can proclaim martial law
or suspend the writ. So I have my amendment on this, but I gave way to the
amendment of Commissioner Padilla because the provision on the initial
concurrence of Congress has already been eliminated. My next amendment
is on the
second sentence.
MR. MONSOD: For the information of Commissioner de Castro, there has
been no elimination yet.
THE PRESIDENT: Let Commissioner de Castro finish first his amendment.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President.
MR. DE CASTRO: The Honorable Padilla proposed the deletion of the phrase
and; with the concurrence of at least a majority of the members of the
Congress
as appearing on page 7, line 1, which was also my amendment, so I did not
propose it anymore. However, on the second sentence I would also like to
propose
an amendment as a result of Commissioner Monsods amendment
substituting Congress with SENATE.
THE PRESIDENT: So these are all joint amendments in that the
Commissioners who proposed these amendments will be considered joint
sponsors.
MR. DE CASTRO: The Chairman of the Steering Committee informed us that
we will not talk first of the first paragraph of Section 15, instead we will talk
of
the second paragraph.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: After conferring with Commissioner Padilla, he has agreed
that he will confine himself to the first paragraph of Section 15 on page 6 to
which
he has an amendment. So we will take that up first.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it on line 29?
MR. PADILLA: The only problem is that invasion or rebellion has been
understood as actual invasion or actual rebellion.
The President can call on the Armed Forces to suppress lawless violence and
anything that affects public safety. That is understood. There is no intention
that, if the situation becomes graver, he will have less power.
MR. REGALADO: But it could be argued the other way around also in that we
specifically eliminated the power to call the Armed Forces because in case of
invasion or rebellion, there must be a proclamation of martial law.
MR. PADILLA: If that is the fear of the members of the Committee, I will not
insist on my amendment because that is not my primary purpose. I am just
trying to distinguish three different stages or three separate situations.
THE PRESIDENT: So, we could proceed to line 30. Is there any proposed
amendment on line 30?
MR. PADILLA: On line 30, I propose to include: IN CASE OF SUBVERSION,
SEDITION OR IMMINENT DANGER OF REBELLION OR INVASION WHEN THE
PUBLIC SAFETY DEMANDS
IT, HE MAY SUSPEND THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN ANY PART OF THE
PHILIPPINES.
THE PRESIDENT: The proposed amendment would increase the grounds for
the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I just be allowed to ask one question of Commissioner
Padilla. The Commissioner added the word SUBVERSION as one of the
grounds for
the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. As defined, is
the Commissioner referring to RA 1700 as amended by P.D. No. 885, which is
the
Anti-Subversion Law as amended?
MR. PADILLA: Yes, with the stress that subversion, as correctly understood, is
with the aid or assistance, overt or covert, of an alien power.
FR. BERNAS: Point of order Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bernas is recognized.
FR. BERNAS: The matter proposed adds new grounds for the suspension of
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. In the Article on the Bill of Rights
which we have already approved on Third Reading, we limited the grounds
for the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus to actual
rebellion and actual invasion. So before we can rediscuss this, we would have
to reconsider our Third Reading approval of the Article on the Bill of
Rights, and before we can reconsider that, we will have to suspend the Rules
because the period of reconsideration has already passed.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that the reason for the Committee not accepting the
proposed amendment of Commissioner Padilla?
MR. REGALADO: That is not all, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: No, for this line; we are just on line 30, on the additional
grounds for the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
MR. REGALADO: Yes, Madam President. The Committee does not accept the
proposed amendment not only because it has, in a manner of speaking, been
foreclosed
by the Article on the Bill of Rights having been passed on Third Reading, but
also because of the additional grounds like sedition, subversion or imminent
danger thereof. Of course, as to the elimination of the phrase imminent
danger in both the Articles on the Bill of Rights and on the Executive, that
has
already been explained thoroughly here on the floor. There is a fear that the
President could base the suspension of the writ on alleged intelligence
reports which cannot be looked into and the veracity of which is dependent
on the classification by the military. This could lead to a situation where
these reports could easily be manufactured and attributed to anybody,
without even the judiciary being in a position to refuse or look into the truth
of
the same. If they say it is classified as class A or class B, how can even
the judiciary dispute the authenticity and the truth of those
classifications? With respect to sedition, this only involves a public up rising;
not an armed-public uprising. The purpose of sedition is only to prevent
the public authorities, including the judiciary, from carrying out their
functions It is not rebellion. Also, sedition is for the purpose of despoiling a
particular social class, or an attack upon the lives of persons or private
property of public officers just because they are public officers. It is on a
much lesser magnitude because it does not involve an armed public uprising.
The moment there is an armed public uprising, it becomes rebellion.
MR. PADILLA: It is correct that sedition is of a, lesser magnitude than
rebellion. That is why it is one of the grounds proposed for the suspension of
the
writ; whereas, actual rebellion or invasion is one of the grounds for the
declaration of martial law. Admittedly, sedition is of a lesser magnitude than
rebellion but sedition also involves a public uprising, maybe, for political or
social ends. Under Article 139 of the Revised Penal Code, there are a
number of offenses mentioned that can fall under sedition. Whereas, under
Article 134, the purpose of rebellion is to overthrow the government or to
deprive the government of a portion of a territory, or to disrupt the
prerogatives of the President or of the legislature. Definitely, rebellion is
more
serious than sedition and that is the reason I suggested that short of actual
invasion or rebellion, which is considered as the admitted ground for the
declaration of martial law, there will be lesser grounds to justify the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Committee not believe that we can submit this
proposed amendment to a vote now?
FR. BERNAS: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bernas is recognized.
FR. BERNAS: Before we discuss any additional ground for the suspension of
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, may I ask for a ruling on the point
of order raised? May we reopen that considering that the matter has been
approved on Third Reading?
RULING OF THE CHAIR
THE PRESIDENT: The ruling of the Chair is that what has been approved on
Third Reading can no longer be reconsidered.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, these are now the powers of the President as
commander-in-chief. Of course, we have to harmonize the different
provisions of
the Constitution. But the fact that a majority voted to eliminate the phrase
imminent danger thereof should not be conclusive, final and unappealable.
As
stated earlier, I realized that when the others and I were insisting on the
retention of the phrase that was already in our two Constitutions, a majority
decided otherwise. I admitted that in my statement, but if we consider these
powers of the President and the majority should find some merit in these
proposed amendments, I believe there is nothing that will prevent us from
also harmonizing the provision previously approved on the Bill of Rights.
MR. OPLE: Madam President.
And he gave all reasons in order to suspend the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus and declare martial law in our country without justifiable
reason.
Would the Gentleman still insist on the deletion of the phrase and, with the
concurrence of at least a majority of all the members of the Congress?
MR. MONSOD: Yes, Madam President, in the case of Mr. Marcos, he is
undoubtedly an aberration in our history and national consciousness. But
given the
possibility that there would be another Marcos, our Constitution now has
sufficient safeguards. As I said, it is not really true, as the Gentleman has
mentioned, that there is an exclusive right to determine the factual basis
because the paragraph beginning on line 9 precisely tells us that the
Supreme
Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the
sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the
suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof and must
promulgate its decision on the same within 30 days from its filing.
I believe that there are enough safeguards. The Constitution is supposed to
balance the interests of the country. And here we are trying to balance the
public interest in case of invasion or rebellion as against the rights of
citizens. And I am saying that there are enough safeguards, unlike in 1972
when
Mr. Marcos was able to do all those things mentioned..
MR. SUAREZ: Will that prevent a future President from doing what Mr. Marcos
had done?
MR. MONSOD: There is nothing absolute in this world, and there may be
another Marcos. What we are looking for are safeguards that are reasonable
and, I
believe, adequate at this point. On the other hand, in case of invasion or
rebellion, even during the first 60 days when the intention here is to protect
the country in that situation, it would be unreasonable to ask that there
should be a concurrence on the part of the Congress, which situation is
automatically terminated at the end of such 60 days.
MR. SUAREZ: Do we not have to make a distinction between invasion and
rebellion? The Gentleman concentrated on the matter of actual invasion and
if we are
going to go by international rules, there need not really be an actual invasion
in that concept. That can also serve as a predicate by the unscrupulous
President to declare a state of war or invasion.
its
purpose was, and I quote:
To fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and
insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the
President will apply to the introduction of United States armed forces into
hostilities.
And may I just continue this paragraph, Madam President.
Such collective judgment is to be effected by heightened consultations
between the President and Congress. In every possible instance, the
consultation is
to occur before American forces are introduced into hostilities. When the
President is required to act without prior consultation however . . .
May I repeat that When the President is required to act without prior
consultation . . . because that can happen as when those to be consulted
are
not available:
. . . he shall submit within 48 hours to Congress a report in writing setting
forth:
(a) The circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States armed
forces;
(b) The constitutional and legislative authority under which such introduction
took place; and
(c) The estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.
So, my proposed amendment, Madam President, merely contemplates
consultations with Members of the Congress. If this is not possible, I would
like to
propose an alternative amendment which would require the President of the
Philippines, within 48 hours of the proclamation of martial law, to render a
report in writing to the Congress of the Philippines.
THE PRESIDENT: So, let us take up first the proposed amendment on
consultation. Does Commissioner Monsod accept?
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President, before we take up the amendment to the
amendment, may I be given permission to say something about the
statements of
Commissioner Ople.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but the Chair will first ask Commissioner Monsod if he is
accepting the amendment to the amendment.
MR. MONSOD: I regret, Madam President, that I cannot accept the proposed
amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Does Commissioner Ople insist on his proposed amendment
to the amendment?
MR. OPLE: I will then fall back on the alternative amendment, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: So, we will take that up later.
Commissioner de Castro is recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you, Madam President.
The matter we are discussing now is on line 30, page 6, which says: In case
of invasion or rebellion . . . Those are the two situations by which the
President may be given the authority to suspend the privilege of the writ or
to proclaim martial law.
Let us consider invasion. In my interpellation, even during the period that we
were discussing the Bill of Rights, I was given the answer that invasion is
actual invasion. When I asked, If you see the ships coming from Japan or
somewhere else already within sight at Lingayen Gulf, is that invasion?
They
said that is not yet actual invasion because the troops of the enemy have not
yet landed.
Madam President, when we talk of invasion, we are talking of an external
force, an enemy force ready to invade the Philippines; and if I were the
invader,
the first thing that I will do is to land within the easy shores, perhaps
Lingayen Gulf, and have a vertical envelopment of Manila. There will be no
chance
for the President of the Philippines to declare martial law or to suspend the
privilege of the writ. There will be fighting right then and there, and the
rules of land warfare shall take over. The suspension of the privilege of the
writ or declaration of martial law would not fit anymore in case an enemy
force or an external force invades the Philippines because, as I said, if I were
the invading force, there will be vertical envelopment, perhaps capturing
already the President in Malacaang. That is why the proposition of
Commissioner Padilla is in order with regard to subversion, sedition or
imminent danger
thereof, because the proclamation of martial law and the suspension of the
writ will become useless if there is an actual invasion of the country by an
external force.
Let us now consider rebellion. Allow me to answer Commissioner Ople. He
stated that the President of the United States is in consultation with the
Members
of Congress before the employment of U.S. forces. Certainly, they are to be
employed outside the United States. There is no invasion in the United
States,
and therefore, he has all the time to consult the Members of Congress. After
all, before I employ my forces, who are being killed? It is not the citizens
of the United States but the citizens of a Third World country in which the
U.S. would like to employ their forces.
This is the very defect of the Mutual Defense Treaty between the Philippines
and the United States. They say that they will employ their forces only in
accordance with constitutional processes. And this was what this humble
servant had been objecting to when he was in the Armed Forces that this
Mutual
Defense Treaty is useless because before the United States can help us or
can comply with the treaty, we are already conquered because they will still
have
to talk about constitutional processes in the employment of their forces here.
This is in answer to Commissioner Oples statements regarding consultations.
But how about our President when there is already actual invasion and actual
rebellion? Will he still be consulting Members of the Congress? Will he still
be asking the Congress that he be authorized to declare martial law or
suspend the writ? I do not believe that the President will have that time;
neither
shall we have the time during actual invasion.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President.
MR. DE CASTRO: Please, I still have the floor.
Let us consider actual rebellion, Madam President. We have heard and read
in the newspapers that hundreds and hundreds of NPAs, sometimes 200 in
number,
can get into a municipality and capture that municipality, and I was even
asking: Why? What happened to our intelligence system? Do we not know
that
hundreds and hundreds of NPAs are concentrating on attacking a certain
area? And if our intelligence system and the various units that we have are
deficient, what will prevent hundreds of NPAs from marching along the
streets of Metro Manila and attacking Malacaang or the Congress? Will our
President
still have the time to consult the Congress when there is actual rebellion?
Will our President have the time to declare martial law? The first thing she
will do is to employ all the Armed Forces. A declaration of martial law may be
done later.
MR. NOLLEDO: Will the Gentleman yield to some questions?
MR. DE CASTRO: This is an answer. Allow me to finish, please.
THE PRESIDENT: We will call on Commissioner Nolledo later.
MR. DE CASTRO: When the Gentleman was the one talking I did not prevent
him, never. (Laughter)
MR. NOLLEDO: No, please.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de Castro will please proceed.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you, Madam President.
I am just stating the facts; I am just stating what is happening, what may
happen and what we have witnessed. I am pointing out the defect of our
Mutual
Defense Treaty. When we come to it, I will expose in this hall why we do not
like the Mutual Defense Treaty of the United States, which resulted in the
installation of the military bases. I am not anti-bases; I am for not stating in
our Constitution anything about the bases in order to give the Chief
Executive and the legislative an opportunity to have their options.
Now, Commissioner Nolledo may have the floor, if the President will allow
him. (Laughter)
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, may I be allowed to propound some
questions to the Gentleman?
THE PRESIDENT: Is Commissioner de Castro willing to be interpellated?
MR. NOLLEDO: Just a few questions to my distinguished classmate in the
College of Law.
MR. DE CASTRO: Willingly, to my distinguished classmate.
martial law. Is that too much to expect? Is this asking too much of the
President?
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair believes that before we can take up this proposed
amendment. we have to vote first. Do we agree to delete the phrase sought
to be
deleted?
MR. OPLE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: If there is no concurrence then the alternative proposal
would come in.
MR. OPLE: Yes, the Chair is right. Thank you.
MR. GARCIA: Madam President, I would like to argue against the deletion
proposed by Commissioner Monsod.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Garcia is recognized.
MR. GARCIA: I think it is important to consider that the imposition of martial
law is not a singular event that happened in the Philippines. There are many
instances where a state of emergency, a state of martial law, estado de sitio,
was imposed in different parts of the world: in Brazil in 1964: in Argentina
and Zaire in 1966; in Peru in 1968; in Bolivia in 1970; in Uruguay in 1972; in
Chile in 1973. The point of all of these is that the imposition of martial
law or emergency measures, in a sense, leads later on to violations of basic
guarantees and allows the militarization of politics. That is precisely the
reason why the concurrence of Congress is necessary and which, I think, is a
very strong point in the committee report. It is at the very start of the
militarization of politics where we must put a stop to it, if possible, and try to
get popular support. Because if martial rule is going to be genuinely
beneficial, it must be supported by the representatives of the people;
otherwise, what we will have is a militarization of politics, once the military
tastes power and the radicalization of social conflicts which later on lead to
different forms of resolving political problems.
Secondly, as was already pointed out very well by Commissioner Nolledo, if
there is a case of rebellion or invasion, Section 15, in fact, grants the
President the to power to stop it by calling out the Armed Forces. But what I
am objecting to is the declaration of martial law which institutionalizes the
presence of the military in civilian life and its predominance during this
period. It is at the very beginning, I believe, where the concurrence of the
representatives of the people is essential and important.
I also would like to remind ourselves that very often the doctrine of national
security is given as a reason to impose extraordinary measures which, once
begun, leads to many other violations. I believe this is something that we
must guard against from the very beginning.
Another point for us to consider is that. in fact, the International Covenant of
Civil and Political Rights, in Article 27 thereof, allows states, of
course, to declare martial law but even asks the member-states of the United
Nations to make a written report to the Secretary-General of the United
Nations stating their specific reasons and the length of time for the
declaration of martial law.
And, lastly, I would like to remind ourselves that in the public hearings that
we had, one of the most insistent demands of our peoples was precisely the
concurrence of the legislature in the declaration of martial rule. I understand
the comments of Commissioner Monsod earlier today when he said that
because
of the bicameral system now, there are more checks and balances. I admit, I
agree, but at the same time, because of our recent history and experience of
the past, we cannot but heed the very strong clamor of the people to
precisely participate through their representatives in Congress, if and when
martial
law is deemed necessary in our land.
MR. MONSOD: May I respond, Madam President?
THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me, is there any other speaker who would like to
interpellate?
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: May I respond to Commissioner Garcias statements?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod desires to respond. Commissioner
Monsod then is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I briefly speak against the
amendment before the response of Commissioner Monsod?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, I see the wisdom for the inclusion of this
concurrence. It is precisely the noninclusion of this provision in the 1973
Constitution that we had untold sufferings and miseries during the past
point any other hands in which this power would be more safe and at the
same time equally effectual.
It means that it should be given to the President.
MR. MONSOD: Yes, Madam President.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Thank you, Madam President.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: We are ready to vote now.
As many as are in favor of the proposed amendment of Commissioner
Monsod to delete lines I and 2 which reads: and, with the concurrence of at
least a
majority of all the members of the Congress, please raise their hand.
(Several Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their
hand.)
The results show 27 votes in favor and 11 against; the amendment is
approved.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, may I be recognized?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: Normally, we are very supportive and cooperative, but may we
ask for a nominal voting on this critical matter which affects the lives of our
citizens.
NOMINAL VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: Nominal voting has to be approved by one-fifth of those
present.
As many as are in favor that we proceed with a nominal voting on this
particular amendment, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised
their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their
hand.)
There being the required number, the Chair declares that a nominal voting
on this matter is in order.
The Secretary-General will call the roll.
FIRST ROLL CALL
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading.
Abubakar
Azcuna
Alonto
Bacani
Yes
Aquino
THE PRESIDENT: The Members are free to explain if they desire to do so.
COMMISSIONER BACANI EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
BISHOP BACANI: Yes, just two sentences. The reason I vote yes is that despite
my concern for human rights, I believe that a good President can also
safeguard human rights and human lives as well. And I do not want to unduly
emasculate the powers of the President. Besides, it will not always be
practicable, even possible, to get the concurrence of the Congress.
THE PRESIDENT: Just to clarify again. The yes vote is for the proposed
amendment of Commissioner Monsod.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Bengzon
Yes
Bennagen
power of the President enough because the Office of the President already
has the highest symbolic content which can produce other types of power
unpredicted in the Constitution. I wish to argue that we never can
emasculate the power of the President even with all these provisions.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: So, the vote is yes?
MR. BENNAGEN: I am against the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: It is a no vote.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading.
Bernas
Calderon
Rosario-Braid
Yes
Brocka
No
Castro de
Yes
Foz
Concepcion
Yes
Garcia
Davide
Yes
COMMISSIONER GARCIA EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
Yes
MR. GARCIA: I am against the amendment for the following reasons: First, it
is, in fact, in support of the President that we need the concurrence of the
representatives of the people in the Congress. Martial law can be a very
divisive action. And to gather legislative support in such a critical and
difficult period is important for martial law to be understood and supported.
Second, I think it is our experience in the past and those of other Third World
countries that when one calls for such extraordinary measures as martial
rule, the entry of the military in politics or in government brings in possible
abuses which are very difficult later on to check.
And, third and this I feel very sad about one of the clearest statements
given to us by the people all over the Philippines in the public hearings we
had was that after the sad experience of martial rule, they felt that one of
the safeguards could be the concurrence of the Congress before martial law
is
declared. And I think this was a very clear statement given to us; and our
vote today simply negates the value of that voice we have heard.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Gascon
COMMISSIONER GASCON EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. GASCON: Madam President, I would like to explain my vote.
I feel that in discussing the presidency and the issue of the declaration of
martial law, we must assure the people that the evils of martial law which we
have just experienced will not happen again. And we must also assure them
that if in case such a situation occurs where we have to declare martial law,
the
people will be behind such a declaration. Therefore, I vote no.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Guingona
COMMISSIONER JAMIR EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. JAMIR: I vote no because martial law and the suspension of the privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus are not defenses against actual invasion and
rebellion. They are to be used only for the purpose of preventing the Filipino
citizens from doing acts that will give aid and comfort to the enemy, and it
is a dangerous presumption that the Filipino people are all treasonous.
I reiterate my vote of no.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Laurel
Yes
Lerum
Yes
Maambong
Yes
Natividad
Yes
Nolledo
notified, would like to propose a brief amendment that will help meet some
of the
concerns expressed here by those who are voting against this amendment.
Thank you. Madam President.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Padilla
COMMISSIONER PADILLA EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, I vote yes because the Monsod amendment
has included my own proposed amendment. I regret to state, however, that if
the
declaration of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus can only be based on actual invasion and actual rebellion, we
might as well eliminate the provisions on suspension and proclamation
because it will present an absurd situation. There is already an actual theatre
of
war and yet, we will still be talking about declaring martial law or suspending
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. I regret that the situation to
me looks very absurd unless we grant the President. as Commander-in-Chief
of the Armed Forces, to exercise the powers of that office when public safety
demands its not only in cases of actual invasion or rebellion but even
imminent danger thereof.
Thank you.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading.
Quesada
COMMISSIONER QUESADA EXPLAINS HER VOTE
MS. QUESADA: I vote no. I believe that this very important decision of the
President should really have the concurrence of the representatives of the
people. And I agree with the reasoning of Commissioner Garcia that, in fact,
when the President consults with the people through their representatives in
the Congress, they will be more supportive of such a decision, if indeed it has
this danger to the people. So, I feel very sad about this particular
decision that has been approved by the body.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Rama
No
Regalado
Yes
Reyes de los
other words, if the Members of Congress do not concur with the decision of
the President, they can revoke such proclamation anytime they wish.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Rodrigo
Yes
Rosales
Yes
Romulo
Yes
Sarmiento
Yes
Tingson
COMMISSIONER TINGSON EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, I vote yes for two reasons: 1) I do not want
to see further emasculation of the Presidents power especially in actual time
of danger against our nations security; 2) now that we have opted for a
presidency without further reelection in his lifetime, the future President of
our
country will become a statesman who will act and pray for the next
generation rather than become a politician who only thinks of the next
election.
I vote yes.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Treas
Uka
COMMISSIONER UKA EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. UKA: Madam President, after hearing the reasons of those who voted yes
and in order to save time, I vote yes.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Villacorta
COMMISSIONER VILLACORTA EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. VILLACORTA: Madam President, I vote in the negative for two reasons: 1)
no single official, not even the Commander-in-Chief, should be given the
prerogative to deprive millions of his countrymen of their basic rights; 2) we
should fully trust the judgment of the legislators, our peoples
representatives, and their ability discern clear dangers to public safety and
national security and to make the appropriate decision expeditiously.
Thank you very much.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Villegas
Yes
How about the Madam President, will she cast her vote?
THE PRESIDENT EXPLAINS HER VOTE
THE PRESIDENT: I am voting no because this has been a promise that I had
personally made during the time of the Marcos regime, the promise to the
people
that if ever the Opposition comes into power, this will be one of the things
that we will do; that is, limit the power of the President in suspending the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and declaring martial law. (Applause)
SECOND ROLL CALL
Aquino
Bernas
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will conduct a second call for those
who have not registered their votes.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Abubakar
Calderon
Alonto
Guingona
Aquino
Tan
Bernas
Treas
THE PRESIDENT: The results show 28 votes in fat and 12 against; the Monsod
amendment is approved.
ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I think we are in imminent danger of
collapsing from fatigue, and so, move that we adjourn until tomorrow at ninethirty in
the morning.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is adjourned until tomorrow at nine-thirty in the
morning.
R.C.C. NO. 44
Thursday, July 31, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
At 9:47 a.m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia Muoz Palma, opened the
session.
THE PRESIDENT. The session is called to order.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
THE PRESIDENT. Everybody will please rise to sing the National Anthem.
Everybody rose to sing the National Anthem.
THE PRESIDENT. Everybody will please remain standing for the Prayer to be
led by the Honorable Lugum L. Uka.
Everybody remained standing for the Prayer.
PRAYER
MR. UKA. My friends, let us bow our heads and pray:
Bismillah Ir Rahman Ir Rahim
Most merciful and compassionate Almighty God, Who guides the destinies of
men and nations, we, the forty-eight (48) Members of this Constitutional
Commission of 1986, humbly ask You to guide us on the right path. Grant us
the wisdom to enable us to draft a Constitution that will bring about real
democracy, unity, love, brotherhood, peace and prosperity among our
people, Christians, Muslims and tribal communities alike.
Instill in us the noble belief expressed in all Your Holy Books that all mankind,
regardless of race, color or creed, are but one single nation, one-big
family, founded by Adam and Eve whom You have created as mankinds
common ancestors.
Fill our hearts, Almighty God, with the message of brotherhood, love and
unity which You commanded Your holy messengers or prophets to preach
unto every
creature and which Moses, Jesus and Mohammad did.
Make us more tolerant, kind, forgiving and peaceful so that peace, love and
prosperity for all mankind shall prevail throughout the world.
Hasten, O Lord, the dawn of that new day when all nations will sing together
in perfect unison, Peace on earth, goodwill to all men. Amen.
THE PRESIDENT. The Secretary-General will please call the roll.
ROLL CALL
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL. reading:
Abubakar
Present *
Natividad
Present *
Alonto
Present *
Nieva
Present *
Aquino
Present
Nolledo
Present
Azcuna
Present
Ople
Present *
Bacani
Present
Padilla
Present
Bengzon
Present *
Quesada
Present
Bennagen
Present
Rama
Present
Bernas
Present
Regalado
Present
Rosario Braid
Present
Reyes de los
Present *
Brocka
Present *
Rigos
Present
Calderon
Present
Rodrigo
Present
Castro de
Present
Romulo
Present
Colayco
Present
Rosales
Present
Concepcion
Present
Sarmiento
Present
Davide
Present
Suarez
Present *
Foz
Present
Sumulong
Present
Garcia
Present *
Tadeo
Present
Gascon
Present *
Tan
Present
Guingona
Present
Tingson
Present
Jamir
Present
Treas
Present
Laurel
Present *
Uka
Present
Lerum
Present
Villacorta
Present
Maambong
Present *
Villegas
Present
Monsod
Present
provided that radio and television be treated as one single medium separate
from either
print or cinema.
(Communication No. 385 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on General Provisions.
Communication from Mr. Sergio Z. Esmilla, Jr. of the University of the
Philippines College of Music and one thousand seven hundred fifty others,
seeking
the inclusion of a provision obliging the State to protect the life of the unborn
from the moment of conception.
(Communication No. 386 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory and Declaration of
Principles.
Letter signed by Dr. Miraflor G. Parpan and six others from the Kalinga-Isneg
Self-Rule and Self-Determination Movement (KISSM), Province of
Kalinga-Apayao, opposing the creation of an Autonomous Cordillera as
proposed by the Cordillera Peoples Alliance (CPA)/Cordillera Bodong
Association (CBA)
because both spring from the CPP/NPA which seek to control the Cordillera
Region into a consolidated secured base of the NPA communist ideology
operation
in the Luzon area.
(Communication No. 387 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Local Governments.
Letter from Mr. Lorenzo M. Taada, former Senator of the Philippines, saying
that the foreign bases in our country must go and our foreign policy makers
must be so mandated by the Constitution.
(Communication No. 388 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on General Provisions.
Letter from Mr. Alexis V. Pardo for the GSIS Lawyers Guild, proposing the
transfer of the compensation planning function of the Ministry of the Budget
to
the Civil Service Commission, representation of government employees in
the CSC, strengthening of the security of tenure clause, and the government
employees right to self-organization for the purpose of collective bargaining
(Communication No. 389 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Constitutional Commissions and Agencies.
Letter from Mr. Clem Manalo Leano of the GSIS, requesting the inclusion of a
provision that government properties classified as immovable and real estate
properties sold and conveyed to private and juridical entities shall be subject
to escheat proceedings.
(Communication No. 390 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on General Provisions.
Letter from Mr. Ramon A. Tagle, Jr. of the Family Planning Organization of the
Philippines, submitting a resolution passed by its National Office,
proposing the inclusion of provisions providing for the strengthening of the
family as a basic social institution, recognizing the sacredness and
inviolability of human life, and condemning abortion in all forms.
(Communication No. 391 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory and Declaration of
Principles.
Letter from Mr. Manuel A. Sanico of 4107 Corregidor-Pitogo, Makati, Metro
Manila, proposing a provision for the award of home lots to the poor.
(Communication No. 392 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Social Justice.
Letter from Mr. Teofilo C. Ramos, Sr. of the Iglesia ni Kristo, stating that the
Iglesia ni Kristo is unequivocally for the retention of the phrase the
separation of church and state in Section 15. Article XV of the 1973
Constitution and attaching a copy of the editorial of July-August 1986 issue of
the
PASUGO.
(Communication No. 393 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on General Provisions.
Letter from Mr. Ben Rafols and one hundred seventy-four others of United
Students for a Better Central, Central Philippine University, Iloilo City,
proposing that the State should not only recognize but affirm the vital role of
the youth in nation building and that the State should also promote respect
for human rights.
(Communication No. 394 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Preamble. National Territory and Declaration of
Principles.
Communication from Mr. Herman R. Juatas for Philippine Unemployed Labor
Association, proposing a transitory provision constituting the Constitutional
Commission of 1986 as an interim legislature for the purpose of enacting
measures designed to counter problems of unemployment and poverty.
(Communication No. 395 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Social Justice.
Resolution No. 44, series of 1986, of the Sangguniang Bayan of Biliran,
Subprovince of Biliran, Leyte, suggesting a provision making the Subprovince
of
Biliran a regular province.
(Communication No. 396 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Local Governments.
Letter from the Honorable Commissioner Ambrosio B. Padilla, transmitting a
letter of Mr. Bienvenido A. Castillo of 50 Mckinley, Pulilan, Bulacan, opposing
the creation of autonomous governments for Cordillera and Mindanao.
(Communication No. 397 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Local Governments.
Letter from Sr. Mary Clemencia Flora, RGS, for the Rural Missionaries of the
Philippines, supporting the Program for Genuine Land Reform proposed by
the
Kilusang Magbubukid sa Pilipinas (KMP).
(Communication No. 398 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Social Justice.
FR. BERNAS. Yes, so that even if elections for the President and VicePresident are held, there is a possibility that there may be a delay in the
announcement of the results of the election of the President. But if in the
meantime the Vice-President has been announced, has been proclaimed and
qualified, then he takes over.
BISHOP BACANI. Thank you.
MR. REGALADO. I would like to seek a further clarification from Commissioner
Rigos because the amendment intends to delete also lines 11 to 18. As
formulated, this is the order of succession: either the Senate President will be
Acting President or in case of his inability, the Speaker of the House of
Representatives shall then act as !resident. My question is: What happens
when that Acting President, either the President of the Senate or the Speaker
of
the House of Representatives, becomes incapacitated, or dies or becomes
permanently disabled or resigns from office as contemplated on lines 11 to
18?
REV. RIGOS. Then I will limit my proposed amendment up to line 10.
MR. REGALADO. And lines 11 to 18 which refer to the Acting President under
circumstances therein stated will remain.
REV. RIGOS. Yes.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. Is there any other clarification?
Are we ready to vote on this proposed amendment of Commissioner Rigos on
Section 9, which has been accepted by the Committee?
MR. RODRIGO. Madam President, because of the amendment of the sentence
in the first paragraph of Section 9, the second paragraph should also be
amended
accordingly.
THE PRESIDENT. Is Commissioner Rodrigo seeking some clarification?
MR. RODRIGO. I am not ready to propose amendments. I just want to reserve
my right to make the corresponding corrections or amendments on the
second
paragraph of Section 9, lines 11 to 18, which I will submit later on, so that it
will conform to the first paragraph of Section 9, as amended.
MR. SUAREZ. So, during that period of six months, the Acting President shall
continue in office?
MR. REGALADO. Yes, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ. Will that possibility preclude an Acting President from running
for the position of either President or Vice-President in the scheduled
elections?
MR. REGALADO. It will not. The Committee believes it will not preclude the
possibility because he is only an Acting President. He may actually be the
Speaker or he may be the Senate President.
MR. SUAREZ. In other words, he would be qualified to run for the position of
either President or Vice-President?
MR. REGALADO. There being no disqualifications; there is an election . . .
MR. SUAREZ. That is understood, of course.
Thank you for the clarification.
MR. RODRIGO. Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO. May I ask some questions for clarification. In the case of the
temporary disability of the President and Vice-President, I asked yesterday
whether or not the Senate President, who acts as President, would lose his
position as Senate President and also as Senator, and the answer was No,
he
does not lose it. So, after he is through as Acting President, he goes back as
Senate President and as Senator. And the same is true of the Speaker.
Section 9 deals with permanent disability. So, if both the President and VicePresident die. become permanently disabled or are removed from office, the
Senate President becomes permanent President.
MR. REGALADO. No, he is only in an acting capacity.
MR. RODRIGO. He is only Acting President until the end of the term or until a
President is elected?
MR. REGALADO. Until a President shall have been elected under the
circumstances envisioned in Section 10.
MR. RODRIGO. So, the Senate President and the Speaker, in the same way,
do not lose their positions as Senate President and Speaker and as Member
of the
Senate and of the House, respectively?
MR. REGALADO. Yes, Madam President, that is correct.
MR. RODRIGO. Thank you.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT. We are ready to vote now.
As many as are in favor of the proposed amendment of Commissioner Rigos
on Section 9, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (No Member raised his
hand.)
The results show 32 votes in favor and none against; the proposed
amendment is approved.
MR. ROMULO. Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Monsod be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD. Madam President, I want to ask the Committee a clarifying
question on line 4 of page 7 as to whether the meaning here is that the
majority of
all the Members of each House vote separately. Is that the intent of this
phrase?
MR. REGALADO. That was intended to be proposed today as a committee
amendment, but since the Gentleman has taken up the matter, the
Committee would accept
the insertion on line 6, after the word session of the words VOTING
SEPARATELY and a comma (,)
MR. MONSOD. May I also suggest to the Committee that perhaps the same
clarification be made on page 2, lines 21 and 22.
FR. BERNAS. Madam President, I quite realize that perhaps the Committee
has accepted that phrase.
MR. REGALADO. Not yet.
If the two Houses vote jointly, it would mean mixing the 24 Senators with
250 Congressmen. This would result in the Senate being absorbed and
controlled
by the House. This violates the purpose of having a Senate.
FR. BERNAS. I quite realize that that is the practice and, precisely, in
proposing this, I am consciously proposing this as an exception to this
practice
because of the tremendous effect on the nation when the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus is suspended and then martial law is imposed. Since
we have
allowed the President to impose martial law and suspend the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus unilaterally, we should make it a little more easy for
Congress to reverse such actions for the sake of protecting the rights of the
people.
MR. RODRIGO. Maybe the way it can be done is to vest this function in just
one of the Chambers to the House alone or to the Senate alone. But to
say, by
Congress, both House and Senate voting jointly is practically a vote by the
House.
FR. BERNAS. I would be willing to say just the vote of the House.
MR. RODRIGO. That is less insulting to the Senate. However, there are other
safeguards. For example, if, after 60 days the Congress does not act, the
effectiveness of the declaration of martial law or the suspension of the
privilege of the writ ceases. Furthermore, there is recourse to the Supreme
Court.
FR. BERNAS. I quite realize that there is this recourse to the Supreme Court
and there is a time limit, but at the same time because of the extraordinary
character of this event when martial law is imposed, I would like to make it
easier for the representatives of the people to review this very significant
action taken by the President.
MR. RODRIGO. Between the Senate being absorbed and controlled by the
House numerically and the House voting alone, the lesser of two evils is the
latter.
MR. BENGZON. Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
MR. BENGZON. I would like to ask for clarification from the Committee, and I
would like to address this to Commissioner Bernas.
For strange are the ways of power, and it does not lend itself readily to
prediction. It is addictive. Who can forget that adage: power corrupts and
absolute power corrupts absolutely? In my view, once martial law is declared,
it would generate its own dynamics, create its own rules until it runs its
own course, a democratic constitution, notwithstanding.
The provision could suggest to any power-hungry ruler or clique tremendous
possibilities for a power grab. That possibility can be prepared for as indeed
it happened in the case of Marcos. Invasion and rebellion can be invented
and set up to justify imposition of martial law and once martial law is
declared and the apparatus of terror is set up, what is a Constitution for?
It can be mutilated, it can be reworded, it can take on various forms to
legitimize martial rule.
In a study of tyranny, we are told: The longer and tougher the struggle for
power, the greater the prospect of stability and durability of the resulting
dictatorship. The Marcos dictatorship is proof to this.
Perhaps I am overreacting. But I cannot understand why a constitution
coming in the wake of a dictatorship should include a provision that could
pave the
way for its resurgence. I find the idea incomprehensible. And as I ransacked
my mental cabinet for explanation, I can only think of one thing It appears
that our consciousness has been so subjugated that we can no longer
understand what it means to be free. We have turned against ourselves,
forging our own
chains, constructing our own cage. We have mistaken captivity for freedom.
But perhaps it is not too late. Let us break free from that subjugated
consciousness and try to know ourselves better by examining the structures
and
processes that have prevented us from making this dash to freedom. This is
an act of courage which we all must do, if not for ourselves, then for the
future generations.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. ROMULO. I ask that Commissioner Guingona be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Guingona is recognized.
MR. GUINGONA. Thank you, Madam President.
In connection with the inquiry of Commissioner Monsod, and considering the
statements made by Commissioner Rodrigo, I would like to say, in reply to
MR. RODRIGO. I was the one who proposed that the two Houses vote
separately because if they vote jointly, the Senators are absolutely
outnumbered. It is
insulting to the intelligence of the Senators to join a session where they know
they are absolutely out-numbered. Remember that the Senators are elected
at
large by the whole country. The Senate is a separate Chamber. The Senators
have a longer term than the Members of the House; they have a six-year
term.
They are a continuing Senate. Out of 24, twelve are elected every year. So, if
they will participate at all, the Senate must vote separately. That is the
practice everywhere where there are two chambers. But as I said, between
having a joint session of the Senate and the House voting jointly where it is
practically the House that will decide alone, the lesser of two evils is just to
let the House decide alone instead of insulting the Senators by making
them participate in a charade.
MR. REGALADO. May the Committee seek this clarification from
Commissioner Rodrigo? This voting is supposed to revoke the proclamation
of martial law. If
the two Houses vote separately and a majority is obtained in. the House of
Representatives for the revocation of the proclamation of martial law but that
same majority cannot be obtained in the Senate voting separately, what
would be the situation?
MR. RODRIGO. Then the proclamation of martial law or the suspension
continues for almost two months. After two months, it stops. Besides, there is
recourse
to-the Supreme Court.
MR. REGALADO. Therefore, that arrangement would be very difficult for the
legislative since they are voting separately and, for lack of majority in one of
the Houses they are precluded from revoking that proclamation. They will
just, therefore, have to wait until the lapse of 60 days.
MR. RODRIGO. It might be difficult, yes. But remember, we speak of the
Members of Congress who are elected by the people. Let us not forget that
the
President is also elected by the people. Are we forgetting that the President
is elected by the people? We seem to distrust all future Presidents just
because one President destroyed our faith by his declaration of martial law. I
think we are overreacting. Let us not judge all Presidents who would
henceforth be elected by the Filipino people on the basis of the abuses made
by that one President. Of course, we must be on guard; but let us not
overreact.
Let me make my position clear. I am against the proposal to make the House
and the Senate vote jointly. That is an insult to the Senate.
THE PRESIDENT. So, will Commissioner Rodrigo please formalize an
amendment to this particular section so that we will know what we are
discussing?
MR. RODRIGO. The sentence will then read: The Congress, by a vote of at
least the majority of all its members VOTING SEPARATELY in a regular or
special
session. . .
THE PRESIDENT. So, that is what we are now discussing.
MR. RODRIGO. I thought somebody already made that amendment.
FR. BERNAS. Madam President, I think there is a prior motion, the motion of
Commissioner Monsod.
MR. ROMULO. That is correct, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. That is not a motion; he was only seeking clarification.
MR. GUINGONA. Madam President, I am not insisting on my proposal.
THE PRESIDENT. Thank you.
MR. GUINGONA. As a matter of fact, I am willing to join Commissioner
Monsod and Commissioner Sarmiento. I want to further add that the reason
why I had
thought of the House of Representatives is that it is in the House that we
have sectoral representation.
Thank you.
MR. ROMULO. Madam President, if the Committee is ready, I suggest that
Commissioner Monsod be allowed to present his amendment now.
THE PRESIDENT. That is why we are trying to clarify from Commissioner
Monsod whether he was seeking an amendment or just a clarification from
the
Committee.
MR. MONSOD. No, Madam President, when I stood up the second time, I said
that I was making a proposal. My amendment is the insertion of VOTING
JOINTLY so
that the sentence will read: The Congress, by a vote of at least a majority of
all its members VOTING JOINTLY. . .
Madam President, I was one of those who proposed the elimination of lines 1
and 2 yesterday, but I also think that there should be a good system of check
and balance, and voting jointly would be one safeguard left to the people to
revoke or amend the suspension.
That is my amendment, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO. Will the Gentleman yield to a question?
MR. MONSOD. Yes, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO. So, in effect, if there is a joint session composed of 250
Members of the House plus 24 Members of the Senate, the total would be
274. The
majority would be one-half plus one.
MR. MONSOD. So, 148 votes.
MR. RODRIGO. And the poor Senators would be absolutely absorbed and
outnumbered by the 250 Members of the House. Is that it?
MR. MONSOD. Yes, that is one of the implications of the suggestion and the
amendment is being made nonetheless because there is a higher objective
or value
which is to prevent a deadlock that would enable the President to continue
the full 60 days in case one House revokes and the other House does not.
The proposal also allows the Senators to participate fully in the discussions
and whether we like it or not, the Senators have very large persuasive
powers
because of their prestige and their national vote.
MR. RODRIGO. So, the Senators will have the quality votes but Members of
the House will have the quantity votes. Is that it?
MR. MONSOD. The Gentleman is making an assumption that they will vote
against each other. I believe that they will discuss, probably in joint session
and
vote on it; then the consensus will be clear.
MR. RODRIGO. So, we will vote on that amendment now.
THE PRESIDENT. Yes.
enemy, when there is actual invasion and actual rebellion and it is limited
only to 60 days.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. We will vote on that.
MR. ROMULO. Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. ROMULO. Commissioner Padilla has an amendment to propose.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Padilla is recognized.
MR. PADILLA. Thank you, Madam President.
Will the distinguished sponsor, Commissioner Monsod, agree to an
amendment to his amendment that instead of the word JOINTLY it be
SEPARATELY and let
the body vote? Because if the proposal on a joint assembly is passed or
approved, then it would be too late to ask for a separate voting.
Madam President, I am in favor of the views expressed by Senator Rodrigo
not because I have been a Senator but because there should be separate
voting. The
fear is that if the House votes to revoke but the Senate votes not to revoke
the proclamation, there would be a deadlock. Assuming that is the situation,
then the declaration of martial law or the suspension of the writ of habeas
corpus would last for 60 days. Definitely, we should not stop or interrupt or
make less effective the declaration by the President when there is no
majority of both Chambers of the Congress. In other words, unless there be a
clear
situation where the President has made a mistake in his declaration of
martial law, then that martial law situation or the suspension of the writ of
habeas
corpus should remain until 60 days or unless the Supreme Court decides
otherwise in an appropriate proceeding.
MR. MONSOD. I regret I cannot accept it because those are mutually
exclusive alternatives. In any case, if the body decides to vote down my
amendment, then
the body can consider other options.
THE PRESIDENT. Will the Chair please be informed by Commissioner Rodrigo
that his formal amendment is for the House of Representatives?
Chambers and make them vote jointly instead of separately. And I repeat,
this is a constitution we are drafting here. Its provisions will be scrutinized by
the whole world. And to have a provision such as this is to have a provision
which would be ridiculed. That is the reason I feel very strongly against
approving such a provision.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Rodrigo has withdrawn his proposed
amendment to give way to the amendment of Commissioner Padilla. May we
have that amendment
first, Commissioner Padilla?
MR. OPLE. May I speak for one minute against the amendment, Madam
President?
THE PRESIDENT. Please proceed.
MR. OPLE. Earlier, this Commission voted for a bicameral system and there
are consequences following that decision. When we voted for a bicameral
system,
we accepted the consequence that each Chamber should be able to act
separately and, as Commissioner Rodrigo has said, this is the key to the
equality of
both Chambers. Neither Chamber should be disparaged by its own creator
in this case, the Constitutional Commission, where there is a possibility to
establish equality. Commissioner Monsod is worried about a deadlock, but
that is the consequence of choosing a bicameral system. There are
possibilities of
deadlocks. However, that leaves precisely a zone for the political skills of the
President. He must exercise leadership too. Why are we in advance getting
so solicitous about sparing the President the exercise of his leadership skills
so that he can overcome potential deadlocks? A bicameral system is always
fraught with the potential for a deadlock but the tradeoff, precisely, is checks
and balances.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. NOLLEDO. Will the Gentleman yield to two or three questions?
MR. OPLE. Very gladly, Madam President, although I only hope to speak for a
minute, but I welcome it.
MR. NOLLEDO. Before I ask the questions, I would like to state that the
stature of the Senators is, to my mind, immaterial in this case; that there is
no
humiliation if they join the Members of the Lower House in joint session
assembled to determine whether or not to revoke the declaration of martial
law.
THE PRESIDENT. May we know what is the question?
MR. NOLLEDO. The first question is: Is it not true that there is a crying need
to limit the presidential power to declare martial law?
MR. OPLE. I believe Commissioner Nolledo knows best what this Commission
has done to insure that these powers will be checked for appropriate checks
and
balances.
MR. NOLLEDO. And that, therefore, the paramount consideration in the
Monsod amendment is to limit the presidential power to declare martial law.
MR. OPLE. I do not see how the Senate voting separately and the House
voting separately, although meeting in joint session assembled, can detract
from the
checks and balances that we have built into the proclamation of martial law.
MR. NOLLEDO. Madam President, the purpose of the amendment is really to
set forth a limitation because we have to avoid a stalemate. For example, the
Lower
House decides that the declaration of martial law should be revoked, and
that later on, the Senate sitting separately decides that it should not be
revoked. It becomes inevitable that martial law shall continue even if there
should be no factual basis for it.
MR. OPLE. Madam President, if this amendment is adopted, we will be held
responsible for a glaring inconsistency in the Constitution to a degree that it
distorts the bicameral system that we have agreed to adopt. I reiterate: If
there are deadlocks, it is the responsibility Of presidential leadership,
together with the leaders of both Houses, to overcome them.
THE PRESIDENT. The Chair believes that this has been sufficiently discussed
by the two Gentlemen.
MR. OPLE. Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. The Chair believes that the Committee submitting this
report is of the opinion that the proposed amendment of Commissioner
Monsod should be
first voted upon. Is that correct?
liberties. If we
separate the Senators, then we deprive the Congressmen of the knowledge
and experience of these 24 men. I think we should forget the classification of
Senators or Congressmen. We should all work together to restore
democracy in our country So we need the wisdom of 24 Senators.
MR. RODRIGO. Madam President, may I just answer This advice of the 24
Senators can be sought because they are in the same building. Anyway, the
provision,
with the amendment of Commissioner Monsod. does not call for a joint
session. It only says: The Congress by a vote of at least a majority of all its
Members in regular or special session it does not say joint session. So. I
believe that if the Members of the House need the counsel of the Senators,
they can always call on them; they can invite them.
SR. TAN. Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Tan is recognized.
SR. TAN. Have we not spent enough time on the 24 Senators? May we now
vote on the amendment?
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT. Those in favor of the proposed amendment of Commissioner
Rodrigo. please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
Those against, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
The results show 5 votes in favor and 25 votes against; the proposed
amendment is lost.
The Chair hopes that this particular issue can now be laid to rest. The body
has voted that Congress, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members.
voting jointly in regular or special session. may revoke such proclamation or
suspension.
MR. OPLE. May I have an anterior amendment, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. Is this on another section?
MR. OPLE. It is an insertion of a sentence on line 5, Madam President.
MR. ROMULO. Madam President, Commissioner Rama has an anterior
amendment to Commissioner Oples amendment.
because
I share the proponents sentiment about this. Therefore the special session
could be called only within that interregnum period of 30 days.
MR. RAMA. That is correct.
MR. SUAREZ. That is prior to the next regular session. So the proponent is
speaking about that situation, Madam President.
MR. RAMA. This particular 30-day period when the Congress is not in session.
MR. SUAREZ. That is what the Gentleman has in mind.
MR. RAMA. That is what I have in mind.
MR. SUAREZ. That is not in connection with the regular session.
MR. RAMA. Not in connection with the regular session.
MR. SUAREZ. Will the proponent accept the suggestion to put that clause
after the words special session?
THE PRESIDENT. Will Commissioner Suarez read the provision?
MR. SUAREZ. . . . in regular or special session WHICH SHALL BE,
AUTOMATICALLY CONVENED.
THE PRESIDENT. Is the amendment acceptable to Commissioner Rama?
MR. RAMA. It might be a little awkward.
MR. SUAREZ. But that is the sense of what we had in mind.
MR. RAMA. That would be the sense, but for clarity and elegance, we should
place this after the word Congress.
MR. SUAREZ. Can we leave that to Commissioner Rodrigo?
MR. RAMA. Yes, we can leave this to Commissioner Rodrigo, because it is
Congress which shall be convened.
MR. SUAREZ. Thank you.
MR. DAVIDE. Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE. May just comment on the discussion about the special session.
Is it not that the special session can be called only within the 30 days
preceding the commencement of a regular session? Under the proposal on
the legislative power, the law itself may also determine the length of the
session,
in between the commencement on the fourth Monday of July and the
beginning of the 30 days preceding the next regular session. So, special
sessions can be
convened at any time between these two periods, not just the remaining 30
days.
I would propose that there should be a separate sentence to be inserted
probably between lines 8 and 9 to read as follows: THE CONGRESS, IF NOT IN
SESSION,
SHALL WITHIN TWENTY-FOUR HOURS FOLLOWING SUCH PROCLAMATION OR
SUSPENSION, CONVENE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS RULES WITHOUT NEED
OF A CALL. This would be
consistent with what had earlier been approved in the matter of a vacancy in
the office of the President and the Vice-president. Instead of automatic, it
should be WITHOUT NEED OF A CALL.
THE PRESIDENT. Is that accepted?
MR. RAMA. We accept the amendment, Madam President.
MS. QUESADA. Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Quesada is recognized.
MS. QUESADA. I would just like to know what happens if a special session
cannot be convened, or if a regular session is called off because majority of
the
Members of both Houses have been arrested, or that the Congress has been
padlocked upon declaration of martial rule.
MR. RAMA. That is precisely one of the risks and hazards that we have to
take. That is why I wanted to reduce that hazard because, if u e allow the
President 30 days of martial rule, which is the exercise of martial law powers,
which in itself is a replacement of all the civil powers and which
militarize the country there is a bigger risk that these Congressmen would
not be able to hold the session or would get arrested. That is ,the rationale of
the amendment-that as soon as the President declares martial law, there
must be an automatic convening of Congress in session in order for it to
exercise
the right to revoke or not or to scrutinize the circumstances of martial law
and its validity.
MS. QUESADA. But there is a possibility then that the Congress cannot be
convened because many of its Members have already been arrested.
MR. RAMA. There is always that possibility; that is why I am narrowing that
chance.
MS. QUESADA. Yesterday, the understanding of many was that there would
be safeguards that Congress will be able to revoke such proclamation.
MR. RAMA. Yes.
MS. QUESADA. But now, if they cannot meet because they have been
arrested or that the Congress has been padlocked, then who is going to
declare that such a
proclamation was not warranted?
MR. RAMA. That is why this amendment would strengthen the safeguard,
because under the present provision the President can call or can proclaim
martial law
during the time that Congress is not in session.
MS. QUESADA. One of the assurances was that there were enough
safeguards that the President would not just be able to use that power
without some other
conditions. So, are there any parts of the Constitution that would so protect
the civilians or the citizens of the land?
MR. RAMA. Yes, there are safeguards.
MR. REGALADO. May I also inform Commissioner Quesada that the judiciary
is not exactly just standing by. A petition for a writ of habeas corpus, if the
Members are detained, can immediately be applied for, and the Supreme
Court shall also review the factual basis. This is not exactly beyond solution.
With
regard to the worry that the Congress will be padlocked, we can never
padlock Congress. We can padlock the building, but not Congress because
the Members
can always convene in Barasoain Church or under a squad tent or in the
middle of the coconut groves. That would still be Congress.
MS. QUESADA. They said it happened in 1972; I was out of the country then.
According to the people who were here then, the building was indeed
padlocked.
These are some of my misgivings over the decision we made yesterday. I
would like to see now how it fits into our deliberations on the calling of a
session, when the session could not or might not have been called, because
many people would have been arrested. I am just projecting some of the
possibilities in the future, maybe not in the immediate future, but in the
many years to come and which we may not be able to project at this point in
time.
THE PRESIDENT. Is Commissioner Quesada satisfied or not?
MR. BENGZON. May I just comment on what Commissioner Quesada said.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
MR. BENGZON. If and when the fears or apprehensions of Commissioner
Quesada would happen, then what we will have is a military takeover. At that
point, it
will already be a complete military takeover. Legally and technically,
Congress will not be padlocked because the Congressmen and the Senators
can meet
even in the middle of the streets, but in actuality if and when that happens,
then it becomes a military takeover.
MR. NATIVIDAD. Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Natividad is recognized.
MR. NATIVIDAD. I was one of those padlocked out of circulation in the old
Congress. That cannot happen now because of line 15, page 7 of Section 15
which
states:
A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor
supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor
authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over
civilians where civil courts are able to function, nor automatically suspend
the privilege of the Writ.
The old Congress was unable to meet because we had no power to have a
rump session, but here there is a constitutional authority which says that the
declaration of martial law does not supplant the functioning of the legislative
assembly or Congress. So, whether we padlock the building or not, the
Members will meet elsewhere and that would still be Congress, to confirm
what Commissioner Regalado said.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. May we have again the proposed amendment of
Commissioner Davide to the amendment of Commissioner Rama?
THE PRESIDENT. Will the proponent kindly read again the new sentence.
MR. OPLE. Yes, Madam President. On Section 15, page 7, line 4, after law, I
propose to add a new sentence which reads as follows: WITHIN FORTY-EIGHT
HOURS OF THE PROCLAMATION OF MARTIAL LAW OR THE SUSPENSION OF
THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS THE PRESIDENT SHALL SUBMIT A REPORT, IN
PERSON OR IN WRITING, TO
THE CONGRESS.
THE PRESIDENT. Is the amendment accepted by the Committee?
MR. REGALADO. It is accepted by the Committee, it being understood that
the report or the statement therein is not conclusive on Congress.
MR. OPLE. Yes, but the President will be held accountable for his report. And
on that basis, his proclamation can be revoked later.
MR. PADILLA. Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Padilla is recognized.
MR. PADILLA. I feel that the intention of the amendment is good. But
considering that the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus or the
declaration of
martial law is now only dependent on actual rebellion and actual invasion,
what the country needs is action rather than a mere report. When we require
the
President to make a report within forty-eight hours, some valuable hours may
be spent on a mere paper report when the circumstances demand action. I
would
favor that proposal, Madam President, if we were not yet in actual invasion or
actual rebellion.
MR. OPLE. Madam President, I appreciate the concern of Commissioner
Padilla about the difficulties of a President caught in an actual invasion or
rebellion, but would he begrudge the representatives of the people under
this amendment to report to them what he has done which will be of
momentous
importance for all Filipinos? The proposal does not quite substitute for
concurrence, but I think the dignity of the nation through the representatives
of
the people in Congress requires that at least the President should tell them
what he did and why he did so, so that the basis for an evaluation and
appreciation of his proclamation of martial law is laid down and can be
checked if necessary.
Those in favor of the proposed amendment please raise their hand. (Several
Members raised their hand.)
Those against, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
The results show 23 votes in favor, and 11 votes against; the proposed
amendment is approved.
MR. ROMULO. Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Aquino be
recognized for an amendment on line 7.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MS. AQUINO. Madam President, I will try to resurrect my proposed
amendment which must have been lost in the heap of words. My proposed
amendment pertains
to Section 15, page 7, line 7. Between the words suspension and or, I
propose to insert the clause WHICH REVOCATION SHALL NOT BE SET ASIDE
BY THE
PRESIDENT. My concern is that if this proviso is not included, it may be
deemed as if the power of Congress to revoke will have to go through the
veto
powers of the President. It is my humble submission that martial law
prerogatives of the President should be effectively capped after we have
eliminated
the requirement of the previous concurrence of Congress.
THE PRESIDENT. Is the proposed amendment acceptable to the Committee?
MR. REGALADO. Madam President, the Committee accepts this amendment.
MR. SUAREZ. Madam President, may I be recognized for one question only?
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ. Thank you, Madam President.
Will the proponent limit the insertion to the right of revocation and not to the
right of extension?
MS. AQUINO. I have conferred with Commissioner Azcuna who would qualify
the right of extension later on.
MR. SUAREZ. Why do we not do it as a package deal and just state that there
will be no presidential veto exercise insofar as a revocation or extension is
concerned?
THE PRESIDENT. At this juncture, we would like to inform the body that we
have several groups of students here with us. They come from the UP
Sociology
class, St. Bridgets School, the Ateneo pre-law class, and the Philippine
Womens University High School. We welcome them. (Applause)
We have before us the Aquino amendment. Does Commissioner Colayco
want to comment on this?
MR. COLAYCO. I would like to know from Commissioner Aquino if her proposal
covers the right of the President, in effect, to counter the action of Congress
revoking the proclamation of martial law.
MS. AQUINO. Madam President, the proposal in effect forecloses the
possibility of the President revoking the powers of Congress to revoke, such
that the
amendment would read: WHICH REVOCATION SHALL NOT BE SET ASIDE BY
THE PRESIDENT.
MR. COLAYCO. I see; thank you.
THE PRESIDENT. In other words, the final action is that of Congress.
MR. SARMIENTO. Madam President, may I propose an amendment to the
amendment?
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO. Is Commissioner Aquino willing to adopt the word VETO
instead of the words SHALL NOT BE SET ASIDE, so that the clause would
read: WHICH
REVOCATION SHALL NOT BE VETOED BY THE PRESIDENT?
MS. AQUINO. The substance is the same, but the Committee already has
jurisdiction over my amendment. It may be just a matter of style.
MR. REGALADO. The Committee wishes to inform Commissioner Sarmiento
that what was envisaged here is a proclamation. A veto is exercised over a
bill or a
law. A proclamation is not subject to veto, that is why we instead used the
term SET ASIDE.
MR. SARMIENTO. Thank you for that information.
I withdraw my amendment, Madam President.
MR. REGALADO. Madam President, following that is the clause extend the
same if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it.
That by itself suggests a period within which the suspension shall be
extended, if the invasion is still going on. But there is already the cutoff of
60-day period. Do they have to meet all over again and agree to extend the
same?
MR. SUAREZ. That is correct. I think the two of them must have to agree on
the period; but it is theoretically possible that when the President writes a
note to the Congress, because it would be at the instance of the President
that the extension would have to be granted by Congress, it is possible that
the
period for the extension may be there. It is also possible that it may not be
there. That is the reason why we want to make it clear that there must be a
reasonable period for the extension. So, if my suggestion is not acceptable to
the Committee, may I request that a voting be held on it, Madam President.
FR. BERNAS. Madam President, may I just propose something because I see
the problem. Suppose we were to say: or extend the same FOR A PERIOD TO
BE
DETERMINED BY CONGRESS that gives Congress a little flexibility on just
how long the extension should be.
MR. REGALADO. Is the Gentleman placing his amendment after same and
before if?
FR. BERNAS. Yes.
MR. SUAREZ. Maybe that can be added after the final word it so that the
clause would read: if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety
requires it, FOR A PERIOD AS MAY BE DETER- MINED BY CONGRESS.
FR. BERNAS. It is a question of style, Madam President. It seems to be very
far from the verb.
THE PRESIDENT. Is that accepted by Commissioner Suarez?
MR. SUAREZ. Yes, Madam President.
MR. OPLE. May I just pose a question to the Committee in connection with
the Suarez amendment? Earlier, Commissioner Regalado said that that point
was
going to be a collective judgment between the President and the Congress.
Are we departing from that now in favor of giving Congress the
plenipotentiary
power to determine the period?
FR. BERNAS. Not really, Madam President, because Congress would be doing
this in consultation with the President, and the President would be outvoted
by
about 300 Members.
MR. OPLE. Yes, but still the idea is to preserve the principle of collective
judgment of that point upon the expiration of the 60 days when, upon his
own
initiative, the President seeks for an extension of the proclamation of martial
law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ.
FR. BERNAS. Yes, the participation of the President is there but by giving the
final decision to Congress, we are also preserving the idea that the
President may not revoke what Congress has decided upon.
MR. OPLE. The reason for my concern, Madam President, is that when we put
all of these encumbrances on the President and Commander-in-Chief during
an
actual invasion and rebellion, given an intractable Congress that may be
dominated by opposition parties, we may be actually impelling the President
to use
the sword of Alexander to cut the Gordian knot by just declaring a
revolutionary government that sets him free to deal with the invasion or the
insurrection. That is the reason I am in favor of the present formulation.
However, if Commissioner Suarez insists on his amendment, I do not think I
will
stand in the way.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ. We will accept the committee suggestion, subject to style later
on.
THE PRESIDENT. May we ask the proponent to read his amendment so that
the Members can clarify.
FR. BERNAS. On line 7: extend the same FOR A PERIOD TO BE DETERMINED
BY CONGRESS if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety
requires
it.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO. Before we vote, may I ask a question just for the record?
Suppose all the 24 senators unanimously say, No, we do not want any
extension, may
they act separately as a Senate to vote against the extension?
FR. BERNAS. Our answer would be no. For clarity we might even say: TO
BE DETERMINED BY CONGRESS VOTING JOINTLY.
MR. RODRIGO. I want that on record because I want to emphasize my stand
that while he have reinstituted a bicameral legislature, we are violating the
very
essence of bicameralism in this provision.
MR. MAAMBONG. Madam President
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG. Just one inquiry. I do not want to engage in nitpicking, but
when we say FOR A PERIOD TO BE DETERMINED BY CONGRESS, can
Congress do it by
law or by resolution, because there are certain acts to be done by Congress
which may be done by resolution and some done by law?
FR. BERNAS. By resolution, Madam President.
MR. MAAMBONG. Thank you very much.
FR. BERNAS. If it is done by law, it would need a cumbersome process of
three Readings plus the approval of the President.
MR. PADILLA. Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Padilla is recognized.
MR. PADILLA. According to Commissioner Concepcion, our former Chief
Justice, the declaration of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of
the writ
of habeas corpus is essentially an executive act. If that be so, and especially
under the following clause: if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and
public safety requires it, I do not see why the period must be determined by
the Congress. We are turning a purely executive act to a legislative act.
FR. BERNAS. I would believe what the former Chief Justice said about the
initiation being essentially an executive act, but what follows after the
initiation is something that is participated in by Congress.
MR. CONCEPCION. If I may add a word. The one who will do the fighting is the
executive but, of course, it is expected that if the Congress wants to extend,
it will extend for the duration of the fighting. If the fighting goes on, I do not
think it is fair to assume that the Congress will refuse to extend the
period, especially since in this matter the Congress must act at the instance
of the executive. He is the one who is supposed to know how long it will take
him to fight. Congress may reduce it, but that is without prejudice to his
asking for another extension, if necessary.
THE PRESIDENT. The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. ROMULO. I think we are ready to vote, Madam President
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT. The Chair resolves to call this particular matter to a vote
after lunch because of important repercussions on other matters that may be
related to it.
The session is suspended until two oclock this afternoon.
It was 12:12 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 3:08 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT. The session is resumed.
May we request our guests to please observe silence during our
deliberations.
We wish to welcome this afternoon our visitors who include students from
the Philippine Science High School, the Philippine Womens University, the
Polytechnic University of the Philippines, the delegation from the Cordillera
Region and Muslims from Mindanao.
May we call the Chairman of the Committee on the Executive and the
members to please occupy the front table so that we can continue
deliberating on the
proposed amendments to the Article on the Executive.
MR. ROMULO. Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Padilla be
recognized for an amendment to Section 15.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Padilla is recognized.
MR. PADILLA. Madam President, I propose to delete lines 21, 22, and 23 of
Section 15 and in lieu thereof insert the following: DURING THE SUSPENSION
OF THE
PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, ANY PERSON WHO HAS BEEN
ARRESTED OR DETAINED SHALL BE JUDICIOUSLY CHARGED WITHIN FIVE
WORKING DAYS, OTHERWISE HE
SHALL BE RELEASED. If I may explain a little, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Padilla has five minutes to explain his
amendment.
MR. PADILLA. The purpose of the amendment is to prevent a situation similar
to the past regime when innocent persons were arrested, detained and
confined
in prison sometimes for one month, one year, or even more, without any
criminal charge filed against them who oftentimes did not even understand
why they
had been arrested or detained.
The last paragraph of Section 15 reads:
The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply only to persons
judicially charged for rebellion or for offenses inherent in or directly
connected
with invasion.
If a person has been judicially charged, that means there has been a warrant
of arrest issued by the courts. This paragraph will not protect innocent
persons who have been arrested and detained by the military under orders
of the past regime, such as the ASSO, PCO or PDA. What we are trying to
protect is
the right of the persons arrested and detained by requiring that at least
within five working days a criminal charge be filed against them, otherwise, if
there is no crime committed or no evidence in support of the culpability of
such detained person, he should be immediately released after five working
days.
MR. ROMULO. Madam President, Commissioner Sarmiento has registered for
an amendment to the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.
MR. REGALADO. Madam President, when we adjourned this morning, there
was a pending amendment of Commissioner Suarez which we should dispose
of now. It was
on the last sentence of the first paragraph of Section 15, which reads: The
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT. Is the amendment clear to the Commissioners?
Those in favor of this particular amendment of Commissioner Suarez which
has been accepted by the Committee, please raise their hand. (Several
Members
raised their hand.)
Those against, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
Those who abstain, please raise their hand. (One Member raised his hand.)
MR. RODRIGO. Madam President, I would like to record my vote of abstention
because of a basic objection and that is, that Congress would be voting
jointly,
instead of the Senate and the House voting separately.
THE PRESIDENT. The results show 25 votes in favor, 4 votes against, and I
abstention; the proposed amendment is approved.
The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. ROMULO. Madam President, Commissioner Padillas amendment is now
on the floor.
MR. SUMULONG. Commissioner Concepcion will respond to the proposed
amendment.
MR. ROMULO. Commissioners Sarmiento and Davide also have amendments
to the amendment of Commissioner Padilla. I believe that Commissioner de
Castro wants
to say something before we begin.
THE PRESIDENT. May we hear Commissioner Concepcion first?
MR. CONCEPCION. Before I express my views on the remarks by
Commissioner Padilla, I wish to make it clear that the purpose of this
paragraph is to require
all those detained to be immediately turned over to the judicial authorities.
Therefore, the suspension of the privilege will not apply to them until they
are placed in the custody of a judicial officer, the reason being that the first
important thing to consider is to preserve the life of the detained
person.
Even if the privilege were suspended, if the person has not been turned over
to the court, the government cannot claim that the privilege of the writ has
been suspended. I have no objection insofar as the period proposed by
Commissioner Padilla. As a matter of fact, I would prefer that the detainee be
turned
over to the court as soon as possible. The first important thing is to preserve
his right and his life, the second is to avoid torture or other forms of
oppression; and, of course, to place the detainee under the authority of the
court so that we may never again have a situation where a court would issue
the order of release, but some other party may refuse to release the
detained person. So the effectivity of the suspension of the privilege of the
writ
with respect to persons covered by the provision will take effect only after
the person has been turned over to the court. Of course, it may take some
time
to file the charges, but the period of five days to start with, I suppose, is
sufficient.
MR. PADILLA. Madam President, I agree with the statement of Commissioner
Concepcion. As a matter of fact, those are the same sentiments that have
induced
me to submit this amendment by substitution because in my opinion, it will
make clearer the intendment of the provision.
THE PRESIDENT. Does Commissioner Padilla insist on his proposed
amendment?
MR. PADILLA. Yes, Madam President, because in my opinion the proposed
amendment is clearer and more emphatic because when it says that the
suspension shall
apply only to persons judicially charged, it does not embody the sentiment
that any person arrested during the suspension of the writ should be charged
judicially within a few working hours, or as suggested by many, within five
working days. Precisely, the intendment is that any person arrested should
be
judicially charged, and a person who has been judicially charged is arrested
upon the issuance by the court of a warrant of arrest. So I submit, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT. Will Commissioner Padilla restate his amendment?
MR. PADILLA. In lieu of lines 21 to 23, the last paragraph of Section 15, I
propose the following: DURING THE SUSPENSION OF THE PRIVILEGE OF THE
WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS, ANY PERSON WHO HAS BEEN ARRESTED OR DETAINED
MR. PADILLA. But if they are not involved in rebellion or invasion. which is a
ground for the suspension of the privilege of the writ or for the
declaration of martial law. then they are innocent. I cannot understand why
the suspension of the writ should apply only to persons judicially charged
when
the very idea is that any person who has been arrested, even under the
suspension of the writ, must be or should be judicially charged.
MR. CONCEPCION. The fact is that many had been detained for years without
having any participation in rebellion or insurrection.
MR. PADILLA. That is correct.
MR. CONCEPCION. Precisely, to avoid that, the suspension of the privilege of
the writ will apply only to those who are turned over to the judicial
authority.
MR. PADILLA. What about the persons who might have been arrested but
have not been turned over judicially?
MR. CONCEPCION. They can apply for a release.
THE PRESIDENT. The Chair supposes that is where the proposed amendment
can come in, as suggested by Commissioner Bernas, as a separate sentence,
without
deleting the last paragraph on lines 21 to 23. Would Commissioner Padilla
agree?
MR. PADILLA. I cannot really reconcile the three lines as presently worded.
The last paragraph mentions inherent in or directly connected with
invasion.
If it is a crime inherent in, that should be absorbed in the offense. And while
the grounds are actual rebellion and actual invasion, the last line talks
of connected with invasion. To me it is a little obscure. Whereas, my
proposal would seem to be very clear that whoever is arrested or detained
must be
judicially charged within five or three working days, otherwise he is entitled
to be released even if it is during the period of the suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
FR. BERNAS. Madam President, may I perhaps read a combination of the
Commissioners amendment and the existing last paragraph for purposes of
clarity. We
could put it this way, starting with lines 21, 22 and 23: The suspension of
the privilege of the writ shall apply only to persons judicially charged for
rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly connected with invasion. DURING
THE SUSPENSION OF THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT ANY PERSON WHO HAS
THUS BEEN
ARRESTED OR DETAINED SHALL BE JUDICIALLY CHARGED WITHIN FIVE DAYS
OTHERWISE HE SHALL BE RELEASED.
THE PRESIDENT. Or THREE days, as recommended by Commissioner
Sarmiento.
MR. SARMIENTO. Within THREE days, Madam President.
FR. BERNAS. For THREE days.
THE PRESIDENT. Is that satisfactory to Commissioner Padilla?
MR. PADILLA. I yield to the better judgment of the Committee, Madam
President. I have already stated my observations and I do not want to repeat
them
anymore.
MR. REGALADO. Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Regalado is recognized.
MR. REGALADO. Does the amendment of Commissioner Padilla contemplate
that such a person is not entitled to preliminary investigation, so that he can
be
immediately charged within the 72-hour period or five-day period as the case
may be?
MR. PADILLA. There is no intention to waive any right of a person who has
been arrested or accused. As a matter of fact, even during the suspension of
the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, there should be no arrest unless there
be some probable cause that would justify his arrest or detention. So the
amendment does not contemplate any waiver or abandonment of any right
of a person arrested.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ. Thank you, Madam President.
Point of clarification only from the distinguished Vice-President. Is it my
understanding that during the three-day period, and Consistent with the firm
stand and interpretation of the honorable Chief Justice Concepcion, that
particular respondent would not be deprived of the right to sue for a writ of
habeas corpus?
reinforced
battalion. In fact, we hear of colonels commanding infantry battalions with
only a strength of about 700 men for each battalion. When I talk of reinforced
battalion it has a strength of about 1.900 men. Formerly, a colonel like
colonel Capinpin was commanding a division almost the whole division that
the
military had at that time.
MR. REGALADO. In other words, the increased rank involved in the proposed
amendment, which will require confirmation, is based, among others, on the
number
of colonels and general rank officers that we now have in the Philippine Army
and the Armed Forces.
MR. DE CASTRO. Yes. because the ratio of ranks is determined by the
National Defense Act. and when we talk of general officers, they constitute
only 1.2
percent of the total strength of the officer corps.
MR. REGALADO. That includes brigadier generals up to full general.
MR. DE CASTRO. That includes brigadier generals up to full general, the rank
of General Ramos now.
MR. REGALADO. And what would be the ratio now with respect to full colonels
in relation to the total strength that we have of about 250,000?
MR. DE CASTRO. I do not have the correct ratio but I can consult the National
Defense Act: it is all there. I do not believe that the Armed Forces now is
overstrong in the rank. Perhaps, this may go to about 2.5 percent. I am not
very sure but I will consult the National Defense Act.
MR. REGALADO. I sought this clarification because of the observations
yesterday of Commissioner Rama, who happens not to be here. where he
was for
maintaining the 1935 provisions for reasons that he explained.
MR. DE CASTRO. For the reason that normally a coup d etat is started by
officers with the rank of colonel. We have not had a coup d etat yet ever
since
the Armed Forces was organized in 1935. And I think the colonels are better
tamed than the major generals and the captains when it comes to coup d
etat.
MR. MAAMBONG. Madam President.
supervisory generals, like the major generals of the army, the PC, the navy
and the air force, to the Commission on Appointments.
MR. REGALADO. Madam President, the Committee feels that this matter
should be submitted to the body for a vote.
MR. DE CASTRO. Thank you.
MR. REGALADO. We will take the amendments one by one. We will first vote
on the deletion of the phrase and bureaus on line 26, such that
appointments of
bureau directors no longer need confirmation by the Commission on
Appointments. Section 16, therefore, would read: The President shall
nominate, and with
the consent of a Commission on Appointments, shall appoint the heads of
the executive departments, ambassadors . . .
THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to delete the phrase and bureaus on
page 7, line 26? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is approved.
May the Chair have the next amendment on line 28.
MR. UKA. Madam President, I was a little late, but then may I inform this
Constitutional Commission of the presence of our brothers and sisters from
the
Cordillera Region and from the southern part of the Philippines. We will notice
that this is the biggest crowd since we started over a month ago.
THE PRESIDENT. Yes, we have acknowledged their presence already.
(Applause)
MR. UKA. I did not ask for that applause; it so happened that I noticed their
presence in this hall which only shows their interest in our drafting of the
Constitution. Some of them whispered to me that they are very much
interested in regional autonomy, which we have not yet discussed.
(Applause)
THE PRESIDENT. For the information of Commissioner Uka, we have
acknowledged their presence already in the course of our session this
afternoon.
MR. ROMULO. May I ask that Commissioner Jamir be recognized for an
amendment.
THE PRESIDENT. We will vote first on the amendment on line 28. May we
know what the amendment is?
MR. REGALADO. Madam President, on line 28, substitute the phrase colonel
or naval captain with MAJOR GENERAL OR REAR ADMIRAL.
MR. DAVIDE. Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE. I wonder if the proponent would agree to an amendment to his
amendment on line 28. We seek to achieve a happy compromise, so instead
of MAJOR
GENERAL it be BRIGADIER GENERAL and COMMODORE instead of REAR
ADMIRAL.
MR. DE CASTRO. Madam President, the Commissioner is seeking a happy
compromise by introducing an amendment to my proposal.
THE PRESIDENT. Yes, is that acceptable to Commissioner de Castro?
MR. DE CASTRO. Madam President, I would like to give a little background
information on this matter. I have talked with General Ramos and Deputy
Minister
of Defense Ileto regarding the inclusion of the brigadier general and the
commodore, and they were quite insistent in convincing me to start from the
rank
of major general and rear admiral. If my proposal to include the major
general and the rear admiral will lose on the floor, which I doubt, I will be
willing to go to the happy medium.
I thank Commissioner Davide, Madam President.
MR. DAVIDE. May I request then for a vote on my proposed amendment, but
before doing so, may I be allowed to explain?
THE PRESIDENT. The Commissioner will please proceed.
MR. DAVIDE. It was stated by Commissioner de Castro that the brigadier
generals and the rear admirals are the field commanders. Necessarily then,
the
security of the State is in issue. We should, therefore, allow the Commission
on Appointments to review any proposal for appointment to these highly
sensitive positions, otherwise, these field commanders will believe that they
are immune from the review of the legislative. So sensitive a position then
would necessitate, necessarily, a confirmation of any appointment of these
officials.
MR. DE CASTRO. As I said before, and allow me to repeat it just once more,
this brigadier general who goes to the front has passed three screenings-the
screening of the Chief of Staff, the screening of the Minister of National
Defense and the screening of the President. We have had very bad
experiences
regarding confirmation of the appointments of these officials by the
Commission on Appointments. We do not like our fighting generals who are
in the front
to be begging the confirmation of their appointments by the Commission on
Appointments. Our experience with the Commission on Appointments was
very bad
that we even refuse to think about what it had done to us. As I said, we do
not like our fighting generals in the front to beg the Commission on
Appointments, who might not only disagree with their appointments but
even hide their papers inside the drawer of the table.
That is our sad experience with the Commission on Appointments which we
cannot forget.
MR. DAVIDE. May I just reply, Madam President. If they already underwent
three screenings, with more reason then that the representatives of the
people
represented by the Commission on Appointments should be allowed to make
the final screening for people in sensitive positions which might involve
violations of human rights and the security and stability of the State.
MR. DE CASTRO. Madam President, the President of the Philippines is a
representative of the people who screens the front line generals.
MR. ABUBAKAR. Madam President, may I take the floor just for the
clarification of the Commissioners. I want to raise a vital and informative
question.
MR. ROMULO. Commissioner Abubakar wants to be recognized, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Abubakar is recognized.
MR. ABUBAKAR. Madam President, we have been debating for so long on the
inclusion of rear admiral, major general and colonel. I would like to point out
that in the naval echelon of the Philippine Navy, there is only one rear
admiral. Why do we not simplify this because this problem will not arise as
frequently as we give the impression in our debate? Since the Commissioner
is more acquainted with the organization of the army, may we know how
many major
generals we have?
MR. DE CASTRO. As of now, we have six major generals and one rear
admiral. who are as follows: Major General Magno, commander of the
Southern Command;
Major General Mison, Vice-Chief of Staff; Major General Caeso of the army;
Major General Farolan of the air force; the major general in the Philippine
Constabulary; Major General Ermita; and the rear admiral of the navy who is
the flag officer in command.
MR. ABUBAKAR. So we have six major generals and one rear admiral. They,
as well as the higher echelon of the navy, the army and the air force, should
not
pose a big problem to the appointing power. As I understand it, their
succession is even automatic. As soon as a major general in command of a
particular
branch of the Armed Forces has retired, the next senior officer succeeds him.
So the matter of submitting their appointments for confirmation would not be
difficult. We can solve this by adhering as simply as we had done in the
previous Constitution and legislation that their appointments be confirmed
only by
the Commission. On that note, therefore. instead of exhausting our resources
because we are not warlike people but peace-loving people, we should direct
to
and concentrate ourselves on, the development of a prosperous and happy
Philippines, not a militaristic Philippines. I am sure this problem regarding the
rank of military officials will not arise as frequently as we are fearful that it
might. On those bases then, we can dispose of this matter by the simple
provision as it now appears in the proposed draft of the Constitution. Since
Commissioner de Castro is a general, I respect his ability and his experience.
We will listen to his counsel and we would like him to tell us how this matter
could be resolved. On that note, I give him my approval in advance.
MR. DE CASTRO. I thank the Commissioner. I hope the Committee will also
follow the Commissioners advice.
MR. GARCIA. Madam President, may I argue briefly against the amendment
proposed by Commissioner de Castro?
MR. DE CASTRO. We submit it to a vote, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Garcia is recognized.
MR. GARCIA. Thank you very much, Madam President.
I would like to argue briefly against the amendment proposed by
Commissioner de Castro.
MR. DAVIDE. I do not want Commissioner de Castro see a defeat on the floor.
I would rather request him to agree to the proposal so that both of us will be
victorious.
MR. DE CASTRO. I will go on with my proposal as of now.
Madam President, may I ask for a suspension of the session.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT. The session is suspended.
It was 4:11 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 4:18 p.m. the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT. The session is resumed.
MR. DAVIDE. Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE. Since Commissioner de Castro wants his proposal acted upon by
the Commission, I am with drawing my proposed amendment to his
amendment and
would stick to the original provision of the Article as proposed by the
Committee.
THE PRESIDENT. What is the reaction of the Committee?
MR. REGALADO. The Committee, Madam President, prefers to have the
proposed amendment of Commissioner de Castro submitted to the floor for
the consideration
of all the Commissioners. However, the sentiment of the Committee is that it
will stick to the original provision on line 28 regarding the inclusion of the
colonel and the naval captain.
THE PRESIDENT. So the Committee does not accept the proposed
amendment of Commissioner de Castro so that line 28 of the committee
report remains as is.
MR. DE CASTRO. Madam President, with due respect to the amendment of
Commissioner Davide to my amendment on line 28, I am relenting the
change of colonel
MS. AQUINO. Are we allowing the President to make appointments while the
Congress is in recess? If so, I would suggest that we take up Article VII
Section
10 of the 1935 Constitution, which directly pertains to this situation.
FR. BERNAS. Madam President, we quite recognize that, but we have to think
this out a little bit more because Article VII, Section 10 (4) of the 1935
Constitution provides:
The President shall have the power to make appointments during the recess
of the Congress, but such appointments shall be effective only until
disapproval
by the Commission on Appointments or until the next adjournment of the
Congress.
This provision, however, was written under the circumstances of the 1935
Constitution when the session days were only 100 days. Today, we only have
a
30-day compulsory recess which, however, does not exclude a longer
voluntary recess. So the question is: Can the President make appointments
while Congress
is in recess, either involuntary or compulsory?
MR. DE CASTRO. Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. May we let Commissioner Bernas, finish first with his
comments.
FR. BERNAS. I am just thinking aloud, Madam President, whether a provision
similar to that of the 1935 Constitution is necessary, or if we must adjust the
provision of the 1935 Constitution to the circumstances of the present
Constitution which has a very brief recess.
MR. DE CASTRO. Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner de Castro is recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO. I believe the provision in the 1935 Constitution refers to ad
interim appointments.
FR. BERNAS. Yes.
MR. DE CASTRO. So that when appointments of the officials by the President
which need the confirmation of the Commission on Appointments are made
when the
Congress is in recess these are ad interim appointments the President
reason we now want that if there is any conviction for the violation of the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, which, in effect, is a violation of the
public trust character of the public office, no pardon shall be extended to
the offender, unless some limitations are imposed.
Originally, my limitation was, it should be with the concurrence of the
convicting court, but the Committee left it entirely to the legislature to
formulate the mechanics at trying, probably, to distinguish between grave
and less grave or serious cases of violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act. Perhaps this is now the best time, since we have strengthened
the Article on Accountability of Public Officers, to accompany it with a
mandate that the Presidents right to grant executive clemency for offenders
or violators of laws relating to the concept of a public office may be limited
by Congress itself.
MR. SARMIENTO. Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO. May I briefly speak in favor of the amendment by deletion.
Madam President, over and over again, we have been saying and arguing
before this Constitutional Commission that we are emasculating the powers
of the
presidency, and this provision to me is another clear example of that. So, I
speak against this provision. Even the 1935 and the 1973 Constitutions do
not
provide for this kind of provision.
I am supporting the amendment by deletion of Commissioner Tan.
MR. ROMULO. Commissioner Tingson would like to be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Tingson is recognized.
MR. TINGSON. Madam President, I am also in favor of the amendment by
deletion because I am in sympathy with the stand of Commissioner Francisco
Soc
Rodrigo. I do believe and we should remember that above all the elected or
appointed officers of our Republic, the leader is the President. I believe that
the country will be as the President is, and if we systematically emasculate
the power of this presidency, the time may come when he will be so
handcuffed
that he will no longer be able to act like he should be acting.
So, Madam President, I am in favor of the deletion of this particular line.
economic
morass at this time is due to the extravagance and the use of power by the
Executive without any check even from the Batasang Pambansa.
Madam President, before we go into foreign borrowings, our economists,
good as they are, should have a good planning, a three-year plan, a five-year
plan
and a ten-year plan, for the economic recovery of our country, so that they
will know from the very beginning how much they will borrow from a certain
year
to a certain year, and Congress should be part of this plan. Therefore,
concurrence of Congress is necessary.
I, therefore, present that foreign borrowings must have the concurrence of
Congress voting jointly.
MR. VILLEGAS. May I reply.
First of all, definitely, there are contingencies that are always included in the
budget of the government, but there are precisely certain types of
calamities that cannot be included in these contingencies, and this is just, as
I said, one of the many, many situations that may confront the Executive
which would require foreign borrowings.
I agree with the Commissioner that the five-year plan that is going to be
submitted by a central planning agency whether we call it NEDA or
something
else will be determined by the legislature and should include the amount
of borrowings that can be foreseen within a five-year horizon, for example.
But
we know very well that a plan is only a plan. For example, no one could have
foreseen the tremendous increase in oil prices in the 1970s, and that was
exactly why we have to give a lot of elbow room to the executive to meet the
contingencies from year to year. And I think, as long as we include the
provision that would make the Monetary Board independent by making sure
that the majority of the members will not be Cabinet ministers, it would be
sufficient to have the Monetary Board concur in ordinary borrowings. And as I
said, the exact amendment that I would like to suggest is on line 16 of page
8. After the word Board, the next sentence will read: THE MONETARY
BOARD SHALL FIX A LIMIT TO FOREIGN BORROWING WHICH CAN BE
EXCEEDED ONLY UPON
CONCURRENCE OF THE MAJORITY OF CONGRESS. Then continue: The
Monetary Board shall, within thirty (30) days . . .
FR. BERNAS. Madam President, one question. How often will the Monetary
Board fix the ceiling?
MR. VILLEGAS. This 20 percent that has been set by the Monetary Board has
been there for 10 years. So, it is something that should be left to the
Monetary
Board to decide.
MR. MAAMBONG. May we know the exact wordings again, please.
MR. VILLEGAS. The amendment will read: THE MONETARY BOARD SHALL FIX
A LIMIT TO FOREIGN BORROWING WHICH CAN BE EXCEEDED ONLY UPON
CONCURRENCE OF THE
MAJORITY OF CONGRESS. Then we can say JOINTLY or SEPARATELY.
MR. DE CASTRO. Does the proponent prefer SEPARATELY now?
MR. VILLEGAS. I will leave it to the Committee.
MR. DE CASTRO. Because the proponent said that the Monetary Board shall
fix a limit, how much is that limit.
MR. VILLEGAS. How much is the limit?
MR. DE CASTRO. Yes.
MR. VILLEGAS. I would leave it up to the Monetary Board. Right now, as I
said, the figure is 20 percent debt service ratio.
MR. DE CASTRO. This is the problem, Madam President. The Monetary Board
under the past regime had been cooperating with the Executive to put us
where we
are today. This is the very reason why we like a check by Congress.
MR. NATIVIDAD. Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Natividad is recognized.
MR. NATIVIDAD. May I ask Commissioner Villegas to yield to a few questions
just to clarify certain matters?
MR. VILLEGAS. Gladly, Madam President.
MR. NATIVIDAD. I would like to ask this question from the perspective of
Congress. Before the Congressmen were elected for four years. In our draft,
we are
recommending that they be elected for three years. The proponents
perception here is that the Monetary Board is given this duty and
responsibility because
it takes expertise and consistency to perform these duties. Am I correct?
MR. VILLEGAS. Exactly, Madam President.
MR. NATIVIDAD. Which may be absent in the case of Members of Congress?
MR. VILLEGAS. That is right.
MR. NATIVIDAD. Because they are being elected every three years, and if
they are not elected, there will be no consistencies. I am asking this question
from the perception of a Congressman because I served in the Congress and
I know the difficulties of a Congressman, even if he is an economist.
As an economist, what are the qualities that the proponent would expect
from a Monetary Board member in order to perform this particular
responsibility?
MR. VILLEGAS. He should understand, for example, the workings of the
international financial community: what happens to interest rates and
exchange rates
year in and year out, and what the demands of the domestic economy are as
far as money supply and credit are concerned. There are just so many that
these
should be left to experts in monetary management.
MR. NATIVIDAD. And these are just the basic qualifications?
MR. VILLEGAS. Exactly.
MR. NATIVIDAD. And even if one is an expert, his expertise must be updated.
Is that not correct?
MR. VILLEGAS. Yes, Madam President.
MR. NATIVIDAD. Then, it goes to say that even in the Monetary Board, we
have to choose not only from among the most qualified but the most
experienced as
well to perform these duties. Does the Gentleman perceive a situation where
he will find this particular, specific and necessary qualification in Members
of Congress?
MR. VILLEGAS. Probably a few; yes, definitely.
MR. NATIVIDAD. Can he?
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT. As many as are in favor of the amendment of Commissioner
de Castro, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised
their hand.)
The results show 5 votes in favor and 24 votes against; the proposed
amendment is lost.
May we now have the amendment of Commissioner Villegas?
MR. VILLEGAS. On line 16, after the word Board and the period (.), insert
THE MONETARY BOARD SHALL FIX A LIMIT TO FOREIGN BORROWING WHICH
LIMIT CAN BE
EXCEEDED ONLY UPON CONCURRENCE OF THE MAJORITY OF CONGRESS,
then delete SEPARATELY.
THE PRESIDENT. VOTING SEPARATELY.
MR. VILLEGAS. Yes.
THE PRESIDENT. Is this accepted by the Committee
MR. DAVIDE. Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE. Would the distinguished proponent yield to some clarificatory
questions?
MR. VILLEGAS. Gladly, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. Please proceed.
MR. DAVIDE. At present, we have the Foreign Borrowings Act which was
originally a law enacted by the Congress of the Philippines and then
amended by
several decrees thereafter. Would an approval of this amendment mount to a
repeal of the Foreign Borrowings Act?
MR. VILLEGAS. Yes, it would.
MR. DAVIDE. The repeal will immediately take effect upon the ratification of
the Constitution.
MR. DAVIDE. But basically, Congress cannot even touch what has been
approved as the limit by the Monetary Board. So, this would insulate the acts
of the
Monetary Board from the representatives of the people.
MR. VILLEGAS. The way by which Congress can influence the Monetary Board
would be to include in this Constitution the proposed Article on the National
Economy and Patrimony wherein Congress will determine how the Monetary
Board is going to be organized and its composition. I think this is where the
legislature can exercise its influence; in fact, it is a very powerful influence
on the Monetary Board.
MR. DAVIDE. The influence would only be in the composition and creation.
MR. VILLEGAS. That is right.
MR. DAVIDE. But not in the exercise of the authority. What is important is the
control or the check of the legislature on the exercise of that authority.
Thank you very much.
MR. VILLEGAS. Yes.
THE PRESIDENT. Are we now ready to vote?
MR. DE LOS REYES. Will Commissioner Villegas accept an amendment to his
amendment?
MR. VILLEGAS. Yes.
MR. DE LOS REYES. After hearing all these arguments, I propose that lines 13
to 15 will read as follows: The President may contract or guarantee foreign
loans on behalf of the Republic of the Philippines with the prior concurrence
of the Monetary Board AND SUBJECT TO SUCH LIMITATIONS AS MAY BE
PROVIDED BY
LAW. Would that be all right considering that this phrase is found in the
1973 Constitution that covers everything including the very brilliant
interpellation of Commissioner Davide?
MR. VILLEGAS. I accept the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT. That will be in lieu of the entire sentence. Is that our
understanding?
MR. VILLEGAS. Yes, Madam President.
MR. FOZ. Madam President, before we suspended the session, there was a
suggestion to put the words DEPUTIES OR to be followed by the existing word
assistants. So, line 26 will now read DEPUTIES OR assistants shall not . . .
Is the Committee accepting the amendment?
THE PRESIDENT. What does the Committee say?
MR. SUMULONG. We accept the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT. For clarification, will Commissioner Foz please repeat the
proposed amendment?
MR. FOZ. The amendment consists of the following: on line 26, add the words
DEPUTIES OR before the word assistants.
THE PRESIDENT. How about chiefs of bureaus or offices? Have we approved
that?
MR. REGALADO. It has been accepted, Madam President, so that it will read:
The President, Vice-President, members of the Cabinet, and their DEPUTIES
OR
assistants . . .
MR. RODRIGO. Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO. I would like to be clear about this because I am the Chairman
of the Committee on Style. I would like to know the meaning of members of
the
Cabinet and their DEPUTIES OR assistants, because since we went back to
the presidential system, I remember that the members of the Cabinet were
called
secretaries and undersecretaries. Is that what is meant here?
MR. REGALADO. Yes, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO. So that I can change this in the Committee on Style later?
MR. REGALADO. Yes, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to this particular amendment of
Commissioner Foz which has been accepted by the Committee? (Silence) The
Chair hears
none; the amendment is approved.
Is there any other amendment?
MR. FOZ. Madam President, this is the last amendment. On page 9, line 5,
after the word . . .
REV. RIGOS. I have an anterior amendment to that, Madam President, on
page 8.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Rigos is recognized.
REV. RIGOS. On Section 19, line 26, delete the word term and in lieu
thereof insert the word TENURE. Commissioner Nolledo is a coauthor of this
amendment.
THE PRESIDENT. Is this accepted by the Committee?
MR. SUMULONG. We accept.
MR. FOZ. May I proceed with my other amendment, Madam President?
THE PRESIDENT. There is a proposed amendment of Commissioner Rigos
which has been accepted by the Committee. So, let us vote on that first.
Is there any objection to the proposed amendment of Commissioner Rigos
which has been accepted by the Committee? (Silence) The Chair hears none;
the
amendment is approved.
MR. FOZ. May I proceed with my other amendment, Madam President?
THE PRESIDENT. Please proceed.
MR. FOZ. This is on page 9, line 5. Between the words or and head, I
would like to insert the words CHAIRMEN OR. The intention is to specify just
the
persons being referred to when we speak of bureaus and offices. Or the
additional amendments I will have later on have to do with governmentowned or
controlled corporations and their subsidiaries. On line 6, after the word
office, insert the following words: INCLUDING GOVERNMENT-OWNED OR
CONTROLLED
CORPORATIONS AND THEIR SUBSIDIARIES. Those are the proposed changes.
MR. REGALADO. How will the entire paragraph now read with the suggested
amendments?
MR. FOZ. I will read the paragraph: The spouse and relatives by
consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree of the President shall
not be
appointed as ministers, deputy ministers, CHAIRMEN OR heads of bureaus or
offices, INCLUDING GOVERNMENT-OWNED OR CONTROLLED CORPORATIONS
AND THEIR
SUBSIDIARIES.
May we hear the response of the Committee? I was informed that ministers
and deputy ministers will be changed to secretaries or undersecretaries. That
is
part of the style, I suppose.
MR. REGALADO. The Committee on Style will take care of all those changes
in terminology.
THE PRESIDENT. Is the proposed amendment accepted by the Committee?
MR. SUMULONG. Accepted.
MR. FOZ. Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection to this proposed amendment of
Commissioner Foz which has been accepted by the Committee? (Silence) The
Chair hears
none; the amendment is approved.
MR. ROMULO. Madam President, Commissioner Nolledo wants to propose a
posterior amendment, with the indulgence of the other Commissioners.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Nolledo is recognized.
MR. NOLLEDO. Thank you, Madam President.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, my amendment consists of an
additional section. This should be considered as Section 24, because I
understand
Commissioner Ople presented an amendment consisting of one section and
it was accepted by the Committee.
So, the last section in the committee report is Section 22, plus the
amendment of Commissioner Ople, which will be Section 23. This will be
Section 24. It
reads as follows: SEC. 24. ALL POWERS AND FUNCTIONS NOT INCONSISTENT
WITH THIS CONSTITUTION VESTED IN THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES
UNDER EXISTING LAWS
AS WELL AS THOSE POWERS AND FUNCTIONS NOT VESTED IN ANY
PARTICULAR OFFICIAL SHALL BE EXERCISED BY THE PRESIDENT UNLESS THE
CONGRESS SHALL PROVIDE
OTHERWISE.
That is my amendment. Before the Committee decides whether to accept or
reject the amendment, I would like to explain briefly, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. Please proceed.
MR. NOLLEDO. I think all of us are aware that we have laws consisting of acts
of the old Philippine legislature, acts of the old Philippine Commission,
decrees and proclamations that are still valid and existing. And there are
provisions giving certain powers and functions to the President or the Chief
Executive. In view of the legal maxim of inclusio unius est exclusio alterius, I
think a safety valve in the form of this proposal should be contained in
the Constitution. May we ask the reaction of the Committee?
FR. BERNAS. The Committee would not violently react against this. But just
for the record, we would like to be clarified about certain provisions which
might be inconsistent with this Constitution. Specifically, for instance, is the
power to sequester inconsistent with this Constitution, particularly the
Bill of Rights?
MR. NOLLEDO. This provision is fully consistent with the Bill of Rights, but I
may say that this may be qualified by provisions in the Transitory
Provisions of the Constitution.
FR. BERNAS. No, I realize that the intention is that the proponent is only
adopting those which are consistent with the Bill of Rights. But specifically,
in his judgment and in the spirit of this amendment, is it his intention to
include the power to sequester as one of the powers that will be continuing
until Congress provides otherwise?
MR. NOLLEDO. Not necessarily, but without prejudice to the provisions in the
Transitory Provisions.
FR. BERNAS. Perhaps, I should ask it more directly. Does the proponent
consider the power to sequester as inconsistent with Section 3 of our Bill of
Rights
now?
MR. NOLLEDO. I would say so, and that is why there is a need for a qualifying
provision in the event the Commission so decides in the Transitory
Provisions.
MR. DAVIDE. Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE. Could I request the proponent to take this up in the Transitory
Provisions? I strongly feel that the proper area for this or the proper situs
is the Transitory Provisions. I understand that in the Transitory Provisions,
there will be provisions to the effect that all laws, executive orders, etc.,
shall remain valid until otherwise repealed by the Congress of the
Philippines.
MR. MAAMBONG. Madam President.
MR. NOLLEDO. The Gentleman will note that in the 1973 Constitution, there
appeared as the last provision of the Article on the President a similar
provision. I think its proper place is under the executive department.
MR. MAAMBONG. Madam President, just for the information of the
Commission, I am a member of the Committee on Amendments and
Transitory Provisions, and as a
matter of fact, I was the one who proposed a resolution similar to the one
being proposed now by Commissioner Nolledo. And my Chairman,
Commissioner
Suarez, is here to attest that the proposed resolution has already been
approved.
MR. NOLLEDO. Thank you; I will make the Gentleman a coauthor.
MR. MAAMBONG. Gladly, Madam President.
MR. NOLLEDO. I strongly recommend to the Committee that this should
appear in the Article on the Executive.
MR. REGALADO. We notice that Commissioner Maambong is just waiting for it
to be thrown to his direction.
MR. NOLLEDO. I am not inclined to do that. What does the Committee say,
please?
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MR. DE LOS REYES. For example, the Directors of the NBI, Bureau of Lands,
Bureau of Soils and others. To that extent, will the Commissioner accept my
amendment?
MR. VILLACORTA. How would the Commissioner word the amendment, if I
may ask?
MR. DE LOS REYES. Will the Commissioner please read his amendment?
MR. VILLACORTA. On page 9, after line 6, I propose to add a new section to
read: IF THE VICE-PRESIDENT BECOMES PRESIDENT, HIS RELATIVES WHO
ARE INCUMBENT
SECRETARIES, UNDERSECRETARIES, OR HEADS OF BUREAUS OR OFFICES,
SHALL BE OBLIGED TO RESIGN IMMEDIATELY.
MR. DE LOS REYES. I propose to delete the words OR HEADS OF BUREAUS
OR OFFICERS.
MR. VILLACORTA. In that case, I am accepting that amendment to my
amendment.
MR. DE LOS REYES. What is the reaction of the Committee?
MR. REGALADO. Let us have the entire amendment, as amended.
MR. VILLACORTA. IF THE VICE-PRESIDENT BECOMES PRESIDENT, HIS
RELATIVES WHO ARE INCUMBENT SECRETARIES AND UNDERSECRETARIES
SHALL BE OBLIGED TO RESIGN
IMMEDIATELY.
THE PRESIDENT. May the Chair be clarified. Are these related within the third
civil degree?
MR. VILLACORTA. These relatives would be in third civil degree.
MR. FOZ. Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Foz is recognized.
MR. FOZ. May we ask the proponent of the amendment a question?
THE PRESIDENT. The Commissioner may proceed.
MR. FOZ. Is the proponent suggesting that we add new paragraph or
sentence after line 6?
relatives have already been appointed by somebody else not by him, these
relatives would be affected; they would have to resign if by accident the
President dies and the poor Vice-President becomes President.
MR. GUINGONA. Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Guingona is recognized.
MR. GUINGONA. I am aware of a previous motion which suggested that the
promotion to the career service would go as far as the undersecretary or the
deputy
minister. That is why we have a former undersecretary, Mr. Narciso
Albarracin, who rose from the ranks. I wonder if persons such as he would
also be
included in the amendment proposed by the honorable Commissioner.
MR. VILLACORTA. Is the Commissioner proposing an amendment to delete
the Deputy Minister?
MR. GUINGONA. I do not know what the practice would be. But if the ongoing
practice then would eventually be adopted, perhaps we should exclude also
the
undersecretaries. I am not making any proposal but I have in mind the
undersecretaries who have risen from the ranks like the bureau directors.
I have another question, Madam President. What if an undersecretary has
risen from the ranks and a relative is elected President? If the President-elect
assumes office, would that particular undersecretary have to resign from his
position because of the election of his relative as President?
MR. VILLACORTA. If the Commissioner is talking about an elected President,
then that would not be covered here because we are talking about a
Vice-President who becomes President.
MR. GUINGONA. Yes, but the Commissioners concern is not on the matter of
appointment but on the day-to-day relationship between the President and
the
officials that he has mentioned.
MR. VILLACORTA. So, the Commissioner is asking: If the Vice-President, after
having served the unexpired term of the previous President is elected
legitimately to the presidency, should his relatives who are secretaries and
undersecretaries resign?
MR. GUINGONA. No. I am talking of a situation where a person was already
an undersecretary before the President had assumed office, but who
happened to be
related to the President within the third degree of consanguinity. If the
Commissioners idea is that it is not important whether or not that person is
appointed but what is important is their relationship, then perhaps that
should also be covered in the prohibition.
MR. VILLACORTA. My interpretation is that the prohibition in the last case
that. the Commissioner mentioned would be covered by the original
provision
shall not be appointed as . . . Usually, the spouse and relatives of the
President shall not be appointed In other words, a newly elected President
now
assumes an appointing power and, therefore, would be barred under this
provision from reappointing.
MR. GUINGONA. So, the Commissioner is talking not only of appointment but
even reappointment. But there is no provision that will require the President
to
reappoint. He may allow a person to continue as an undersecretary. This
undersecretary I am talking about was appointed by his predecessor.
MR. VILLACORTA. I think that question should be thrown to the Committee.
May we request clarification from the Committee whether or not this is also
part
of the intendment; that is, does this prohibit not only appointment but also
reappointment?
MR. REGALADO. The Committee, after listening to the proposed amendment
and the reasons adduced in its favor and those against it, does not accept
the
amendment and prefers that it be submitted to the floor.
MR. UKA. Madam President, may I make two observations?
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Uka is recognized.
MR. UKA. There is a saying during the days of the Roman Empire which says
dura lex sed lex which means that the law is hard but that is the law. So, let
us
not make hard laws. Besides, this thing refers to appointment. If they are
already there and they have been promoted or they rose by sheer luck, by
merit,
or by accident, let us not try to bother them. Let us be merciful; let us
temper justice with mercy. Besides, we cannot choose our relatives. I have
cousins who are not very good but I cannot say they are not my cousins. We
cannot choose; we are products of accidents. Once a child is conceived, that
poor child could not have any desire and say, I want that man to be my
father or I want that woman to be my mother. It has so happened that so
and so
met and something happened. So one cannot have any say on the matter.
Talking about relations, it is hard to really define all these things. So, let us
try
not to be very harsh because we cannot choose our relatives.
MR. VILLACORTA. Madam President, I do not think that the last question of
Commissioner Guingona was answered adequately by the Committee. We
have not yet
asked the Committee whether it would accept my amendment or not. The
question posed by Commissioner Guingona was whether this provision in this
Article
would cover reappointments. Would it constitute a prohibition against
reappointments?
MR. REGALADO. The original proposed paragraph will cover reappointments.
MR. GUINGONA. Madam President, may I propose an amendment to the
amendment of Commissioner Villacorta?
THE PRESIDENT. The Commissioner may proceed.
MR. GUINGONA. My amendment is to delete UNDERSECRETARIES or
DEPUTY MINISTERS. Will the Commissioner accept?
MR. VILLACORTA. I accept the amendment.
MR. GUINGONA. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT. In other words, it is limited only to the Ministers or the
Secretaries.
What does the Committee say?
FR. BERNAS. It becomes unnecessary anyway because the practice is that
when there is a new President, the Cabinet members usually tender their
courtesy
resignations.
MR. VILLACORTA. Therefore, the former Vice-President, who is now President,
will be constrained not to appoint his relatives. Then, if that is the intent,
I desist from proposing my amendment.
THE PRESIDENT. Thank you.
Who is the next proponent? Does Commissioner Villacorta have any other
proposed amendment?
MR. VILLACORTA. I have another amendment on Section 20.
MR. ROMULO. Madam President, there are prior amendments to Section 20.
THE PRESIDENT. Then, let us call those with prior amendments.
MR. ROMULO. Commissioner Aquino has an anterior amendment on Section
19.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MS. AQUINO. Madam President, the propose amendment pertains to Section
19, on Page 8, lines 29 and 30. For purposes of symmetry with line 28, on
line 29 I
propose to insert OR INDIRECTLY between the words directly and in, so it
would read: financially interested directly OR INDIRECTLY in any contract
with. . .
On line 30, delete the word financial and substitute it with FRANCHISE.
THE PRESIDENT. What does the Committee say?
MR. REGALADO. The Committee accepts. Actually, the word financial here
is only a typographical error. We will substitute it with FRANCHISE.
THE PRESIDENT. The Committee has accepted the amendment.
Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is
approved.
MS. AQUINO. On page 9, line 4, after the word not add the words DURING
HIS TERM such that the line would read: within the third civil degree of the
President shall not DURING HIS TERM be appointed as . . .
MR. DAVIDE. Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE. Will the proponent yield to an amendment? Instead of TERM, I
propose TENURE.
MS. AQUINO. That means that if the President resigns halfway during his
term, then he cannot appoint.
MR. DAVIDE. That is why we should use the word TENURE instead of TERM,
because the elected President may not be able to finish his term.
MS. AQUINO. Considering that these are executive appointments, I will
accept the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection from the Committee?
MR. REGALADO. The Committee accepts the amendment. It makes the
period more specific.
THE PRESIDENT. The Committee has accepted the amendment.
Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is
approved.
MR. PADILLA. Madam President
THE PRESIDENT. The Vice-President, Commissioner Padilla, is recognized.
MR. PADILLA. On that same line, line 4, it mentions third civil degree of
relationship. That would include first degree father or son; second degree
brother or sister; and third degree uncle or nephew. But most of our close
relatives would include the fourth civil degree the first cousin. Will the
Committee agree to change the word third to FOURTH?
MR. REGALADO. Originally, the Committee considered the fourth civil degree
relationship as it is the a standard prohibition even in statutes, but it was
felt by some Committee members that we might be depriving the country of
the services of some competent officials who just happen to be the first
cousins
of the President. So we would submit it to the floor.
MR. PADILLA. Usually we do not appoint those in the first degree like the
father or the son; those in the second degree like the brother or the sister;
and
those in the third degree relationship like the uncle or the nephew. But most
of the appointments which may be considered as nepotism, are first cousins,
and that would fall under the fourth degree.
MR. REGALADO. My original proposal in the Committee was within the fourth
civil degree, but there was not a common concordance on that, so we
suggest that
the matter now be submitted to the wisdom of the body.
MR. RODRIGO. Is there any need for such a provision? Is it not a rule in
statutory construction that when there is a general rule and a particular rule,
the particular rule is followed?
MR. DAVIDE. That may be true. But there is also the same rule in statutory
construction that the later provision shall prevail.
MR. RODRIGO. It might just be a redundancy because it is very clear that
while we have a general provision here about the President and VicePresident not
being able to hold any other office, there is a specific provision that the VicePresident may be appointed as a member of the Cabinet. I think it is
understood that that is an exception to this general rule.
MR. DAVIDE. If the interpretation to be read into the record, for purposes of
guiding subsequent application or interpretation of the Constitution, would
be that despite Section 19, Section 3 in the matter of the Vice-President
should prevail, I will not insist if that is the thinking and the meaning. Is
that the thinking of the Committee?
MR. REGALADO. That is the thinking of the Committee and it even was so
understood under the previous Constitution.
MR. DAVIDE. Then I withdraw, but I have another amendment on page 9, line
5.
REV. RIGOS. Madam President, if Commissioner Davide will allow me, I have
an amendment on page 8, line 27.
Between the words any and profession, insert the word OTHER. The line
will now read: . . . nor may they practice any OTHER profession.
THE PRESIDENT. What does the Committee say?
MR. REGALADO. I think the purpose of Commissioner Rigos is just for
symmetry because it is preceded by hold any other office or employment,
nor may they
practice any OTHER profession.
It that the purpose of Commissioner Rigos?
REV. RIGOS. Yes.
MR. REGALADO. That will be all right. We accept the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT. The Committee has accepted the amendment.
Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is
approved.
Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE. On page 9, line 5, after the word as, insert the following:
MEMBERS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS, THE OFFICE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN, OR THE
JUDICIARY OR so that the amended line will read: be appointed as MEMBERS
OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS, THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN,
OR THE JUDICIARY,
OR as ministers, deputy ministers or heads of . . .
MR. GUINGONA. Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Guingona is recognized.
MR. GUINGONA. Would the distinguished proponent accept an amendment to
his amendment to limit this prohibition to members of collegiate courts? The
judges
of the lower courts perhaps would not have the same category or the same
standing as the others mentioned here.
MR. DAVIDE. Pursuant to the post amendment, we already included here
government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries which are
not even
very sensitive positions. So with more reason that the prohibition should
apply to appointments in these bodies.
THE PRESIDENT. Does the Committee accept?
FR. BERNAS. What is common among these people Ministers, Deputy
Ministers, heads of bureaus or offices is that they are under the control of
the
President.
MR. GUINGONA. That is correct.
FR. BERNAS. Whereas, the other offices the Commissioner mentioned are
independent offices.
MR. DAVIDE. The idea of the proposal is that about the end of the term of the
President, he may prolong his rule indirectly by appointing people to these
sensitive positions, like the commissions, the Ombudsman, the judiciary, so
he could perpetuate himself in power even beyond his term of office;
therefore
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT. Those in favor of this proposed amendment of
Commissioner Davide on page 9, line 5, to include these two offices: the
constitutional
commissions and the office of the Ombudsman, please raise their hand.
(Several Members raised their hand.)
Those against the proposed amendment will please raise their hand. (Few
Members raised their hand.)
The results show 24 votes in favor and 9 against; the amendment is
approved.
MR. ROMULO. Madam President, we are almost at the end of our long journey.
I ask for continued patience on the part of everyone. We are now on Section
20.
We have consolidated all the amendments for presentation by one person;
and that is, Commissioner Sarmiento. Will the Chair recognize him please?
MR. SARMIENTO. Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO. I humbly propose an amendment to the proposed resolution
of my Committee and this is on page 9, Section 20, line 7, which is to delete
the
words or international agreement. May I briefly explain.
First, Article VII of the 1935 Constitution does not mention international
agreement. Second, the Vienna Convention on the Law on Treaties states
that a
treaty is an international agreement. Third, the very source of this provision,
the United States Constitution, does not speak of international agreement;
it only speaks of treaties. So with that brief explanation, may I ask the
Committee to consider our amendment.
Commissioners Guingona, Villacorta and Aquino are supportive of this
amendment.
THE PRESIDENT. What does the Committee say?
MR. CONCEPCION. Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Concepcion is recognized.
FR. BERNAS. I wonder if a quotation from the Supreme Court decision might
help clarify this:
The right of the executive to enter into binding agreements without the
necessity of subsequent Congressional approval has been confirmed by long
usage.
From the earliest days of our history, we have entered into executive
agreements covering such subjects as commercial and consular relations,
most favored
nation rights, patent rights, trademark and copyright protection, postal and
navigation arrangements and the settlement of claims. The validity of this
has
never been seriously questioned by our Courts.
Agreements with respect to the registration of trademarks have been
concluded by the executive of various countries under the Act of Congress of
March 3,
1881 (21 Stat. 502) . . . International agreements involving political issues or
changes of national policy and those involving international agreements of
a permanent character usually take the form of treaties. But international
agreements embodying adjustments of detail, carrying out well established
national policies and traditions and those involving arrangements of a more
or less temporary nature usually take the form of executive agreements.
MR. ROMULO. Is the Commissioner, therefore, excluding the executive
agreements?
FR. BERNAS. What we are referring to, therefore, when we say international
agreements which need concurrence by at least two-thirds are those which
are
permanent in nature.
MS. AQUINO. And it may include commercial agreements which are executive
agreements essentially but which are proceeding from the authorization of
Congress. If that is our understanding, then I am willing to withdraw that
amendment.
FR. BERNAS. If it is with prior authorization of Congress, then it does not need
subsequent concurrence by Congress.
MS. AQUINO. In that case, I am withdrawing my amendment.
MR. TINGSON. Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. Is Commissioner Aquino satisfied?
The President shall submit to the Congress within thirty days from the
opening of each regular session, as the basis of the general appropriations
bill, a
budget of expenditures and sources of financing, including receipts from
existing and proposed revenue measures. The Congress may not increase
the
appropriations recommended by the President for the operation of the
Government as specified in the budget. The form, content, and manner of
preparation of
the budget shall be prescribed by law.
MR. SUMULONG. We will note that Section 21 simply refers to the submission
by the President of the budget within fifteen days of the opening of the
regular
session. We precisely limited it to the act of submission of the budget by the
President. We did not continue anymore because we knew that in the
committee
report to be prepared by the Committee on the Legislative, the details about
this budget of receipts and expenditures will be discussed.
MR. REGALADO. May I add to that. Commissioner Davide is also a member of
the Committee on the Executive. That was precisely the agreement, that this
duty
of the President in the first sentence will be retained in the provision on
the executive, then the provision on the legislative will take care of all
other details after this.
MR. DAVIDE. Then, we can leave it to the Committee on Style, but with the
consent of the Commission, we will change fifteen in Section 21 to THIRTY.
We
use THIRTY days instead of fifteen. So it will be harmonized with Section
25. So the amendment would only be the change of the word fifteen to
THIRTY
on line 10 of page 9, and then the Committee on Style will later harmonize
the two provisions.
THE PRESIDENT. Does the Chair understand that Commissioner Azcuna is not
insisting on the deletion of Section 21?
MR. AZCUNA. Madam President, I am not insisting.
THE PRESIDENT. So, the change will be from fifteen to THIRTY days?
MR. REGALADO. The Committee accepts.
THE PRESIDENT. The Committee has accepted the amendment.
on the
Accountability of Public Officers at the first hour if we have enough number.
We can continue the committee report on the Legislative, just on the party
list system, the multisectoral system and the terms of the office which are
the only matters left. After that we can proceed to the sponsorship and
debate
on the report of the Committee on Social Justice.
If we can have all these and the clean copy of the committee report on the
executive distributed to us within the morning, then we can vote on Second
Reading before we recess at noon. So, in accordance with that, Madam
President, I move for the adjournment until tomorrow.
MR. ROMULO. Madam President, Commissioner Jamir would like to be
recognized to make a reservation before we go to Second Reading.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Jamir is recognized.
MR. JAMIR. Madam President, yesterday I proposed an amendment on
Section 4. But because of Commissioner Monsods proposal to reconsider the
decision on
that total prohibition on the President from running for reelections
Commissioner Regalado suggested that I withdraw my amendment for the
time being.
Since I have not heard from Commissioner Monsod whether or not he will
pursue his amendment, I am ready to ask for a reconsideration of my motion.
MR. MONSOD. Madam President, I was informed that a motion for
reconsideration has to be filed within one day. So if the Commissioner will
recall, I have
asked the Chairs advice on how we could proceed with that but it seems it
could only be done if we suspend the Rules. Perhaps that can be taken up at
another time rather than today because it would need a suspension of the
Rules.
THE PRESIDENT. The Committee on Rules or the Steering Committee is the
only one that can suspend the Rules; is that correct?
MR. MONSOD. Yes, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. Will Commissioner Jamir insist on his proposed amendment?
MR. JAMIR. My amendment is to insert a new paragraph between the first and
second paragraphs of Section 4 of the Committees draft. It reads: NO
PERSON WHO
** See Appendix.
R.C.C. NO. 45
Friday, August 1, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
At 9:52 a.m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia Muoz Palma, opened the
session.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is called to order.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please rise to sing the National Anthem.
Everybody rose to sing the National Anthem.
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please remain standing for the Prayer to be
led by the Honorable Bernardo M. Villegas.
Everybody remained standing for the Prayer.
PRAYER
MR. VILLEGAS: God Almighty, You created us so that we may perfect
ourselves mainly through human work. Through our first parents, You
commanded us to
exercise dominion over the whole earth. Work, far from being a punishment,
has always been part of our human nature. Work whether manual or
intellectual
is the main instrument You have given us for our personal sanctification.
Lord, thank You for giving us during these past few weeks the opportunity to
work with unusual vigor. We are edified to see among our colleagues in the
Commission outstanding examples of diligence, thoroughness, patience,
perseverance, attention to details and an abhorrence for sloppiness and
mediocrity in
professional work. May the lessons we are learning from them last for the
rest of our lives and may we spread these exemplary attitudes to work far
and
wide among our fellow Filipinos.
Through the work we have been performing in writing a Constitution for our
people, we want to participate in Your continuing task of creation by helping
in
a small way to build a just and humane society. We want this work to give
glory to You and to serve our people, especially those who are poor and
defenseless. Through a preferential concern for the poor, let us fulfill the new
commandment which Your only begotten Son, Jesus Christ, brought to us. Let
us love in deeds, and not just in words. Let us learn once and for all that love,
more than being an emotional or sentimental feeling, is an act of the
will by which we seek the good of others even at our own expense. May we
continuously exercise this act of the will in good and bad times, in joy and in
pain.
All these we ask You through Your Beloved Son, Jesus Christ. Amen.
ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will please call the roll.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: reading:
Abubakar
Present*
Monsod
Present
Alonto
Present*
Natividad
Present*
Aquino
Present
Nieva
Present
Azcuna
Present
Nolledo
Present
Bacani
Present
Ople
Present*
Bengzon
Present*
Padilla
Present*
Bennagen
Present
Quesada
Present
Bernas
Present
Rama
Present
Rosario Braid
Present
Regalado
Present
Brocka
Present*
Reyes de los
Present
Calderon
Present
Rigos
Present
Castro de
Present
Rodrigo
Present
Colayco
Present*
Romulo
Present
Concepcion
Present*
Rosales
Present
Davide
Present
Sarmiento
Present
Foz
Present
Suarez
Present
Garcia
Present*
Sumulong
Present
Gascon
Present
Tadeo
Present
Guingona
Present
Tan
Present
Jamir
Present
Tingson
Present
Laurel
Present*
Uka
Present
Lerum
Present*
Villacorta
Present
Maambong
Present*
Villegas
Present
PERIOD OF AMENDMENTS
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: Up for consideration this morning is the pending last amendment
to the Article on the Executive, Committee Report No. 26. This-is the
amendment
that was proposed by Commissioner Jamir. So, in order to wind up our job on
this Article on the Executive, I ask that Commissioner Jamir be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
May we request the honorable Chairman and members of the Committee on
the Executive to please occupy the front table.
At this juncture, may we acknowledge the presence this morning of students
from Maryknoll College, Ateneo de Manila, St. Scholastica College, Philippine
Normal College, St. Bridgets (Quezon City) and St. Bridgets (Batangas). We
thank you, specially our young people, for expressing interest in our
deliberations.
(Applause)
Commissioner Jamir is recognized.
MR. JAMIR: Thank you, Madam President.
I will now restate my proposed amendment to insert a paragraph between
the first and second paragraphs of Section 4 to read as follows: NO PERSON
WHO HAS
SERVED MORE THAN THREE YEARS AS PRESIDENT SHALL BE QUALIFIED FOR
ELECTION TO THE SAME OFFICE AT ANY TIME.
May I know the response of the Committee?
THE PRESIDENT: What does the Committee say?
MR. SUMULONG: Will the proponent explain why he added the phrase AT
ANY TIME?
MR. JAMIR: Madam President, under our approved provision on the President,
we will have no reelection the President is not entitled to any reelection.
That is why in this proposal, I placed the words AT ANY TIME to accord with
that provision.
MR. REGALADO: May I inform Commissioner Jamir that Commissioner Monsod
announced yesterday that he is toying with the idea of seeking a suspension
of the
Rules to enable a proposed motion for reconsideration of the provision that
the President cannot run for immediate reelection, the word immediate
having
been eliminated. That is why I mentioned to the proponent that if that
contingency comes to pass, this portion of his proposed amendment AT ANY
TIME may
be affected.
MR. JAMIR: Should that contingency arise, I will have no objection in deleting
the phrase AT ANY TIME in order to coincide with the reconsideration, if
ever that comes.
MR. REGALADO: That will be replaced by the phrase IN THE NEXT
SUCCEEDING ELECTION.
MR. JAMIR: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: In other words, is it the position of the Committee that we
defer this to some other time until we have taken up the manifestations of
Commissioner Monsod?
MR. REGALADO: Madam President, anyway, Commissioner Jamir has
accepted the condition that in the event the motion for reconsideration of
Commissioner
Monsod prospers, the phrase AT ANY TIME will merely be replaced with the
phrase IN THE NEXT SUCCEEDING ELECTION, which was in his original
proposal.
MR. JAMIR: I affirm that, Madam President.
MR. REGALADO: So, I think we can consider this.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair suggests that a caucus be held by the
Commissioners on this important point that has been raised by
Commissioner Monsod. We will
advise the Commissioners when this caucus will take place, because there
may be other matters to be taken that will be affected by any decision the
body
would take on this issue.
percent of
the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must
be represented by at least three percent of the registered voters thereof.
No amendment under this section shall be authorized within five years
following the ratification of this Constitution nor oftener than once every five
years thereafter.
The National Assembly shall by law provide for the implementation of the
exercise of this right.
THE PRESIDENT: May we hear from the Chairman of the Committee on
Amendments and Transitory Provisions.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: This matter had already been exhaustively discussed when we
decided to approve this particular section. So we would like to leave it to the
body to appreciate this development in connection with the filing of the
motion for reconsideration seeking the deletion of this sentence as presented
by
Commissioner Gascon.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, before we take a vote, may I ask that
Commissioner Bernas be recognized to ask the proponent of the amendment
some questions?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bernas is recognized.
FR. BERNAS: Thank you, Madam President.
All the reasons cited by the Gentleman for deleting the last phrase nor
oftener than once every five years thereafter apply to the entire sentence.
May I
know why he is asking for the deletion only of the last phrase?
MR. GASCON: During our deliberations, we discussed certain parameters
whereby this reserve power could be implemented and for which reason we
have agreed
to allow a 12- and three-percentage parameter for each legislative district.
Although originally I had already presented my position that this should have
been less strict, I have agreed to the position of the majority. However, the
last phrase nor oftener than once every five years thereafter would
actually imply that the people can only begin the practice of this initiative
after five years from now, assuming that this Constitution is ratified, to
which I agree because we have to give the Constitution time to be put into
practice. But after that it will only be practiced every five years. That means
we would only have one initiative every five years at the most. I feel this is
too much of a restriction on the people as far as amending the Constitution
is concerned.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President, I am supporting the amendment, but what I
am really asking is why the proponent is not supporting more concessions.
MR. GASCON: This was in agreement with the Committee Chairman. I tried to
ask for more concessions but he was only willing to allow me to present my
position on this matter because the issue of percentages has already been
thoroughly discussed.
FR. BERNAS: I am not referring to the percentages Madam President, I am
just referring to the entire sentence.
MR. GASCON: It is because I feel that we need to give this Constitution, at
least, five years to be put into practice. If we allow amendments immediately
after the ratification, then we will not be able to put the Constitution into
practice which is why I agree with the basic principle that we should allow
this Constitution to be integrated in the whole political life of the people
whereby the people will have a greater understanding of the Constitution
and,
thereby, will be able to present amendments to it.
FR. BERNAS: But the legislature will be able to propose the amendments
even during the first five years or the like.
MR. GASCON: Yes, that is right.
FR. BERNAS: So, to that extent the legislature is still superior to the people.
MR. GASCON: That is true.
MR. OPLE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: Yes, I am the original author of this amendment by initiative. To
complete the record, when this matter was under debate in the Committee
on
Amendments and Transitory Provisions, some fears were expressed that
although the requirements for proposing constitutional amendments through
initiative
had been raised through a rigorous standard 12 percent of the total
number of votes nationwide, not less than three percent in every legislative
district
or for that matter, province or city there could be too frequent exercise of
this power of initiative to a degree that the government could not
anticipate the budgetary requirements needed for such exercises.
A referendum or a plebiscite costs at least P97 million at present prices. And
also the fear was expressed then, I think by General Crispin de Castro, that
we could be exacerbating the political process by holding too many
referenda, to a degree that this can affect the stability of the government
and district
government from its normal course of action. However, on further reflection,
I think, I am now prepared to support the proposed amendment of
Commissioner
Gascon, if only to insure that the power of initiative will, in no way, be inferior
to the powers of Congress in constituting themselves into a constituent
assembly or in calling a national convention. I think it is prudent to let alone
for the first five years, provided that after that there will be no
restrictions on the number of times that this power can be invoked by the
people.
Thank you. Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Rigos be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rigos is recognized.
REV. RIGOS: The argument I advanced when the question was discussed here
a few weeks ago, Madam President. was that while Congress was given the
opportunities to propose constitutional amendments without time limits, the
people were allowed to make the same proposals once every five years. I
think
the suggestion of Commissioner Gascon is to give substance to the sovereign
power of the people by eliminating the phrase every five years, so that the
idea is to give the same privilege to the people, the same privilege given to
the Congress in making constitutional amendments. I support the position of
Commissioner Gascon on this score.
MR. RAMA: Before we take a vote Madam President, one more question is
forthcoming from Commissioner Sarmiento.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: Commissioner Gascon we are here trying to achieve a
balance between stability and respect for popular will. Would the proponent
agree with
me that instead of completely leaving it to the people after the initial five
years, to make it after every three years? Will that be all right?
MR. GASCON: Actually, I personally feel that we should not place any time
limit any longer. However, when an initiative for referendum in the
Constitution
will be started by the people and submitted to the legislature for action. for
practical purposes, most probably the legislature will provide for the
mechanism for such a referendum during election. And in this case, it is not
synchronized with our proposed election. So for practical reasons, perhaps
everytime there is an election every three years the legislature would assign
a referendum on certain initiatives which the people have presented to the
legislature.
MR. SARMIENTO: In other words, the proponent wants to leave it to the
legislature
MR. GASCON: Because of the last statement which says, the National
Assembly shall by law provide for the implementation of the exercise of this
right, I
believe this would provide the National Assembly the freedom to allocate the
system whereby this referendum will be presented to the people.
MR. SARMIENTO: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, Commissioner Romulo would like to express his
views before we take a vote.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Romulo is recognized.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, as this body knows. I am very much for
initiative and referendum. In fact, as far as the original proposal for initiative
and
referendum for the legislature is concerned, I filed the first resolution.
However, I am against relaxing this provision for the moment because
amendment
by the people of a Constitution should be an extraordinary remedy. We are
now experimenting with this provision, so instead of going all the way, we
ought
to give it a chance to see how it will work. In the United States, their
experience is that when a direct ability of the people to amend the
Constitution
was first given in some of the states, for example, in California many
frivolous proposals were made.
raised
their hand.)
Those against, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, may I record my vote of abstention.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. RODRIGO: May I be allowed to explain why I am abstaining?
THE PRESIDENT: Please proceed.
MR. RODRIGO: I am abstaining because while I do not have any objection to
the proposed amendment, I am already on record as having opposed the use
of
initiative in amending the Constitution. I have no objection to initiative
and referendum themselves or even recall, but I cannot see the
mechanics
and the practicality of it. I would like to state, Madam President, that even
the UP Law Center, which advocates referendum and initiative for ordinary
legislation, does not advocate initiative for proposing amendments to the
Constitution, and this was a well-studied matter by the UP Law Center. The
Center
does not recommend initiative to propose amendments to the Constitution,
although it proposes initiative and referendum for ordinary legislation.
THE PRESIDENT: The results show 13 votes in favor, 33 against and 1
abstention; the amendment is lost.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.
It was 10:52 a.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 10:59 a.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
Commissioner Garcia was on the floor before I suspended the session.
MR. GARCIA: Madam President, thank you very much.
Brocka
Yes
Alonto
Calderon
Yes
Yes
Aquino
Yes
Castro de
Azcuna
Yes
Colayco
Bacani
Yes
Concepcion
Yes
Bengzon
Yes
Davide
Yes
Bennagen
Yes
Foz
Yes
Bernas
Yes
Garcia
Yes
Rosario Braid
Yes
Gascon
Yes
MR. GASCON: Madam President, I would like to explain my vote for one
minute.
THE PRESIDENT: Please proceed.
COMMISSIONER GASCON EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. GASCON: Although this Article on Amendments and Revisions has very
good merits as it has now introduced a new way to amend, which is initiative
by the
people, I still feel that there are still too many limitations and restrictions on
the people. I have expressed this in my motion for reconsideration. In
view of the fact that I recognize and respect the decision of the majority, I
would like to abstain.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Guingona
Yes
Ople
Yes
Jamir
Yes
Padilla
Yes
Laurel
Yes
Muoz Palma
Yes
Lerum
Yes
Quesada
Yes
Maambong
Yes
Rama
Yes
Monsod
Yes
Regalado
Yes
Natividad
Yes
Reyes de los
Yes
Nieva
Yes
Rigos
Yes
Nolledo
Yes
Rodrigo
Yes
Yes
Tan
Yes
Rosales
Yes
Tingson
Yes
Sarmiento
Treas
Suarez
Yes
Uka
Yes
Sumulong
Yes
Villacorta
Yes
Tadeo
Yes
Villegas
Yes
Laurel
Alonto
Sarmiento
Colayco
Treas
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 322
ON THIRD READING
(Article on Amendments or Revisions)**
THE PRESIDENT: The results show 41 votes in favor, none against and 1
abstention.
Proposed Resolution No. 322 is approved on Third Reading.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that the Chairman of the Steering
Committee, Commissioner Bengzon, be recognized for an important
announcement.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
CONSIDERATION OF C.R. NO. 22
(Article on the Legislative/National Assembly)
Continuation
PERIOD OF AMENDMENTS
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, the proposal that we discussed and arrived
at consists of amending page 1, line 29 of the draft Article on the Legislative,
beginning with the word elected, and which reads as follows: THROUGH A
PARTY LIST SYSTEM OF REGISTERED NATIONAL, REGIONAL AND SECTORAL
PARTIES OR
ORGANIZATIONS AS PROVIDED BY , LAW. THE PARTY LIST REPRESENTATIVES
SHALL CONSTITUTE TWENTY PERCENT OF THE TOTAL MEMBERS OF THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
PROVIDED THAT FOR THE FIRST TWO TERMS AFTER THE RATIFICATION OF
THIS CONSTITUTION TWENTY-FIVE OF THE SEATS ALLOCATED TO PARTY LIST
REPRESENTATIVES SHALL BE
FILLED BY SELECTION OR ELECTION, AS PROVIDED BY LAW FROM THE
LABOR, PEASANT, URBAN POOR AND YOUTH SECTORS.
Madam President, there were seven Commissioners who were involved in
these discussions which took place a couple of days ago, and I would like to
mention
their names so that they can indicate if they are still in full accord with this
provision and could consider themselves coauthors of this amendment.
In addition to Commissioner Villacorta and this representation, we have
Commissioners Bernas, Bennagen, Gascon, Garcia, Davide, Bengzon, Nieva,
Azcuna,
Bacani, Rigos, Tan, Suarez, Sarmiento, Ople, Tingson, Guingona, Foz, Romulo,
Uka, Rosario Braid and Villegas.
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Guingona is recognized.
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President, I am in full accord with the proposal read
by Commissioner Monsod, but I would like to have the opportunity to ask a
clarificatory question later.
MR. TADEO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tadeo is recognized.
MR. TADEO: Gusto ko lamang magpahayag ng susog o amendment by
deletion. Ngunit bago ko ito sabihin, kinausap ko si Commissioner Monsod
bago ito
pinag-usapan, bago kami umuwi. Ang sabi ko sa kanya, ako bilang kinatawan
ng mga dukha siguro ang nasa posisyon na dapat maging bahagi ng
pagtalakay nito,
at sumagot naman siya sa akin na hindi ito tatalakayin, na ang kinatawan ng
magbubukid ay wala. Nagkataon lamang na mayroon akong nasagutang
pagsasalita sa
Institute of Social Truth and Action na noon pang Abril ay nasagutan ko na,
ngunit nang dumating ako ay naayos na ito. Ang akin lamang susog o
amendment by
deletion ay ang pag-aalis ng that for the first two terms after the ratification
of this Constitution. Bakit naman natin bibigyan ng limit? Kung gagawa
tayo ng isang Saligang Batas dapat na natin itong paghusayin, lalo na kung
magbibigay ng kapangyarihang pampulitika sa mga dukha o marginalized
sector. Ang
totoo isa ito sa mga magpapabago ng political system ng Pilipinas sapagkat
ang Section 5 at Section 31 na tinalakay natin kangina ay totoong
napakahalaga,
sapagkat ang mga ito ang magbibigay ng kapangyarihang pampulitika o
political power sa marginalized sectors. Sinabi namin, hindi na mahalaga
kung ang porma
ng pamahalaan ay presidential o parliamentary. Ang pinakamahalaga ay ang
nilalaman o ang substance.
Ang Cory government ay iniakyat ng peoples power. Kaya kami naririto sa
Con-Com ay dahil sa peoples power nasa amin ang people, wala sa amin
ang power.
Ganito ito kahalaga.
Kaya ang gusto kong mangyari, dahil itoy totoong napakahalaga, gusto kong
talakayin ito ng apatnaput walong bumubuo ng Con-Com, sapagkat ito ang
magbibigay sa kanila ng kapangyarihang pampulitika. Kaya ako na ang
magsisimula ng pagtalakay sa isang freewheeling discussion. Gusto ko
munang banggitin
ang nakalagay sa ating Primer on Emerging Issues na ginamit natin sa mga
public hearings. Ang sabi sa page 3, last paragraph, III Manner of
Apportionment and Representation to the Legislature:
No. 1. What is the relevance of understanding apportionment and
representation?
The Legislature is supposed to implement or give flesh to the needs and
aspirations of the Filipino people.
Ganoon kahalaga ang National Assembly kayat napakahalaga noong Section
5 and Section 31 ng ating Constitution. Our experience, however, has shown
that
legislation has tended to benefit more the propertied class who constitutes a
small minority in our society than the impoverished majority, 70 percent of
whom live below the poverty line. This has come about because the rich
have managed to dominate and control the legislature, while the basic
sectors have
been left out of it. So, the critical question is, how do we ensure ample
representation of basic sectors in the legislature so that laws reflect their
needs and aspirations?
Ganoon kahalaga ang pag-uusapan natin sa araw na ito. Noong pinaguusapan natin ang term ng Presidente hanggang sa local official, gumamit
tayo halos ng
dalawang araw. Kaya sana ang pakiusap ko lamang, bigyan natin ito ng
pagkakataon. Naglagay tayo sa Preamble ng love. Naglagay tayo ng pagibig sa ating
Preamble na siyang bedrock o magtatakda ng direksiyon ng ating Saligang
Batas. At sinabi mismo ni Ambassador Emmanuel Pelaez na ang isa raw
magandang
nagawa natin sa Preamble, kung natatandaan ng naroroong Commissioners,
ay ang salitang love. Pero bigyan natin ng kahulugan ang salitang love.
Ano ang
ibig sabihin ng love? Hindi ko na kailangang banggitin pa sa inyo ang
Parable of the Good Samaritan sa Gospel of St. Luke, 10:30-37. Ngunit ang
ibibigay
ko na lamang sa inyo ay ang ibig sabihin ng love: Ang bagay na mahalaga
sa iyo na ibinigay mo sa iba o love is an act of giving.
Sa kalagayan ng ating political system noon, ang may hawak lang ng
tinatawag nating political system ay ang five percent na naghaharing uri.
Ano ang ibig
sabihin ng pag-ibig na inilagay natin sa ating Preamble? Kung ang 70 percent
ay walang political power, ang ibig sabihin ng pagkakalagay natin ng love
ay: yong five percent ay bibigyan mo ng political power, yong 70 percent ay
walang political power Yon ang ibig sabihin
Tamang-tama kangina ang sinabi ni Commissioner Villegas. Tayo raw ay
nilikha ng Diyos, ngunit hindi lamang tayo nilikha ng Diyos bilang kalarawan
Niya.
Nilikha tayo ng Diyos bilang cocreator Niya. Kaya gumagawa tayo ng isang
Saligang Batas that will reflect the ideals and aspirations of the Filipino
people. At winakasan ni Commissioner Villegas nang napakaliwanag. Sinabi
niya: Love in deeds; not in words.
Gusto kong banggitin dito ang I Corinthians 13:1. Ano ang sinasabi ng I
Corinthians na siyang pinakamahalaga dito?
Kung ako man ay makapagsasalitang tulad ng salita ng tao at ng wika ng
anghel, kung wala naman akong pag-ibig . . .
Ito ang kagandahan ng pagkakalagay natin ng love sa Preamble. Ang
kahalintulad daw ng Preamble kung walang pag-ibig ay isang tanso lamang
na tumutunog at
batingaw na umaalingawngaw. Ayaw kong ang Saligang Batas nating
gagawin ay isang batingaw na umaalingawngaw o isang tanso na tumutunog
lamang. Dapat itong
magkaroon ng substance. Sa ganitong kalagayan, napakahalaga ng araw
na ito para sa mga dukha, sa marginalized sectors.
Ngayon, gusto ko munang ipaliwanag ang party list sapagkat sinasabing
hindi raw ito nauunawaan. Kung natatandaan ng lahat, nagpadala si
Commissioner Monsod
noong July 22, 1986 ng Memo to the Constitutional Commissioners, Subject:
Explanatory Note on the Party List System na may dalawa lamang pahina.
Pero
nalulungkot ako, bakit naman sa dalawang pahinang itoy marami pa ring
nagsabi na hindi nila naiintindihan ang party list system? Bakit kapag ang
kapangyarihan ay ibibigay natin sa mga dukha, ang dalawang pahina ng
papel na ito ay tila hindi naman natin nabasa? Marahil dapat na ituwid
ninyo ako
kung ako ay mali.
Ngayon, sa ganitong kalagayan, gusto ko po lamang ipaliwanag ang party
list. Ang ibig sabihin nito, doon sa ilalim ng two-party system, kapag kumuha
ka ng
51 percent, iyong ibang partido ay wala nang nakuhang puwesto sa
legislature. Ang ibig sabihin ng party list system, makakuha ka lamang ng
2.5 percent ay
mayroon ka nang isang puwesto. Ang ibig sabihin, yong 49 percent ay
magkakaroon ng bahagi sa lehislatura at ito ay napakagandang bagay na
napalagay sa
ating Saligang Batas. Ngunit gusto ko itong palalimin. Ang 250 seats natin ay
ganito po: Ang 200 seats na legislative district ay nakalaan sa bawat 200,000
sa botante; yong 50 ay para sa party list. Ngunit ang tanong ditong malinaw
ay ganito: Yon bang pumasok sa legislative district, ilagay nating halimbawa
UNIDO, PDP-Laban, Liberal, Nacionalista, PNP ay hindi na kasali sa party
list? Hindi po. Kasama rin ang mga partidong ito. Nahawakan na nila ang 200
legislative seats, hahawakan pa rin nila ang party list itutulak nila ang
sectoral. Lalamunin din ng mga partidong ito ang sectoral. Yon po ang aming
tinututulan. Dodominahan din. Uulitin ko sa inyo sapagkat yon ang puntong
pinakamahalaga. Sa 250 seats, yong 200 ay legislative districts. Yon ay
kokontrolin ng ibat ibang partido. Ngunit ang mga partidong sasama sa
legislative district, papasok pa rin sa party list. Kaya malalamon din ito at
mawawala ang sektoral.
Mga kasama, tanggapin naman nating ang pulitikay logistics. Ang sabi nga
ng aking kababayang Commissioner Natividad, Jimmy, abay kapag sumama
ka sa
law that was passed in 1984. Under Section 27 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881,
the scope of the sectors has been defined as follows:
The agricultural labor sector covers all persons who personally and physically
till the land as their principal occupation. It includes agricultural
tenants and lessees, rural workers and farm employees, owner-cultivators,
settlers and small fishermen.
The industrial labor sector includes all nonagricultural workers and
employees.
The youth sector embraces persons not more than twenty-five years of age.
As to selection, it provides:
SECTION 28. Selection of sectoral representatives. Not later than twenty
days after the election of provincial, city or district representatives, the most
representative and generally recognized organizations or aggroupments of
members of the agricultural labor, industrial labor and youth sectors as
attested
to by the Ministers of Agrarian Reform and of Agriculture and Food, the
Minister of Labor and Employment, and the Ministers of Local Government
and of
Education, Culture and Sports, respectively, shall, in accordance with the
procedure of said organizations or aggroupments of members of the sector,
submit
to the President their respective nominees for each slot allotted for each
sector. The President shall appoint from among the nominees submitted by
the
aforementioned organizations or aggroupments the representatives of the
sector.
This came to pass because we had a difficulty in finding a solution on how
the sectoral representatives should be elected. Some regional assemblymen
had
suggested that the names of the nominees of the sectors should be included
in the ballot, but we objected to it because it would mean that people
outside
the sectors will be voting for them and, in effect, they will not become
representatives of the sectors but rather representatives of all those within
the
district who voted for them. So, it was rejected because of that difficulty.
Let me add to that. The sectors recommended that there should be a
separate list of voters who will vote exclusively for the sectoral
representatives. But
it was called to our attention that this is very hard to do, because since there
are three sectors, then there are three separate lists to be prepared by
the COMELEC and that will be an additional expense to the sectoral
representatives as well as the government. This recommendation was
abandoned, and it was
agreed that selection shall be by appointment.
I think there seemed to be some opposition to sectoral representation at that
time, because the representatives had been accused of being tools of the
President in view of the wrong impression that they had been appointed by
the President. As I have explained on this floor at the second meeting of this
Commission, the sectoral representatives in 1978 were elected as provided
for by the Election Code of 1978, and the Record of the Batasan will show
that
they were fiscalizers rather than blind followers of the President. There are
still some Members here from the interim Batasang Pambansa who can
testify to
the fact that the sectoral representatives have always acted independently
in this Commission. One cannot dictate to the sectoral representatives
because
they are responsible not to the President but to the sectors who have elected
or recommended them. Even if they have been appointed by the President,
they
are loyal to the sectors because they will be called to account by the sectors,
not by the President. And so, as sectoral representatives, we try to show
this Commission that we have been acting independently.
Just yesterday, I had to vote alone against six Members when the question of
sequestration was raised be- cause we maintain that after the Constitution is
approved, there shall be no exemption from the operation of the Bill of
Rights. We had voted alone, but we are used to voting alone. As a matter of
fact,
if I may digress a moment, during our meetings with the President, at one
time, the President said: Let us hear Assemblyman Lerum first before we
outvote
him. But that is the role of the sectors in the Batasan. Contrary to what the
KMU has been saying time and time again that this representation is the
author of Batas Pambansa Blg. 130 and 227, I said that is a lie. It is the KMU,
during a public hearing on May 28 at the Army and Navy Club, which said
that they are already in favor of the draft of the Committee on Labor which
this representation has been opposing.
Brother Tadeo submitted his arguments against the proposed amendment. I
am joining him in that respect and I am reminding this Commission of a
danger if
that amendment will be approved because, in effect, we are giving reserve
seats to the sectors and also to the party list. But if we approved his
amendment, after two elections, all the seats reserved to the sectors will
belong to the parties. The labor sectors, the youth sectors and the other
sectors which are contemplated in this proposal will no longer be
represented because the voting will be by all the voters in the district or
cities
concerned.
This is the reason we are against this amendment. This amendment does not
improve what has been proposed by the Committee which was a committee
amendment.
This party list system is intended to benefit only political parties that cannot
elect their own candidates. It is intended that even the seat allotted to
the labor and other sectors will be absorbed by them so that in the end there
will be no more sectoral representatives.
And so, I am opposed to that amendment and I am in favor of the
amendment to the amendment introduced by Commissioner Tadeo. And
before closing, because I
am going to use this argument also when it comes to an amendment on
sectoral representation in the Senate, let me read what the President
promised to the
labor sector on May 1, 1986, three months ago to this date. She said:
It is part of my minimum program of government to assure labors
meaningful participation in decision-making at all levels of our society. I shall
soon
appoint representatives of your unions in all policy making bodies of
government. I ask you to submit your recommendation in those positions.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner de los Reyes be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de los Reyes is recognized.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Madam President, I would like to state for the record that
I am in favor of giving reserve seats to the labor, peasant, urban poor, and
youth sectors. And I would like to state my reasons by quoting the following
words from a book entitled Ours To Share, by Jeremias U. Montemayor. He
said:
At the beginning, the land problem could have been purely economic insofar
as the tenants and the landlords were concerned. But as time passed on,
what was
terms
after the ratification, sooner or later, the sectoral groups will be swallowed by
the traditional political parties who are better financed.
However, I think that if we give the sectoral groups their handicaps
eternally or forever, they could remain weak forever; they will have no
incentive to
get stronger because they know that they will be enjoying the handicap
forever.
I was toying with the idea that perhaps we could reach a happy compromise
because legislation is the art of the possible, I always say. Instead of
completely adopting the amendment of Commissioner Monsod that the
reserve seats are only for the first two terms after the ratification of the
Constitution, it may state as follows: TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT OF THE SEATS
ALLOCATED TO PARTY LIST REPRESENTATIVES SHALL BE FILLED BY
SELECTION OR ELECTION
FROM THE LABOR, PEASANT, URBAN POOR AND YOUTH SECTORS WHICH
SHALL GRADUALLY DECREASE AFTER EVERY ELECTION FOLLOWING THE
FIRST TWO TERMS AFTER THE
RATIFICATION OF THIS CONSTITUTION, UNTIL THE RESERVE SEATS ARE NO
LONGER NECESSARY AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW.
As I see it, when we play golf, we minimize the handicap until the handicap is
totally diminished. The same principle applies. That is my idea, Madam
President.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Who is the next speaker?
MR. ROMULO: I ask that Commissioner Aquino be recognized, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, I am in full agreement with the concept of
sectoral representation. However, I have some disagreement on the
mechanics.
The Monsod proposal with which I have to differ speaks of reservation only
for two terms after the ratification of the Constitution. My personal position
is: 1) we should provide for perpetual reservation of institutional seats for the
basic sectors-and by that, I refer to the peasants, the labor, the youth
and the urban poor; and 2) that the process for sectoral representation
should be done by election and not by selection. I will propose the necessary
and
pertinent amendments to this at the proper time. But, Madam President, I
would preface my amendment by saying that although the Constitution is a
fundamental law, if it is unable to achieve a proper balance of power, its
institutional virility is seriously doubted.
The problem with Philippine politics now is that the concentration of
socioeconomic and political power is in the hands of the few, while the
majority of
the people are destitute and powerless. Now is the time and the unedited
opportunity for us to transfer the center of gravity of socioeconomic power
from
the people on top to the people below. This proposal for sectoral
representation is hardly iconoclastic; it is not a leftist aberration as some of
us are
inclined to think. Why dc we have to look askance at it as a dynamic and
powerful sectoral representation? Now, more than ever, is the time for us to
realize the lessons of history. History is liberating, otherwise, we might as
well consign it to the dung heap of oblivion. History has told us to be
either nationalistic or wary of the forces that invade self-determination or it
could also be just a kinetic over-reaction. But history is the best teacher
in the sense that a peoples history is liberating history. We knot that
traditional politics has denied the people the right to make their own
mistakes.
Elite politics has been sure-fire formula for depriving us of the luxury of
making our own mistakes. I think that it is now the time to return the power
to
the people; let us have faith in them. And by faith, I mean real and abiding
faith, not just looking at the people as some kind of a mystical entity in
whose name the eternal politician in some of us have done themselves
proud. In other words, let the Filipinos chart their own histories.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. ROMULO: I ask that Commissioner Bernas be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bernas is recognized.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President, I would like to say a few words in support of
the amendment proposed by Commissioner Tadeo for the permanentizing
of reserve
seats for the sectors. The basic premise for this is that by these sectors, we
mean the underprivileged masses. That is clearly what is in our mind. The
sectors mentioned are understood as the underprivileged masses. In the
1935 and 1973 Constitutions, and again in our new Constitution, we have
enshrined
the concept of social justice; and we have understood the concept of social
justice not so much as a philosophical concept but as a practical concept,
meaning, that those who have less in life should have more in law. Now we
are placing sectoral representation side by side with the party list system,
and
I think it is important to look at it in that context. The effort to introduce the
party list system has for its objective the equalization of political
power. In other words, in order that political power will not be concentrated
in two parties, we are attempting to introduce a party list system in order
to distribute political power among various parties. But the distribution of
political power is very much dependent, we might even say essentially
dependent, on the distribution of economic power, and the effective
distribution of economic power would take quite a while.
After we finish our discussion on the Article on the Legislative, we will be
discussing the Article on Social Justice. I am sure that all of those who had
the opportunity to read the proposals, if not just scan over them, will see that
these are long-range goals which will not be attained immediately. It is
only upon the attainment of these long-range goals that the very gross
imbalances in economic power will be remedied, and I anticipate that the
remedying
of this will take place far longer than just two terms of the House of
Representatives, which means only six years. It will take a little longer than
that.
We cannot anticipate that this preferential treatment of the underprivileged
will no longer be needed after six years. I anticipate that it will still be
needed after six years. After all, the concept of reserve seat is not something
unusual to our Constitution. We have reintroduced the Upper House or the
Senate with 24 representatives which, in effect, represents reserve seats for
those who have more political and economic power. Because these are seats
which are quite beyond the capacity of the underprivileged to reach and
because these are seats which, in the context of our history, require people
who
have had vast experience, broad education and, let us face it, economic
wealth, therefore, elitism in the; Senate, although we might say that it is
elitism
in terms of political perspective, education, wisdom and experience, one
cannot really separate from it class distinction. Class distinction is very much
involved in this.
Therefore, by permanentizing these twenty-five seats reserved for the
underprivileged, I think that we will be permanently injecting into the
legislative
process direct contact, as it were, with the large masses of people whose
economic position in life need to be elevated. I would, therefore, very
strongly
urge that we remove this limit of two terms. But when we reach such a time
when we have succeeded in substantially removing the gross inequities of
the
economic situation of the nation, then a constitutional amendment can be
introduced so we can move into the purely party list system because,
hopefully, by
that time, the underprivileged will no longer need to have this power
delivered to them, as it were, on a silver platter.
Thank you.
MR. ROMULO: I ask that Commissioner Bennagen be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bennagen is recognized.
MR. BENNAGEN: Thank you, Madam President. I do not know if this is the
appropriate time for me to say this, but I just want to find out why the
indigenous
communities are not represented, although in a separate paper, it says that
the representation of the four functional sectors could include indigenous
cultural communities. What I am saying is this I would argue for the inclusion
of indigenous cultural communities not so much because they are
marginalized, but because they are still practicing customary laws which are
specifically related to their central concerns, essentially the question of
ancestral land. I have in mind the real possibility of cross-fertilization of legal
systems, one that will take into account the viable indigenous legal
systems in the Philippines and integrate this into other legal systems, so
that, eventually, we might evolve a legal system that is truly Filipino, drawing
sustenance from our indigenous traditions, as well as other traditions. I
would imagine that such an inclusion of representatives from the indigenous
cultural communities would provide this rich opportunity.
I should add that the College of Law of the University of the Philippines,
along with some anthropologists and political scientists, is already
undertaking
extensive and comprehensive studies of indigenous legal systems. But the
mere presence of representatives of these indigenous cultural systems would
provide a living laboratory for this kind of cross-fertilization.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. ROMULO: I ask that Commissioner Ople be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: Thank you, Madam President.
I would like to support the amendment now under discussion which was
introduced by Commissioners Villacorta, Monsod and the others. Let us start
with the
theory of sectoral representation, whether as reserve seats or as may be
achieved through a party list system.
There are two kinds of representation: the territorial representation, which is
based on representative government, and which started taking root at the
beginning of the 19th century in many of the Western countries which we
now call the Western democracies. It became evident later on that territorial
representation has its limitations, that functional representation might be
necessary in order to round off the excellence of a representative system.
And
that was how the theory of party list representation or the reservation of
some seats in a legislature for sectors came about.
I think the whole idea is based on countervailing methods with the aim of
perfecting representation in a legislative body combining the territorial as
well
as the functional modes of representation. The ideal manner of securing
functional representation is through a party list system through popular
suffrage
so that when sectoral representatives get into a legislative body on this
basis, rather than direct regional or district representation, they can rise to
the same majesty as that of the elected representatives in the legislative
body, rather than owing to some degree their seats in the legislative body
either to an outright constitutional gift or to an appointment by the President
of the Philippines. I think, therefore, this proposed amendment now meets
this test. There is an outright constitutional gift for the first two terms of the
sectoral representatives but, after that, they will have to earn the
seats through participation in a party list system or, even beyond that, to be
direct competitors with established and more orthodox parties in the general
political arena. I see no reason why after having occupied seats in the Rouse
of Representatives for two terms, the representatives of sectors may not be
able to combine their forces in order to form their own political parties or
become powerful adjuncts to existing political parties so that they will enjoy
not only the benefits of a party list system but also the benefits of being able
to compete directly in the wider political arena.
Let me give an example. In many countries in Europe, the labor parties today
are direct competitors for power with the long-established conservative
parties. And it is a fact that in many countries of Europe, for example, one
sees labor or socialist parties actually alternating in power with the
so-called conservative parties. In addition to that, in Germany, of course, the
more radical parties win their seats routinely through the party list
system and not as an outright constitutional gift of reserve seats to which
MR. OPLE: Madam President, the freedom of association does not bestow on
the government the right to interfere with labor organizations or other
sectoral
organizations. I do not think the government should impose unity on them.
We will depend on them to work out their own unification across their wellknown
differences.
MR. LERUM: Madam President, I am not saying about the government
compelling them to unite. What I am saying is that, during the time that they
are not
united, why begrudge them of sectoral representation?
MR. OPLE: No. We want them to have sectoral representation.
MR. LERUM: Yes. But, as far as the Commissioner is concerned, he wants this
on a limited period only.
MR. OPLE: Yes, in accordance with the Villacorta-Monsod amendment.
MR. LERUM: On the other hand, he wants the party list system to be a
permanent provision of the Constitution. Is it not the fact that by providing
for the
party list system, he is also providing a reserve seat to those parties that
cannot elect their representatives in the ordinary election? Is that not
correct?
MR. OPLE: Yes, as a countervailing mode to the well-established political
parties, I consider the party list system a very important method of what
Commissioner Bernas earlier had called the equalization of political power.
MR. LERUM: My point is that the Commissioner is against a permanent grant
of seats to sectoral representatives but he is in favor of granting permanent
seats to certain organizations that cannot elect their own representatives in
an ordinary election.
MR. OPLE: Yes.
MR. LERUM: I cannot understand the logic of that.
MR. OPLE: The logic lies in the use of popular suffrage which is exactly what
a party list system is, except that certain advantages are stacked up legally
in favor of those who are weaker than those who are stronger.
MR. TADEO: Commissioner Ople, maaari po bang magtanong?
MR. OPLE: Maaari, ganoon din naman ang PDP-Laban, UNIDO, Partido ng
Bayan at iba pang mga lapian.
MR. TADEO: Naniniwala ba kayo na ang party list ay puwedeng paghatihatian ng UNIDO, PDP-Laban, PNP, Liberal at Nacionalista?
MR. OPLE: Maaari iyan sapagkat bukas ang party list system sa lahat ng mga
partido.
MR. TADEO: Naniniwala ba kayo na ang sectoral maaaring lamunin ng
political party sa party list?
MR. OPLE: Sa ngayon, kung kaya binibigyan natin perfect constitutional gift
ang mga sektor na maupo riyan. Datapuwat sa loob ng anim na taon,
aasahan natin
na sila ay magbubuo ng kanilang sariling lakas upang magkaroon ng
pagkakataong manalo sa isang party system.
MR. TADEO: Isang tanong pa. Naniniwala ba kayo ang pagpasok sa politika ay
magastos? Bibigyan ko kayo ng isang konkretong karanasan. Taga-Bulakan
tayo
pareho. Noong kayo ay kumakandidato, walang titingin sa buong Bulakan na
hindi po makikita ang inyong larawan; tumingin ka sa itaas, makikita mo ay
streamer; tumingin ka sa lahat ng lugar, ang makikita mo ay pangalan ni
Commissioner Ople.
MR. OPLE: Mas maraming larawan si Minister Natividad at si Minister Hipolito
kaysa sa inyong lingkod.
MR. TADEO: Ang sabi ni Commissioner Natividad siya iyong pinakamahirap;
pero kahit na siya ang pinakamahirap, kahit saan ka tumingin ay makikita
mo rin ang
kanyang larawan. Ngayon, sa isang marginalized sector sa ganitong
kalagayan, ano ang kanyang pag-asa? Hindi ba maaari lamang kaming itulak
at lamunin ng
isang makinarya?
MR. OPLE: Sa party list system maliwanag na malaki ang pagkakataon ng
mga sektor. Hindi ko naman pinangungunahan ng bait si kasamang Jaime
Tadeo, datapwat
kung mayroong isang milyon na magbubukid ang kasama sa kanyang
organisasyon at makikipagugnay halimbawa, sa Partido Nacionalista ng
Pilipinas o Partido ng
Bayan, at ipapasok sa listahan doon COMELEC na ang nangunguna sa 15 tao
na nakalista para sa Partido ng Bayan ay si Jaime Tadeo, abay katulad din ng
pagsikat ng araw ang panalo ng kasamang Jaime Tadeo sa pamamagitan ng
party list system. Datapwat iyan naman ay payo ko lamang, hindi ko naman
siya
sisingilin diyan sa magandang payong iyan. Datapwat maliwanag ang
nakikita ko na napakaganda ng pagkakataon ng mga sektor lalo na
pagkatapos ng anim na
taon dahil halos sa kanila na mauuwi talaga, sa pamamagitan ng mga
partidong umiiral, ang mga 50 likmuan na nakareserba sa party list system
at sa mga
sector diyan sa ating House of Representatives.
MR. TADEO: Ang nais lang ng mga dukha ay isang mapagkalingang saligang
batas at nakikita namin sa panahong itong hindi pa namin kayang tumindig.
Gusto
namin itong makita at itoy nakatitig mismo sa atin. Kung gagawin lang natin
itong two terms, mayroon lamang akong hindi maunawaan. Bakit
kinakailangang
bigyan pa ng limit? Bakit hindi pa natin ito pagandahin? Ang tanong ni
Commissioner Natividad: Eh, tinatanong ako, Jimmy, sa amin, bakit ba iyong
mga
political parties ay sasama pa sa party list, hindi na lang pabayaan iyan sa
mga marginalized sector?
MR. OPLE: Napakadaling makiusap sa isang partido na isama sa party list
diyan sa COMELEC iyong mga samahan ng manggagawa at magsasaka na
nakikipag-ugnayan
sa kanila. Datapwat ang mahalaga, palagay ko, ay bigyan ng pagkakataon
ngayon din, as a constitutional gift, ang mga labor, peasant, youth and urban
poor
sa pamamagitan nitong Villacorta-Monsod amendment. Kung gusto naman
ninyong makipagtawaran kay kasamang Monsod at kasamang Villacorta sa
halip na two terms
ay gawin na nating tatlo, palagay ko naman ay hindi kayo pagdadamutan.
Iyon palagay ko ay subject to negotiation.
Marami pong salamat, Ginang Pangulo.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: We will continue this very interesting and enlightening
discussion after lunch.
The session is suspended until two-thirty in the afternoon.
MR. CALDERON: Madam President, before we suspend our session, I move
that the Commission congratulate and extend its best wishes to two birthday
celebrants, Commissioner Ahmad D. Alonto and the Secretary-General.
interpretation of
the provision. Usually, during interpellations, the one who answers the
question is the proponent . . . either the Committee Chairman or the
individual
proponent of the amendment. Thus, the answer of the proponent is sort of
authoritative because he is the proponent of the amendment. However, in
this
proposed provision regarding the party list and sectoral representation, there
are 27 proponents. So, I would like to know if there is a spokesman for the
27 proponents.
THE PRESIDENT: This morning it was Commissioner Villacorta who made
introductory remarks, followed by Commissioner Monsod. So, I will leave it to
the two
Gentlemen to decide who will be the one to answer any interpellation on this
subject matter.
MR. RODRIGO: The name of Commissioner Monsod is number one in the list
of 27 Commissioners. So, I suppose he is the principal proponent.
MR. MONSOD: I am willing to be questioned, but I would like to ask the help
of the other Commissioners also, perhaps with other questions in which they
are
more knowledgeable than I am.
MR. LERUM: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Lerum is recognized.
MR. LERUM: Will the author of the amendment please read the cosponsors of
the amendment so that we will know who they are.
MR. MONSOD: The ones who were in the list this morning, other than
Commissioner Villacorta and myself, were: Commissioners Bernas, Gascon,
Garcia, Davide,
Bengzon, Nieva, Azcuna, Bacani, Rigos, Tan, Suarez, Sarmiento, Ople,
Tingson, Guingona, Foz, Romulo, Uka, Rosario Braid, Villegas and Bennagen.
MR. RODRIGO: Then, I will propound my question to Commissioner Monsod
whose name appears as number one in the list.
My questions have reference to the party list system and the sectoral
representation in the House of Representatives. I would like to preface my
questions
by stating that I am in favor of the basic idea of having sectoral
representation and representation by means of the party list in the House of
the Constitution? In other words, should we force the issue? Should we insist
that before this Constitution is submitted to the people in a plebiscite, we
shall have already deemed the details on how this party list system and
sectoral representation can be implemented in the first election after the
ratification of the Constitution?
MR. MONSOD: We just want to establish the principle of the party list system
with sectoral representation in the present Constitution. We can discuss
whether the body in its collective wisdom feels that it is qualified or should
go into the ordinance after we have established the principle, and we will
be guided by the vote or judgment of this Commission.
MR. RODRIGO: Considering our time constraint and the many other
provisions that we have not yet discussed, does the Commissioner believe
that we are in a
position to draft, study and enact a virtual piece of legislation, with all
details, regarding the implementation of this party list system and sectoral
representation, so that it will be finished in time for the approval of this
Constitution? Should we not abandon that idea and leave this matter to the
legislature?
MR. MONSOD: I believe that it is really not a very complicated system, and it
is possible. But I will yield to the time problem, if there is really a time
problem. Certainly, I do not think that this Commission would want to put an
ordinance that is half-baked.
Secondly, such an ordinance could also apply only to the first term under this
Constitution, after which the regular Congress may provide as it sees fit on
how the future system will work.
MR. RODRIGO: So, the Commissioner then admits that in all probability it will
be the first Congress to be elected after the promulgation of this
Constitution that will enact the implementing law.
MR. MONSOD: As I said, that would depend on the work and judgment of this
Commission.
MR. RODRIGO: Which is the more probable because this is important?
MR. MONSOD: This is just a personal opinion. I believe that we can work out
an ordinance that would be applicable to the first Congress after this
Constitution.
MR. RODRIGO: Suppose we will not have time to enact such ordinance and I
personally believe that we will not have time? I want to be honest and
candid. So,
this will be left either to President Cory Aquino and she will enact an enabling
legislation all by herself or to the first Congress. Considering that
President Aquino is saddled with so many duties and worries she is even
going to the United States sometime in September does not the
Commissioner
think that it is practical to expect that the President can enact the
implementing legislation on this matter?
MR. MONSOD: We approximately have a month and a half, and the President
will have about six months to enact something that would apply to the first
Congress. And the President does not work alone, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: Did the Commissioner consult the Chief Executive or anybody
connected with President Aquino on whether this can be accomplished?
MR. MONSOD: We believe that this Commission is a plenary body and we
should make our own judgment on the matter.
MR. RODRIGO: All right, let me proceed then. I want to be very practical
about this. First of all, I do not think that we will have time to enact an
ordinance to be appended to the Constitution. Secondly, I do not think we
should expect the President to be able to enact a legislation to implement
this.
And so, the most probable thing to do is to have Congress enact an enabling
act. Let us start from that practical premise. At least I will start from that
practical premise.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, may I just mention something? The
Commissioner said that he is starting from a practical premise. I think we
agree with him
that we may have a time problem, but we think that there is enough time to
implement it because we also must give voice to the sectors that we want
represented even in the first Congress under this Constitution.
MR. RODRIGO: Yes, Madam President. But then, we are appointed officials.
This is a very important provision for our people. The first Congress will be
composed of representatives elected by the people. Does not the
Commissioner think that they are in a better position to enact the enabling
act or the
implementing legislation since they are elected by the people? They are in
closer touch with the people. So, does he not think that we have to be
realistic
and just say this will be implemented, hopefully, by the first Congress to be
elected by the people after the ratification of this Constitution?
MR. RODRIGO: Second childhood? Just one last point. In case we fail to
incorporate that ordinance and in case the President cannot act, then
Congress meets
and when Congress meets, that is the only time that an implementing
legislation can be enacted. In that case, this provision, that the first two
terms
shall start after the ratification of this Constitution, would not be fair. Is that
correct?
MR. MONSOD: Yes, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: It must be made to start from the first election where the
party list and sectoral representatives are elected. Would that be correct?
MR. MONSOD: Yes, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: Thank you very much.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Tadeo be
recognized with regard to his amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tadeo is recognized.
MR. TADEO: Madam President, I withdraw my amendment to give way to
Commissioner Aquinos amendment which I also adopt.
THE PRESIDENT: Let it be made of record that Commissioner Tadeo had
withdrawn his proposed amendment.
Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, this proposed amendment is being
cosponsored by Commissioners Bernas and Tadeo with this Member.
THE PRESIDENT: Louder, please.
MS. AQUINO: This proposed amendment is being cosponsored by
Commissioners Bernas and Tadeo and this Member. For purposes of clarity,
our amendment would
seek to: 1) provide basic perpetual institutionalization of reserve seats for
the basic sectors, meaning, the labor, peasant, urban poor, youth and others
as may be provided by law; and 2) that the process of selection of the
sectoral representatives will be done by election. If the Commissioners will
be
guided by the xerox copies of the compromise amendment furnished them
this morning, the amendment would read: THROUGH A PARTY LIST SYSTEM
OF REGISTERED
NATIONAL, REGIONAL AND SECTORAL PARTIES OR ORGANIZATIONS AS
PROVIDED BY LAW. THE PARTY LIST REPRESENTATIVES SHALL CONSTITUTE
TWENTY PERCENT OF THE TOTAL
MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. TWENTY-FIVE OF THE SEATS
ALLOCATED TO PARTY LIST REPRESENTATIVES SHALL BE FILLED BY ELECTION,
AS PROVIDED BY LAW,
FROM THE LABOR, PEASANT, URBAN POOR AND YOUTH SECTORS.
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President, I would like to propose an amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Nieva is recognized first.
MS. NIEVA: May I propose an amendment to the amendment of my fellow
lady Commissioner, Commissioner Aquino. This long-awaited breakthrough
which would open
up the system to the marginalized and basic sectors, as well as various
parties and organizations, I think, deserves the full support of this
Constitutional Commission which is really comprised of members appointed
as representatives of various sectors.
My amendment would add a fifth sector to the list of four sectors, and this is
the women sector. I think women, who compose more than 50 percent of our
population, would certainly deserve special mention here in the sense that
we have been marginalized for too long as far as the political life of the
country is concerned. So, since it is a provision for 25 seats to be filled by the
sectors, this would make it a very even representation five seats per
sector. So, that is my amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Is this accepted by the proponent?
MS. AQUINO: Gladly, Madam President.
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President, may I just add that I was going to propose
the same amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: So, Commissioner Guingona is a cosponsor.
MR. GUINGONA: No, Madam President. What I would like to add is 25. This
will facilitate our work insofar as the preparation or the drafting of the
ordinance is concerned, because 25 would be easier to divide by five than by
four, at least for the first Congress.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
MR. BENNAGEN: Madam President.
So I agree with the amendment that for the first Congress, the sectoral
representatives should be chosen by appointment from recommendees of
these sectors.
REV. RIGOS: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair would like to suggest to Commissioner Lerum that
the body can vote in principle on this proposed amendment and then have it
approved because we do not know yet if this will be approved then he
can propose a subsequent amendment to change the number of the seats.
The Chair
thinks that will be perfectly in order. Can we do that?
MR. LERUM: May we have a suspension of the session for a few minutes so
we can discuss this matter rather than have interpellations of each other on
the
floor?
THE PRESIDENT: Who is the next proponent?
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I suggest that we finish the amendments
first. Commissioner Rodrigo has another proposed amendment to the
amendment. Perhaps
we should call on him first, after which the discussion can take place in
accordance with the list of speakers I have.
I ask that Commissioner Rodrigo be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President. this amendment is on the last line of the
text. The sectors as enumerated are: labor, peasant, urban poor and youth. I
think
somebody filed an amendment to that amendment by adding the word
WOMEN. Moreover, somebody announced that he will file an amendment
to the amendment by
adding INDIGENOUS CULTURAL COMMUNITIES.
I do not know if anybody else will add any specific sector. but my
amendment is to place a comma (,) after the word enumeration and add
AND SUCH OTHER
SECTORS AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bernas is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: I asked that because the process of election and the matter of
choosing the sectors have to be provided by law. I think the two should be
retained.
MR. RODRIGO: I agree with the Commissioner
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Are we ready now to vote on the proposed amendment of
Commissioner Aquino?
MR. ROMULO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
MR. ROMULO: I move for a suspension of the session.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.
It was 3:34 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 3:44 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
MR. ROMULO: I ask the Commissioners Monsod and Aquino be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MR. ROMULO: Will Commissioner Aquino inquire if her amendment to the
amendment is accepted or not.
MS. AQUINO: I am being instructed to inquire from Commissioner Monsod if
my amendment is accepted by his group.
MR. MONSOD: We regret that we cannot accept the proposed amendment.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. ROMULO: As agreed upon in the caucus, the body will now discuss the
question of whether or not we will have permanent sectoral representation.
The
speakers are as follows: Commissioners Rosario Braid, Quesada, Brocka,
Sarmiento, Garcia and Villegas.
I ask that Commissioner Rosario Braid be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Just to clarify, is this for the permanent sectoral
representation?
MR. ROMULO: Yes, Madam President. That is the only issue to be debated at
this time.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rosario Braid is recognized.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Madam President, members of the Committee: While I
do sympathize with the arguments of Commissioner Tadeo and the others
about the need
for sectoral representation, I would, however, argue against the
institutionalization of sectoral representation. I think we could arrive later at
a
compromise agreement where we could increase the term to maybe three or
four terms, at which time the sectors could be given the opportunity to
become more
self-reliant, to be able to forge horizontal links and coalitions with other
sectors who are in search of new political values and a new political culture.
I think this is a great opportunity for us to be able to develop party issues
and a platform that will provide countervailing force against elite party
politics.
Madam President, may I give some examples of similar experiences in other
countries. The Green Party in Europe has emerged as a political movement
that has
cut across sectoral groups. It has been able to organize an imaginative
program which started with the problems of the marginalized group, such as
the
exploitation of the poor, and has extended its efforts to problems like the
search for authentic personal values, concerned with the environment and
concerned with the values of frugality and simplicity. This program has
attracted various groups from different economic and social classes the
youth and
the post-materialist groups.
This is true, too, with the Solidarity Movement in Poland which has attracted
other groups beyond the original group the exploited labor group. This is
also true with the Gandhian politics that emerged in India. These movements
are attempts in coming up with what we call examples of participatory or
communitarian democracy. These are movements that are able to come up
with countervailing values against elite values which center around
technology,
materialism, depersonalization and bureaucracy.
Madam President, I, therefore, hope that the sectors would be given reserve
seats for 9 or 12 years and would have the opportunity to influence others
and
to move away from their sectoral concerns and from what could become a
class struggle within that period of time. When they shall have organized into
a
party, they may move towards new approaches in problem-solving rather
than merely focus on their particular sectoral problems.
In view of this opportunity to move towards a new kind of party or political
culture, I would support the need for a party list system with this
compromise
that would lengthen the term to maybe three or four terms in order to give
them opportunity to grow and evolve.
In the final analysis, I think we do not want to give them patronage and
neither would they want patronage. They may like to have opportunity to
compete in
the political arena.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Quesada be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Quesada is recognized.
MR. ROMULO: May I remind the speakers that we agreed on two-minute
interpellations. The Commissioners will please look at the wallclock for the
time.
THE PRESIDENT: I will give them three minutes.
MS. QUESADA: Madam President, members of the Committee: I would like to
request that I speak in Pilipino, in behalf of the farmers, the workers and the
minority groups here. (Applause)
THE PRESIDENT: May we remind again our audience to please refrain from
any outward manifestation of approval or disapproval during our
deliberations.
MS. QUESADA: Ako ay bumoboto sa perpetual or permanent reserve seats for
the sectors. Ngunit ang ibig sabihin nito ay hindi forever. Ang gusto lang
natin
ay hindi maitatak sa ating Konstitusyon kung hanggang kailan lang sila may
reserve seats iyong sasabihing two terms, three terms o four terms,
dahil hindi natin masasabi kung kailan talaga uunlad ang mga sectors upang
sila ay lumaban bilang isang political party. Ngayon, ang mahalaga ay
kinakailangang pumili ang mga sectors ng kanilang tunay na kinatawan. Ang
nangyayari kapag pumasok na ang sectoral representatives sa larangan ng
pulitika
ay mayroong transformation na nangyayari sa kanila. Marami na ang istorya
tungkol sa mga manggagawa at magbubukid na kapag silay nakapasok na
sa larangan
ng pulitika, iba na ang sinasabi at dinadala nila. Sa pagpasok sa power
dynamics ng pulitika, natututo na ngayon silang pumasok sa mga alliances,
negotiations, mga trade-offs at kadalasan ay nakakalimutan na nila ang
interes ng kanilang sector. Kaya sa palagay ko ay napakahalaga na ang
marginalized
sectors ay may reserve seats sa lehislatura dahil hindi pa magbabago sa
isang dekada ang kanilang kalagayang pang-ekonomiya at pang-sosyal. Kaya
ako ay
naniniwalang hindi dapat lagyan ng taning kung kailan sila mawawalan ng
reserve seats at tumakbo o makilahok at lumaban sa larangan ng pulitika.
Alam
nating ang marginalized sectors ay wala pang kakayahan dahil sa hindi pa
nagbabago ang kanilang kalagayang pang ekonomiya at pangsosyal. Iyon
ang aking
posisyon at sinusuportahan ko ang posisyon ni Commissioner Bernas, Aquino
at Tadeo. (Applause)
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, no one claps for the Floor Leader when he
does all the work.
I ask that Commissioner Brocka be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Brocka is recognized.
However, may I remind again our guests to refrain from any outward
manifestation of approval or disapproval because if this goes on, then we will
be
constrained to ask the audience to leave because we want our deliberations
to be as impartial as possible.
Thank you.
MR. BROCKA: Thank you, Madam President.
I would like to react to some of the opinions expressed this morning. We are
agreed that there should be not only territorial representation but also
sectoral or functional representation. However, we are still divided on the
question of whether sectoral or functional representatives should be
provided
with reserve seats on a permanent basis or on a temporary basis and
whether they should be appointed or elected.
Those who say that sectoral representatives should be given reserve seats
for only two terms say that this provision is a constitutional gift we are giving
them, and that if they want to keep those seats, they should earn them. I
find this very patronizing.
When we started the Constitutional Commission, one of the first things that
we addressed ourselves to was this question of public hearing. We were very
much aware of the fact that we were appointed by the President. So, there
was this necessity. It was almost imperative that we go to the provinces. We
go
to the people to listen to them. This is what we call public hearing. We keep
talking about consulting and listening to the people. We keep talking about
people power However, it seems to me that we are reluctant to give this
people power a definite or concrete political form Let us remind ourselves for
the
nth time that it was people power that toppled the Marcos dictatorship and
installed the Aquino government. We forget that in the darkest days of the
dictatorship, when political parties were abolished or marginalized, it was the
peoples sectoral organizations that really fought for justice, freedom and
democracy.
My point is that the people, through their sectoral organizations, have earned
the right to be represented in the councils of state and in the legislature.
They have earned the right through their blood, sweat and tears.
We are not giving them a constitutional gift on a silver platter. What is
demanded of us is that we, the Constitutional Commission, recognize and
protect
the peoples right to have reserve seats in the legislature. We must give due
recognition and respect for this new force in the Philippine political scene
a force operating outside the traditional political parties, but a force
powerful enough to have ousted a dictator and have given us the democratic
space
in which we are now moving.
However, I personally believe that five terms will be sufficient for them. I do
not believe in perpetual sectoral representation. I believe in their
capacity to develop themselves and in their innate talents to organize themselves or to participate in the drama of genuine political struggle.
Madam President, I think this is one way of developing the concepts of selfreliance, self-independence, self-determination and genuine political
maturity.
After five terms, these sectors should now participate in the genuine struggle
for independence, democracy and nationalism.
This is no longer the Marcos era. We are entering a new stage of political
development. This is a new season. So I believe that after five terms, these
sectors would have matured and developed their capacities to govern
themselves to participate in the drama of power play. It is like a baby,
Madam
President. For a while, we have to protect and nurture him. but, thereafter,
he has to have complete independence to mature and to fend for himself.
So, Madam President, I am against perpetual sectoral representation. I am in
favor of three or five terms only. In this way we develop our people; we give
full play to people power in our country.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Garcia be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Garcia is recognized.
MR. GARCIA: Thank you, Madam President
I would like to speak in support of permanent sectoral representation. My
main thought or statement is briefly this: Politics and political representation
must not be limited to party politics, but must explore means to make
meaningful and effective the participation of the majority. In other words, I
would
like to advocate different forms of participation. First of all, I would like to
remind ourselves of the context that, in fact, we are not speaking of a
truly proportional, representational Congress. We are speaking of a limited
character. We are speaking not of the 200 seats to be given to political
parties, who basically will try to seek power through territorial
representation, both national, local and district. We are speaking of only 25
seats where
peoples organizations, the four basic sectors, through the party list system,
ratification of
this Constitution, there will always be reserve seats for the sectors? Or is the
meaning rather the one that is given by Commissioner Quesada that we will
not determine the term for this reservation?
MS. AQUINO: Before I answer that, may I enlist the services of my other
coauthors because anyway, we sink or swim together here, so the
Commissioners might
as well help me. Anyway, we are not incorporating the phrase perpetual
reservation of institutional seats. But according to our amendment, this
Article
would now provide that there will be reservation of institutional seats for the
sectors without necessarily limiting it to the first two terms. In effect,
yes, although we will not provide expressly that it would be perpetually
reserved. Commissioner Bernas may shed light on the matter.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bernas is recognized.
FR. BERNAS: By permanent, we do not mean until the end of the world but
until the Constitution is amended.
BISHOP BACANI: Thank you very much for that clarification.
My main question is this: Even though I am favor of sectoral representation
and of strengthening this, precisely, the perpetuity in the sense that has
been
described above would seem to militate against that strengthening of
sectoral representation. It might mean that the representatives of the sectors
will
become lax in trying to win the approval of the people and may resort to
other means by which they can easily gain the patronage of their own
constituents.
And hence, that is the reason why I am in favor of a proposal like
Commissioner Sarmientos and that of Commissioner de los Reyes. Will the
Commissioner
try to convince me to vote otherwise?
MS. AQUINO: The question is gladly welcome now. Apparently, the bone of
contention is on the matter of permanent reservation of the institutional
seats;
while others would advocate a relative term: three terms or four terms. This
would likewise address the interpellation of Commissioner Sarmiento.
May I proceed to answer the question of Commissioner Bacani? The principle
of self-reliance or self-development in the dynamics of political growth as a
democratic idea is beautifully simple, but it is wildly unrealistic. We are
became
a very important force in Germany.
As history develops, more and more sectors will become marginalized, so we
have to allow them to enter the political process through the party list
system
when they are sufficiently economically equipped to actually run for election.
Finally, I would like to restate what I said very early in this constitutional
body that I appreciate very much the warning made by Commissioner
Aquino,
that we should be very careful in distinguishing between a leftist and
someone who is pushing for sectoral representation. I definitely appreciate
that
warning. Let us also be very careful, however, that unwittingly we do not fall
into the Marxist paradigm that those who belong to the high-income groups
or
those who become elected into the Senate cannot work as energetically and
as unselfishly for the poor as any representative of the poor. I think it is very
clear if we cite names like Senators Diokno and Taada. They are people who
come from the so-called elite group but who have worked for the poor much
more
unselfishly than some labor leaders who have been scoundrels. I am not
referring to the labor leaders present here but there is no question that
working
for the common good does not know class distinction.
Thank you very much.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: I will have to take strong exception to the misleading
attributions of Commissioner Villegas, and I will try to be very polite and
sober. In
the first place I did not say that the marginalized groups are not capable of
political sophistication or political maturity. What I said was that a
well-meaning sectoral group can be effectively frustrated by the stranglehold
and the deep entrenchment of traditional political parties. What I said was
that I have full faith in the political maturity of the sectoral groups, but I
would look askance at the insidious mechanisms of traditional political
parties. That is all I said.
On the matter of the Marxist aberration, the concept of sectoral
representation is not just a Marxist aberration. It is the pressing imperative of
social
justice.
THE PRESIDENT: Are we ready to vote?
MR. ROMULO: Commissioner Padilla would like to say a few words.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Padilla is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, I am in favor of giving the sectors some
representation in the House but not in a permanent way or, as stated by
Commissioner
Bernas, until the Constitution is amended. We are trying to draft a
Constitution that will not only be for a few years. So if the Constitution is not
amended, then this provision may become permanent.
Madam President, I have been listening throughout the morning and this
afternoon and I would like to say that we should not be fomenting class
distinctions, especially between the rich and the poor, the privileged and the
underprivileged, the over-and-or-under marginal level. I agree with the
Magsaysay dictum or maxim that Those who have less in life should have
more in law. But the situation of the sectoral groups, say, for lack of
organization or unification, should be the object of evolution towards more
organization and more unity among themselves. I am reminded of the
decalogue of
President Lincoln which states: You cannot help the poor by destroying the
rich. And the rich are not always identical with the powerful, especially the
powerful in politics. What we need is more productivity to develop our
economy, not so much the exercise of power through representation. What
will help
the poor, the underprivileged or the so-called marginal sector is more
productivity rather than political power by one class even as against the
other.
That is the-reason why I suggested even in the Preamble of the Constitution
to insert the word PROGRESS or PROSPERITY, because increased or
additional
productivity will create more wealth, will mean more income not only for the
rich but also for the poor, and a better life for all of us, under the
guidance of Divine Providence.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. ROMULO: Commissioner Suarez would like to be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
Those in favor of secret balloting, please raise their hand. (Few Members
raised their hand.)
MR. COLAYCO: Madam President, may I explain my vote in just two minutes?
THE PRESIDENT: Actually, this is out of the Rules, but anyway, Commissioner
Colayco may do so.
COMMISSIONER COLAYCO EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. COLAYCO: The statement has been made that since we were not
elected we should show our true colors. What color have we who voted
against red, white
or blue? I believe this is an indirect form of coercion. We have followed that
way of voting for at least five or six times. Why is it that some sectors in
this room insist that we do not vote in private? That is my question.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
The results show 26 in favor of voting by the raising of hand, and 5 in favor
of voting by secret ballot; so we will vote by the raising of hand.
The Chair asks Commissioner Aquino to please restate her amendment.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, I just want to make of record that I abstained
from voting because from my personal point of view, it is immaterial either
way.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Aquino may now restate her amendment.
MS. AQUINO: On page 1, Section 5, delete on line 29 the phrase from the
sectors and party list and substitute it with the following: ELECTED
THROUGH A
PARTY LIST SYSTEM OF REGISTERED NATIONAL, REGIONAL AND SECTORAL
PARTIES OR, ORGANIZATIONS, AS PROVIDED BY LAW. THE PARTY LIST
REPRESENTATIVES SHALL
CONSTITUTE TWENTY PERCENT OF THE TOTAL MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES. TWENTY-FIVE OF THE SEATS ALLOCATED TO PARTY LIST
REPRESENTATIVES SHALL BE
FILLED BY ELECTION, AS PROVIDED BY LAW, FROM THE LABOR, PEASANT,
URBAN POOR, WOMEN AND YOUTH SECTORS.
The paragraph that would be transposed to the Article on Transitory
Provisions will read: FOR THE FIRST TERM OF CONGRESS FOLLOWING THE
ADOPTION OF THIS
CONSTITUTION THE SECTORAL REPRESENTATIVES PROVIDED FOR IN
MR. OPLE: I would rather that if we want them represented right there in the
first Congress which will sit sometime on June 30 or July 1 following the
first local and national elections which according to the Committee on
Amendments and Transitory Provisions have been determined to take place
not
earlier than 60 days and not later than 90 days from the ratification of the
Constitution then we should seriously consider an ordinance that will make
sectoral representation executory.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Aquino had earlier stated that she was
proposing an amendment to be provided in the Transitory Provisions. I do not
know if she
has given that up.
May we hear from Commissioner Aquino.
MS. AQUINO: No, Madam President, in fact I approached Commissioner
Rodrigo about it and thought of the possibility of a merger between his
proposal and our
groups position on the matter, that this be provided in the Article on
Transitory Provisions that the first Congress would accommodate sectoral
representatives who are appointed by the President from the list of nominees
of the sectors.
MR. OPLE: That will be a satisfactory alternative for me in lieu of an
ordinance, Madam President.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: Actually, the proposed amendment of Commissioner
Sarmiento was discussed with the proponents. That is the reason why it
states THREE
CONSECUTIVE TERMS rather than FIRST THREE TERMS. If for any reason
at all, the first Congress convenes and there has been no executive order or
ordinance appended to the Constitution, then we count the three
consecutive terms from the first time the sectoral representatives actually
sit.
The rest of the proposal provides: SHALL BE FILLED BY SELECTION OR
ELECTION, so that would cover the instance that Commissioner Aquino seeks
to provide for
in the Transitory Provisions.
earlier. I was wondering whether the proponent could accept the omnibus
phrase, AND
SUCH OTHER SECTORS AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW.
MR. SARMIENTO: It was I who suggested the inclusion of teachers but
because we have this catch-all provision AND SUCH OTHER SECTORS AS
MAY BE PROVIDED
BY LAW I withdraw my suggestion in favor of the suggestion of
Commissioners Bennagen and Nieva, and the Honorable President for the
inclusion of
INDIGENOUS CULTURAL MINORITIES AND WOMEN. Then, include the catchall provision, AND SUCH OTHER SECTORS AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, just one more clarification.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Could somebody please explain to me what urban poor
means? Is there any kind of poor?
MR. SARMIENTO: Urban poor refers to those persons who are staying in the
urban areas and urban centers; to be clear about it, urban poor refers to the
so-called squatters.
MR. MAAMBONG: Why do we have to specify urban poor? If one is poor,
whether he is rural or urban, he is poor.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I briefly explain the reason for the inclusion of urban
poor?
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes, thank you.
MR. SARMIENTO: The statistics on the number of urban poor vary. Some say
there are eight million; some, two million. It should perhaps be safe to go
half-way and set it at five million, excluding those that have been transferred
to various relocation areas in the country. Around 65 percent of the urban
poor live in public lands and are so-called squatters. Around 2.5 million are
found in the Metro Manila area. Most of them are former peasants, who,
unable
to bear the poverty and lack of economic opportunities in the rural areas,
were lured to the cities. There they find themselves living in the shanties of
overcrowded squatter colonies perpetually searching and begging for work,
and constantly threatened by the prospect of demolition and ejection.
MR. MAAMBONG: Just one very short clarification. Could the representative of
the urban poor also represent the rural poor?
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, may I state for the record that I voted
against because the provision is already flooded with too many
enumerations.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I move that we now go to the term of office
of the Senator.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: The Committee was not yet asked what would be its reaction to
the proposed amendment. (Laughter)
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair saw that the Gentleman was voting.
MR. DAVIDE: We voted but since this is supposed to be an amendment to the
committee report, after this amendment was further amended, the
Committee should
still have to react.
THE PRESIDENT: May we have the Commissioners reaction now?
MR. DAVIDE: Before reacting, I would just read what has been approved, if
this is accurate. On line 29, page 1, after the words shall be, insert the
following: ELECTED THROUGH A PARTY LIST SYSTEM OF REGISTERED
NATIONAL, REGIONAL AND SECTORAL PARTIES OR ORGANIZATIONS, AS
PROVIDED BY LAW. THE PARTY LIST
REPRESENTATIVES SHALL CONSTITUTE TWENTY PERCENT OF THE TOTAL
MEMBERSHIP OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, my amendment continues and says
PROVIDED THAT . . .
MR. DAVIDE: We would rather request that the words AND PROVIDED,
FURTHER, THAT be deleted.
THE PRESIDENT: How shall it read now?
MR. DAVIDE: After REPRESENTATIVES we a period (.) then, FOR THREE
CONSECUTIVE TERMS AFTER THE RATIFICATION OF THIS CONSTITUTION,
TWENTY-FIVE OF THE
SEATS ALLOCATED TO PARTY LIST REPRESENTATIVES SHALL BE FILLED BY
SELECTION OR ELECTION FROM THE LABOR . . .
MR. MONSOD: AS PROVIDED BY LAW, Madam President.
MR. DAVIDE: There was another PROVIDED FOR BY LAW that was approved
earlier.
MR. MONSOD: May I explain, Madam President? If we take AS PROVIDED BY
LAW out, then the phrase AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW will only refer to
the
sectors. What we want is that the phrase AS PROVIDED BY LAW also refer
to the election or selection method.
MR. DAVIDE: I will proceed. SHALL BE FILLED BY SELECTION OR ELECTION,
AS PROVIDED BY LAW, FROM THE LABOR, PEASANT, URBAN POOR,
INDIGENOUS CULTURAL
COMMUNITIES, WOMEN, YOUTH AND SUCH OTHER SECTORS AS MAY BE
PROVIDED BY LAW, EXCEPT THE RELIGIOUS SECTOR.
Is that the entire proposal?
MR. MONSOD: Yes, Madam President.
MR. VILLACORTA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Villacorta is recognized.
MR. VILLACORTA: May I just seek clarification on the Rigos prohibition about
religious groups before the Committee accepts the amendment? May I ask
Commissioner Rigos certain questions for the enrichment of the record,
Madam President?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rigos is recognized.
REV. RIGOS: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. VILLACORTA: When the Commissioner proposed EXCEPT RELIGIOUS
GROUPS, he is not, of course, prohibiting priests, imams or pastors who may
be elected
by, say, the indigenous community sector to represent their group.
REV. RIGOS: Not at all, but I am objecting to anybody who represents the
Iglesia ni Kristo, the Catholic Church, the Protestant Church, et cetera.
MR. VILLACORTA: Then the Gentlemans answer to my question would be
positive. In other words, he would not want an imam, priest or pastor to be
one of the
representatives of any of the sector.
REV. RIGOS: That is correct, Madam President.
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (No Member raised his
hand.)
The results show 32 votes in favor and none against; the amendment is
approved.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chairman of the Legislative Committee is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: As a consequence, on page 2 of the amended committee report,
Committee Report No. 22, lines 1 to 3 should now be deleted.
THE PRESIDENT: That is right; they would now be deleted.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, consequently on page 4, line 14, we propose
to delete the slash (/) and the word or in and/or at the end of the line. It
should read political parties and sectors represented therein, with the
interpretation that the political parties referred to are the regular political
parties and the parties or organizations registered under the party list
system.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this proposal of the Committee?
MR. MONSOD: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: Should we not be more explicit and say, on the basis of
proportional representation from the political parties and PARTIES OR
ORGANIZATIONS
REPRESENTED OR UNDER THE PARTY LIST SYSTEM?
MR. DAVIDE: What about the sectors?
MR. MONSOD: The sectors are part of the party list system because we
defined on page I the party list system as registered national, regional or
sectoral
organizations.
MR. DAVIDE: We accept the proposal with the deletion of the word sectors
on line 15 then. So, beginning on line 13, the provision will now read: the
case may be, who shall be chosen on the basis of proportional representation
from the political parties and PARTIES OR ORGANIZATIONS REGISTERED
UNDER THE
PARTY LIST SYSTEM represented therein. The senior justice in the Electoral
Tribunal shall be its Chairman.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this proposed amendment?
(Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is approved.
MR. DAVIDE: As a consequence of the earlier amendment, the Committee
would also propose an amendment on the same page, line 20. After parties
on line 20,
add the phrase: AND PARTIES OR ORGANIZATIONS REGISTERED UNDER THE
PARTY LIST SYSTEM, to be followed by the deletion of the words or sectors
on line 21.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this particular proposed
amendment? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is approved.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, the Committee will also propose the following
amendments on Section 3, page 1, and Section 6, page 6 for the sole
purpose of
aligning the provisions therein with what the Commission had approved in
the matter of the term and the prohibition on reelections.
So, the Committee would propose to substitute Section 3 on page 1 with the
following provision, copies of which had been distributed earlier: THE TERM
OF
OFFICE OF THE SENATORS SHALL BE SIX YEARS AND SHALL COMMENCE,
UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW, AT NOON ON THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE
NEXT FOLLOWING THEIR
ELECTION.
NO SENATOR SHALL SERVE FOR MORE THAN TWO CONSECUTIVE TERMS.
VOLUNTARY RENUNCIATION OF THE OFFICE FOR ANY LENGTH OF TIME SHALL
NOT BE CONSIDERED AS AN
INTERRUPTION IN THE CONTINUITY OF HIS SERVICE FOR THE FULL TERM FOR
WHICH HE WAS ELECTED.
The Committee moves for its approval.
MR. GASCON: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Gascon is recognized.
MR. GASCON: I would like to ask a question with regard to the issue after the
second term. We will allow the Senator to rest for a period of time before he
can run again?
Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is
approved.
Let us go to Section 6.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, before we go to Section 6, I do not know
if I was not attentive when Section 5 was previously taken up, but I would
just
like to call the attention of the Committee to line 29 of Section 5, page 1,
where it reads: shall be elected from the sectors and party list.
Does this need some amendments in line with the realignment of the other
sections?
MR. DAVIDE: This has already been amended by the Monsod et al.
amendment.
MR. MAAMBONG: How does it read now?
MR. DAVIDE: Beginning on line 29, the provision reads: SHALL BE ELECTED
THROUGH A PARTY LIST SYSTEM OR REGISTERED NATIONAL, REGIONAL AND
SECTORAL PARTIES
OR ORGANIZATIONS, AS PROVIDED BY LAW. The party list representatives
shall constitute twenty percent of the total membership of the House of
Representatives. For the three consecutive terms after the ratification of this
Constitution twenty-five of the seats allocated to party list
representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by selection or election
from the labor, peasant, urban poor, youth, indigenous cultural communities,
women and such other sectors as may be provided by law except the
religious sector.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, may I request that the word the before
the words three consecutive terms be deleted because then, we will really
start
applying it beginning July, 1987. The reason we took up the word first was
precisely to avoid a situation where they will have seats but there will be
nobody there.
MR. DAVIDE: So, it will only read: for three consecutive terms?
MR. MONSOD: Yes, Madam President.
MR. DAVIDE: I would seek for a ruling of the Chair on this because this was
earlier approved by the body.
MR. MONSOD: But, Madam President, that was precisely the discussion and
question between Commissioner Rodrigo and myself. The amendment that I
accepted
from Commissioner Sarmiento did not have the word the.
MR. DAVIDE: The Committee will agree to its deletion.
MR. BENNAGEN: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bennagen is recognized.
MR. BENNAGEN: Just a simple question to the Committee for clarification.
THE PRESIDENT: The Gentleman may proceed.
MR. BENNAGEN: Reference is made to registered national and sectoral
organizations. Is registered here referring merely to registration with the
COMELEC
or also registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission?
MR. DAVIDE: In the light of the approved Article on Constitutional
Commissions, more particularly the COMELEC, the Committee persists that
this refers to
registration in the COMELEC.
MR. BENNAGEN: Not the SEC?
MR. DAVIDE: No, not necessarily.
MR. BENNAGEN: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. DAVIDE: May we now proceed to Section 6, Madam President?
THE PRESIDENT: The body will now vote on Section 6.
MR. DAVIDE: Not yet, Madam President. There was a request for the deletion
of the word the preceding three consecutive terms which the Committee
endorses.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the elimination of the word the
before the words three consecutive terms? (Silence) The Chair hears none;
the
amendment is approved.
MR. DAVIDE: The Committee proposes to substitute the present wording of
Section 5 with the following: THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES SHALL BE
ELECTED FOR A TERM OF THREE YEARS WHICH SHALL BEGIN, UNLESS
OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW, AT NOON ON THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE NEXT
FOLLOWING THEIR ELECTION.
NO MEMBER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SHALL SERVE FOR MORE
THAN THREE CONSECUTIVE TERMS. VOLUNTARY RENUNCIATION OF THE
OFFICE FOR ANY LENGTH OF TIME
SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED AS AN INTERRUPTION IN THE CONTINUITY OF
THE SERVICE FOR A FULL TERM FOR WHICH HE WAS ELECTED.
The Committee moves for its approval.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Madam President.
May we ask a clarificatory question regarding the interpretation of the
provisions in Sections 3 and 6 in relation to Section 9 regarding the
disqualification on the part of the Senator to run for two consecutive terms,
and in the case of the Members of the House of Representatives, for three
consecutive terms. For example, a special election is called for a Senator,
and the Senator newly elected would have to serve the unexpired portion of
the
term. Would that mean that serving the unexpired portion of the term is
already considered one term? So, half a term, which is actually the correct
statement, plus one term would disqualify the Senator concerned from
running? Is that the meaning of this provision on disqualification, Madam
President?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, because we speak of term, and if there is a special
election, he will serve only for the unexpired portion of that particular term
plus
one more term for the Senator and two more terms for the Members of the
Lower House.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Padilla is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: I notice under Section 3 the phrase and shall commence
unless otherwise provided by law at noon on the 30th day of June, next
following their
election. Section 6 also has the words which shall begin and I suppose it
means the same thing as in Section 3; also unless otherwise provided by
law
at noon on the 30th day of June next following their election. Section 3 also
has the same phrase voluntary renunciation as in Section 6. Can we not,
therefore, simplify to avoid repetitions?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, we already approved Section 3.
MR. PADILLA: Yes, this is to correlate The term of office of the Senators shall
be six years. No Senator shall serve for more than two consecutive terms.
That is for Section 3. Section 6 states: THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES SHALL BE ELECTED FOR A TERM OF THREE YEARS . . . NO
MEMBER OF THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SHALL SERVE FOR MORE THAN THREE
CONSECUTIVE TERMS. Then comes another paragraph which states: A
TERM OF THREE YEARS WHICH SHALL
BEGIN, UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW, AT NOON ON THE 30TH DAY
OF JUNE NEXT FOLLOWING THEIR ELECTION. Then, VOLUNTARY
RENUNCIATION OF THE OFFICE FOR
ANY LENGTH OF TIME SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED AS AN INTERRUPTION IN
THE CONTINUITY OF HIS SERVICE FOR A FULL TERM FOR WHICH HE WAS
ELECTED. This is a matter
of form; it is not an amendment of substance. The Committee makes our
Constitution more formal, more cohesive, and other words can be added
thereto. In
other words, the idea is to avoid the repetition of the same clauses or words.
The Committee will consider this as a matter of form, but instead of leaving
it to the Committee on Style, perhaps we should . . .
MR. DAVIDE: The Committee, Madam President, moves that the particular
matter be referred to the Style Committee with that observation as guide to
the
Committee on Style to reformulate the two sections.
MR. PADILLA: But if there is no objection on the part of the Committee, it is
better that it be approved by the body.
MR. OPLE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: This question is addressed both to the Committee and to
Commissioner Monsod, who is an authority on budgetary matters. I just want
to find out if
noontime of June 30 is a common date for the beginning of the term of the
President, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. If this is so, is there
a correlation with the fiscal year? As I remember it, the government used to
go on a fiscal year beginning July 1, and then this was changed to a calendar
year budget beginning January 1. If the two Houses of Congress take their
oath to signal the beginning of their terms on June 30 and the fiscal year for
the budget is actually a calendar year beginning January 1, then there will be
no opportunity for them to influence the priorities of government through a
budget because by that time the budget shall have already been running for
the calendar year. Will this, therefore, eventually require returning to the
fiscal year beginning July 1?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chairman is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: If the Gentleman will take note of Section 10, page 3, the
Congress shall convene once every year on the fourth Monday of July for its
regular
session, unless a different date is fixed by law, and shall continue to be in
session for such number of days as it may determine until 30 days before the
opening of its next regular session.
It would mean, therefore, that the fiscal year is actually the calendar year
because upon the commencement of the regular session on the fourth
Monday of
July, the body will discuss or will give priority to the budget for the
succeeding year. So, for instance, starting the fourth Monday of July 1987,
the
body will have to decide on the budget for 1988, if we reckon now the
election to be in May, or earlier, of 1987.
MR. OPLE: That is to say that they will be governed by the existing budget
before their assumption to office.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, Madam President.
MR. OPLE: Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Are we ready to vote now on Section 6?
MR. DAVIDE: We are ready but there was a proposal by Commissioner Padilla,
and the suggestion of the Committee is to leave this to the Style Committee
headed by Commissioner Rodrigo. If we now incorporate Sections 3 and 6, it
will dislocate the order of the sectioning of the entire Article on the
issues on a national scale since they are national leaders. Since the Senators
are elected by the whole country, they win or lose by hundreds of thousands
of votes, if not by millions of votes, and so they are less susceptible to
pressure. If we dilute this with four elected by sectors, the philosophy behind
establishing a Senate, an Upper House, would be lost insofar as these four
are concerned. I am also thinking that in order to win as Senator, he will have
to be in the first 12 on top of the list since he is elected at large. From
experience, the last among those who would win would garner, maybe,
about more than six million votes. But if we vote by sector, it is possible that
a
sectoral Senator might win with only 500,000 votes because the system of
election is different. This is contrary to the philosophy of a Senate elected at
large which motivated me, and I think many others, to vote for a bicameral
legislature. I think it is enough that we have the sectoral representatives in
the House of Representatives.
MR. LERUM: Madam President, may I comment on that?
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Lerum is recognized.
MR. LERUM: I do not agree with the assumption that senators cannot be
pressured. I have seen many senators who have been pressured. So, that
assumption is
not correct. I do not also agree with the assumption that when the
Gentleman proposed the creation of the Senate, that view was shared by
everybody. I do
not think that is so. As a matter of fact, we voted against having a bicameral
legislature. That is the Gentlemans assumption, but I do not agree with his
assumption that is why I am proposing this amendment.
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de Castro is recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: Will the proponent answer some questions please?
MR. LERUM: Gladly, Madam President.
MR. DE CASTRO: The Gentleman is asking for four out of 24, is that right?
MR. LERUM: That is correct.
MR. DE CASTRO: If we compute that, that is 16 percent of 24. Is that correct?
MR. LERUM: That is correct. We can increase that to 20, if the Gentleman is
agreeable.
MR. DE CASTRO: No, I am still on the computation. Of the 250, the
Gentleman is asking for 20 percent, is he not?
MR. LERUM: Is the Gentleman referring to the House of Representatives?
MR. DE CASTRO: Yes.
MR. LERUM: It is already agreed on. It is on record already, so please do not
ask me something on the record.
MR. DE CASTRO: Of the 250, the Gentleman is asking for 20. That is the one
agreed on, is it not?
MR. LERUM: The records show that that is so.
MR. DE CASTRO: If we compute 250 in relation to 24, that is 12 percent.
Madam President, 250 is about nine times of 24. If we multiply 16 percent by
9,
that is 136 percent. Does the Gentleman not think that that is a little over
the required percentage of those who will be chosen and not elected for the
first time? cdasia
MR. LERUM: The way the Gentleman computes it, he does not seem to agree.
So, what is the Gentlemans suggestion?
MR. DE CASTRO: I am only computing; I am not prepared for any suggestion.
MR. LERUM: As far as we are concerned, we are interested in getting sectoral
representation in the Senate. If the Gentleman is making the suggestion that
that will make it possible, we are willing to listen to him.
MR. DE CASTRO: I am just informing the body that the four out of 24 is 16
percent of 24. If we relate that mathematically, 250 divided by 24 is about
nine
times; 16 percent times 9 equals 136 percent representation in the Senate in
relation to the House. This is just to inform the body of the mathematics of
this.
MR. LERUM: So, it is not a question, after all.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Are we ready to vote now? What is the reaction of the
Committee? Will the Committee refer it to the body?
MR. DAVIDE: The Committee prefers to have the same voted by the body.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Padilla is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, I object to the proposed amendment not
because I have been elected Senator for three terms in the past but because
all
sectors are represented nationwide. So, the Senators who are elected at
large count on the majority of all the votes of all registered voters throughout
the country. A nationwide election should no longer distinguish between the
people under the parties or some sectoral groups because all qualified and
registered voters already vote for the Senators in a senatorial election
nationwide.
THE PRESIDENT: Are we ready to vote on this proposed amendment of
Commissioner Lerum?
MR. ROMULO: Yes, Madam President.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: The proposed amendment has been read by Commissioner
Lerum.
As many as are in favor of the proposed amendment, please raise their hand.
(Few Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised
their hand.)
The results show 9 votes in favor and 21 against; the proposed amendment
is lost.
MR. GASCON: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Gascon is recognized.
MR. GASCON: I would like to propose an amendment. On Section 2, line 12,
after the word large put the phrase THROUGH A PARTY LIST SYSTEM. So,
the
provision will read: The Senate shall be composed of twenty-four Senators
who shall be elected at large THROUGH A PARTY LIST SYSTEM by the
qualified
MR. GASCON: I recognize that problem but I feel that if we encourage other
parties to, let us say, compete on an even level to some degree through the
party list system, we may be able to come out with results during our
elections. But the cream of the crop of each party would be elected and we
would have
a very dynamic and progressive Senate which would be very healthful for a
growing democracy. That is the first point.
Second, I am not sure whether each party is bound to field all 12 seats. But it
is possible that if they feel they will not be able to get the last four
seats because of the party list system, maybe they will field only eight and
concentrate on the eight and encourage other parties as well, to compete for
the other four. My only point is, through this party list system, we may break
the two-party system in the Senate.
THE PRESIDENT: What does the Committee say?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, it is true that during the suspension of
session, this representation answered Commissioner Gascon that the party
list system
for the Senate is a possibility; however, this representation did not say that it
is probable. The Committee would only state for the record that the party
list system in the Senate will not accomplish what Commissioner Gascon had
in mind allowing other smaller parties to get a voice in the Senate
because
whether it would be through the party list system or through a regular
political party, the same opportunity will be accorded.
Secondly, we will be restoring block voting for a party. In other words, we will
deprive the people of the greater opportunity to know the merits of each
individual candidate since what will be submitted by a party will only be a list
of people, a list to be submitted to the COMELEC. It is very likely that
the people who will be voting all over the country will never have a chance of
knowing exactly the capabilities of the particular candidates listed in the
party list.
Thirdly, I do not think that it will actually be a vote for a particular party
which would, therefore, amount to block voting. I understand that the
Article on the Constitutional Commissions, more particularly on the
COMELEC, except for the party list system, really would not allow such. So,
we would
rather leave it to the Commission to vote on the issue, Madam President.
MR. GASCON: Before we vote, I would like to make a clarification.
The Committee said that they were agreeable to my position in as far as the
word probable is concerned; what I meant to say is that the party system is
a
possibility for the Senate. That is all.
Thank you.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, we are ready to vote.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of the proposed amendment of
Commissioner Gascon on Section 2, please raise their hand. (Few Members
raised their
hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised
their hand.)
The results show 10 votes in favor and 22 against; the proposed amendment
is lost.
The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. ROMULO: If the Committee has no further matter to take up, I ask that
Commissioner Bengzon be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, that wraps up our discussion on the
Committee Report on the Legislative and as per clearance of the Chairman of
the
Committee, I move that the body vote on Second Reading on the Article on
the Legislative. But before we vote, may I withdraw my motion because the
Chairman
requests that clean copies of the Article on the Executive be distributed first.
Since clean copies have already been distributed, I would like to move that
the Article on the Executive be voted upon on Second Reading.
MR. REGALADO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Regalado is recognized.
MR. REGALADO: On a point of information, while we already have the clean
copies of the Article on the Executive, by tomorrow as we have made
reservations
for that purpose, we will circulate the same copies for Second Reading, but
this time with the numbers realigned, meaning just a transposition of
sections
but containing exactly the same as is now being distributed among the
Commissioners.
THE PRESIDENT: So, what is the Gentlemans proposal that we postpone
the voting until tomorrow?
MR. REGALADO: No, we can proceed, Madam President. I just wanted to point
out that tomorrow we will distribute copies of the Article with realigned or
renumbered sections.
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de Castro is recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: I move for a suspension of the session for five minutes so
we will have an opportunity to read this. I have not had an opportunity to
read
this because I have been very busy the whole afternoon.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended for a few minutes.
It was 6:57 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 6:58 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, having listened to the reaction of the
Commissioners and considering that everyone is tired, I withdraw my motion.
Therefore,
we will vote on Second Reading on the Articles on the Legislative and on the
Executive tomorrow morning at nine oclock.
THE PRESIDENT: The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I move for the adjournment of the session
until nine oclock tomorrow morning.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is adjourned until nine oclock tomorrow
morning.
It was 6:59 p.m.
Footnotes:
* Appeared after the roll call.
** Amended title.
* See Appendix.
R.C.C. NO. 46
Saturday, August 2, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
At 9:35 a.m., the Honorable Cecilia Muoz Palma, opened the session.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is called to order.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please remain standing for the Prayer to be
led by the Honorable Cirilo A. Rigos.
Everybody remained standing for the Prayer.
PRAYER
REV. RIGOS: Most gracious and loving God, let Thy Spirit guide us in our work
today. Help us to realize our inadequacy that we may look up to Thee for
guidance and wisdom.
Grant us the strength equal to our task, and the faith that will enable us to
overcome all difficulties.
In Jesus name we pray. Amen.
ROLL CALL
Present*
Monsod
Present
Alonto
Present
Natividad
Present*
Aquino
Present*
Nieva
Present
Azcuna
Present*
Nolledo
Present
Bacani
Present*
Ople
Present
Bengzon
Present
Padilla
Present
Bennagen
Present
Quesada
Present
Bernas
Absent
Rama
Present
Rosario Braid
Present
Regalado
Present
Brocka
Present*
Reyes de los
Present
Calderon
Present
Rigos
Present
Castro de
Present
Rodrigo
Present
Colayco
Absent
Romulo
Present
Concepcion
Present
Rosales
Present
Davide
Present
Sarmiento
Present*
Foz
Present
Suarez
Present
Garcia
Present
Sumulong
Present
Gascon
Present*
Tadeo
Present*
Guingona
Present
Tan
Present
Jamir
Present
Tingson
Present
Laurel
Present
Uka
Present
Lerum
Present*
Villacorta
Present
Maambong
Present
Villegas
Present
MR. CALDERON: I move that we dispense with the reading of the Journal of
the previous session.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
APPROVAL OF JOURNAL
MR. CALDERON: Madam President, I move that we approve the Journal of
yesterdays session.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
MR. CALDERON: Madam President, I move that we proceed to the Reference
of Business.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
The Secretary-General will read the Reference of Business.
REFERENCE OF BUSINESS
The Secretary-General read the following Communications, the President
making the corresponding references:
COMMUNICATIONS
Letter from former Senator Magnolia W. Antonino, 15th Floor, G.E. Antonino
Building, T.M. Kalaw Street, Ermita, Manila, submitting some proposals for
inclusion in the Constitution, to wit: (1) There shall be a Commission on
Appointments composed of members of the legislature; (2) The only elective
provincial officials shall be the Governor and the Vice-Governor. The
Governor and the Vice-Governor shall be the chairman and vice-chairman,
respectively,
of a provincial assembly composed of all the municipal mayors in the
province; (3) The only elective municipal officials shall be the Mayor and
Vice-Mayor
who shall be chairman and vice-chairman, respectively, of the municipal
assembly composed of all barrio captains; and (4) The right of every citizen
to
possess firearms in his residence subject to reasonable restrictions and
qualifications.
(Communication No. 416 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
Vice Chairman
(Sgd.) Christian S. Monsod
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
Member
LABOR
SECTION 3. The State shall afford full protection to labor both domestic and
overseas, organized or unorganized, and shall promote full employment and
equality of employment opportunities regardless of sex, age, culture or
creed.
SECTION 4. The State shall guarantee the rights of workers to selforganization, collective bargaining and negotiations, peaceful and concerted
activities
for their own protection, welfare and mutual aid, including the right to strike.
It shall also guarantee job security, just and humane conditions of work
and participation in policy and decision-making affecting their rights and
benefits. The State shall promote voluntary modes of settling disputes
between
workers and employers and shall regulate their relations in a manner that
recognize the primacy of the right of labor to its just share and at the same
time protecting the right of capital to realize its growth potential and
reasonable returns on investments.
AGRARIAN AND NATURAL RESOURCE REFORM
SECTION 5. The State shall undertake a genuine agrarian reform program
founded on the primacy of the rights of farmers and farmworkers to own
directly or
collectively the lands they till. To this end, the State shall encourage and
undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to such
retention limits as the National Assembly may prescribe and subject to a fair
and progressive system of compensation.
SECTION 6. The State shall recognize the right of farmers and farmworkers,
and of cooperatives to participate in the planning, organizing, and
management
of the program and shall provide support to agriculture through appropriate
technology, and adequate financial, production and marketing assistance.
SECTION 7. The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform in the
disposition of other natural resources, including lands of the public domain
under lease or concession, subject to prior rights of original inhabitants and
without violating the homestead rights of small settlers and the rights of
indigenous communities to their ancestral lands.
AQUATIC RESOURCES REFORM
SECTION 8. The State shall protect the rights of fishermen and local
communities to the beneficial or communal use of marine and fishing
resources, both
inland and offshore, and shall provide appropriate financial, technical and
research assistance for the development and conservation of such resources.
SECTION 9. The State shall promote the integrated development of
agricultural, fishing and marine resources to meet the basic needs of the
people and the
industrialization objective of the country.
URBAN LAND REFORM AND HOUSING
SECTION 10. The State shall regulate the ownership and use of urban land
for the common good and undertake a continuing Urban Land Reform and
Housing
program that will ensure decent housing at affordable cost to deserving lowincome citizens in urban centers and resettlement areas, together with
complementary infrastructure, neighborhood services and employmentgenerating economic activities.
SECTION 11. Urban poor dwellers shall not be evicted nor their dwellings
demolished without due process of law. No resettlement shall take place
without
consultation with the communities to be relocated and their involvement in
its planning and implementation.
SECTION 12. The housing program shall extend to low-income rural dwellers
in the context of a comprehensive agrarian reform and development
program.
HEALTH
SECTION 13. The State shall protect and promote the peoples right to health
and to this end, establish and maintain an integrated and comprehensive
health
care program that shall make essential goods and social services available to
all citizens at affordable cost, with priority for the needs of the
disadvantaged, the sick, women and children, aged and disabled.
SECTION 14. The State shall maintain an effective food and drug monitoring
system and promote appropriate health manpower development and
research on
health care problems.
SECTION 15. The State shall establish a special body for disabled persons
which shall consolidate the functions of existing government agencies and
provide
Another important aspect here is the statement that recognizes the primacy
of the right of labor to its just share and at the same time in protecting the
right of business enterprises to realize reasonable returns on investments.
On the area of agrarian and natural resources reform, Section 5 stresses the
social justice principle that to him who tills the soil principally belongs
the fruits of his labor. Therefore, Section 5 mandates that farmers and farm
workers have the right to own the lands they till, individually or
collectively, through cooperatives and similar organizations.
The scope of land reform is also extended to all agricultural lands, subject to
maximum retention limits to be provided by Congress and a fair and
progressive system of compensation.
Section 7 underscores the importance of cooperatives and similar farmers
organizations, as well as adequate support systems in technology, financing
and
marketing as imperative requirements for a successful land reform program.
In Section 7, we specify that agrarian reform should apply also to other
natural
resources; for example, lands of public domain under lease or concession.
However, the prior rights of the original inhabitants, small settlers and
cultural communities should be respected.
Section 8 provides for the very first time a specific reference to the rights of
small fishermen who number about 700,000 so that they may be given the
beneficial use, direct or communal, of marine and fishing resources, as well
as assistance financial, technical and research for the development and
conservation of these resources. We feel that this is a very important
provision in view of the fact that the sea area is six times bigger than the
land
area in our country.
On urban land reform and housing, which is contained in Sections 10 and 11,
we feel that the Committee addresses the urgency for an effective and
continuing urban land reform and housing program for the more than 25
million Filipinos who do not enjoy the advantages of home and
landownership. We are
an ill-housed nation with a high percentage of our urban population
estimated at five million squatters living in subhuman conditions. This
concern was the
target of the 1984 plebiscite and is now provided for in Article XIV, Section
12 of the 1973 Constitution. However, efforts in implementing this program
have been far from satisfactory. An example of this are the BLISS programs
which are certainly not within the reach of the poor majority.
This section also provides that the housing program should necessarily
provide for complementary infrastructure, neighborhood services and
opportunities
for employment, because the Philippine experience in the resettlement areas
for squatter families has shown that unless the abovementioned conditions
are
present, the relocatees are forced to leave these areas and come back to
the cities where at least they have some livelihood opportunities.
Then, Section 11 would place in the Constitution protection for the thousands
of homeless urban poor who have to be evicted or resettled. And we provide
here that this cannot be done unless the targets or the beneficiaries should
be consulted and given a share in the decision-making as regards the
protests
against relocation and the implementation of this.
In Section 12, we would also extend the housing program to low-income rural
dwellers within the context of the comprehensive agrarian reform program.
Sections 13, 14 and 15 are based on what we all realize is the principle that a
healthy nation is a strong nation. In previous Constitutions, there had
only been a passing mention of the important sector of health. And here we
hope to provide for an integrated and comprehensive health care program at
an
affordable cost to the average citizen, especially to the majority of the
disadvantaged. As we know, many here in the Philippines would say that it is
cheaper to die than to go for medication.
Also, in Section 14, the State shall maintain an effective food and drug
monitoring system. The problem of the dumping of harmful and adulterated
food and
drugs in the country from foreign countries has been a very significant
problem that has to be addressed through this provision.
In Section 15, we take cognizance of the need of the millions of disabled
persons so that they may be integrated into the mainstream of society.
Sections 16 and 17 are the sections for women, and here, we especially
recognized the need for protection for the working women vis-a-vis their
maternal
function for optimum working conditions, and also a provision that would
provide for women to fully realize their capabilities in the service of the
country.
Section 18 deals with the indigenous communities. We say that the State
should take into serious consideration the needs of the indigenous
communities
consistent with their cherished traditions, values, beliefs and practices.
And, finally, in the last Sections 19 and 20, we highlight the importance of
peoples organizations in order to realize the above objectives of social
justice. All throughout the Constitution we have stressed the importance of
peoples participation. Here we highlight this and say that we hope that the
State should not only respect the rights of the people and their organizations
but that it should institutionalize this participation and consultation
mechanisms at all levels of social, political and economic decision-making.
By peoples organizations, of course, we are referring to all sectoral
organizations: trade unions, peasant organizations, urban poor, cooperatives
and consumer organizations, human rights groups, basic Christian
communities
and the like.
May we suggest, Madam President, that in the period of amendments. we
should take the different sections one by one so that we need not tackle the
different areas simultaneously. Perhaps, this will expedite the discussions and
the amendments thereto.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I already told the interpellators about the
desire of the Committee to take the provisions one by one in chronological
order.
THE PRESIDENT: And the interpellators will please register with the Floor
Leader.
MR. RAMA: Yes. But some of them have replied that the provisions are very
important; some of them very novel. They would be allowed to ask questions
on one
provision to another for purposes only of the interpellations. But during the
period of amendments, we will follow the strict rule of introducing
amendments section by section in chronological order.
So, may I ask that Commissioner Nolledo be recognized, please?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Nolledo is recognized.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you, Madam President.
I would like to pose some questions to the honorable Chairman and the
members of the Committee on Social Justice. With respect to Section 9, page
1, after
providing for the concept of social justice, it is provided that:
Towards these ends, the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use
and disposition of property and its fruits, promote the establishment of
independent and self-reliant, socio-political and economic structures
determined by the people themselves.
I notice that if we analyze this provision, there are two parts involved. The
first part is about diffusion of property; and the second part refers to
supporting structures. I also notice that, as I heard the honorable Chairman
explain the provisions, the report does not cover only the concept of property
and its supporting structures. But the report touches upon the rights of
women and the disabled, including the rights of the people to organize.
So, if the Committee will agree, I recommend that Section 2 should reflect
not only property and supporting structures but provisions pertinent to
womens
rights, the disabled, etc., for purposes of symmetry. What does the
Committee say about this?
THE PRESIDENT: May we have the response from any member of the
Committee?
MR. NOLLEDO: No, because after giving the general concept of social justice,
the report says: Towards these ends. It seems that the words following the
phrase Towards these ends- do not reflect the entire report. It speaks of
property and supporting services only. So, if the Committee is amenable, I
recommend that there should be some wordings indicative of the recognition
of womens rights, rights of the disabled designed to give importance to
human
dignity. We will present the amendment later on.
MS. NIEVA: Yes. I think that is implied also on lines 9, 10 and 11 on the
reduction of social, economic and political inequities. More or less, the
womens
rights would be covered in the economic and social inequities. That is a very
good observation and I think we can tackle that suggestion in the period of
amendments.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you.
On page 2, Section 4, with respect to the words participation in policy and
decision-making on line 15 and the words just share on the part of labor
and ending on investments on line 22, am I correct in including, taking all
these words together, that the Committee is recommending profit sharing
and
that the workers be represented in management?
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, there are certain steps there and, of course,
it ends with the right to strike by the labor group. We are saying here that
this function of the State in regulating the relations between labor and
management is not absent. The State is always there. But we are saying that
settlement of disputes should be made to the extent possible and to all the
rights available to labor and management, therefore, it should be through
voluntary means and the rights available to labor should be given, such as
the right to strike.
MR. NOLLEDO: And do I understand it correctly that the provision does not
prevent the legislature from providing for a process known as compulsory
arbitration? Am I correct?
MS. AQUINO: Yes. May I specify the procedures in labor and management
negotiations. First, the primary focus of settling labor and management
conflict is
through the voluntary modes of settling disputes. We first avail of the
grievance procedures that are usually provided in the collective bargaining
agreement. In the absence of a CBA. they are usually provided in the internal
rules and regulations of the company. Then we avail of the conciliation
proceedings, which is part and parcel of the voluntary modes of settling
disputes usually under the guidance of the Ministry of Labor.
In the 1973 Constitution, there is a specific proviso for compulsory
arbitration. As has been previously cited by the Committee Chairman. there
is an
overwhelming reaction against a specific mandate for compulsory
arbitration. Even the management sector is very reluctant in reinstating the
same formula
in this Constitution, such that when we attempted to incorporate in the
committee report the phrase promote voluntary modes of settling
disputes, the
idea is to focus primarily on the voluntary modes of settling disputes rather
than to preempt the procedures of settling management and labor conflict
through compulsory arbitration. We very well know that the effect of
compulsory arbitration is that any labor-management conflict is immediately
certified
by the National Labor Relations Commission, and that if there is an
impending strike, automatically, by compulsory mandate of the law and upon
certification, the strike would have to be lifted. Both labor and management
are in confluence in terms of their position that all disputes should first be
approached by exhausting voluntary modes. This does not preclude,
however, Congress from providing for statutory implementation of other
modes of settling
disputes.
limit ang
mga may-ari ng lupa na sila na rin ang nagbubungkal nito. The phrase
retention limits refers to owner-cultivator. Agricultural lands refer to all
arable
public and private lands regardless of crop, size of landholding and tenurial
arrangement. Ayon sa karanasan ng magbubukid, ang pangunahing batayan
ng
pagpapaunlad ng kanilang kabuhayan at kapakanan ay ang pagmamay-ari
ng lupa. Naniniwala silang sa pamamagitan ng pagmamay-ari ng lupa,
magkakaroon sila ng
labis na kapital. Ang kapital na hinahanap natin sa labas ng bansa ay
natutulog lamang sa lupa. Ito ang natutulog na surplus kapital na kung
magagamit ay
mapauunlad ng magbubukid ang kanilang kabuhayan.
MR. NOLLEDO: Salamat po sa inyong paliwanag.
Commissioner Monsod would like to speak.
MR. MONSOD: Other considerations when we talk about retention limits to be
determined by Congress would be economic size and local conditions. As the
Commissioner said, there may be some areas where the economic size will
differ because of local conditions. These are some of the considerations that
will
be taken into account by Congress. We just do not want to provide the
details because that is not our work.
MR. NOLLEDO: With the kind indulgence of my colleagues in the Commission,
I still have two or three questions. With respect to Section 6, lines 27 and 28,
with emphasis on the words planning, organizing, and management of the
program, I would like to underscore the word management. This particular
section
also covers cooperatives and farm workers. Would the Commissioner agree
with me if I conclude that it is perhaps the intent of the Committee that farm
workers will also participate in the management of the farm in some way?
MR. TADEO: Yes.
MR. NOLLEDO: So the farm workers who are plain laborers can participate in
the management of the farm where they work as employees, not as tenants.
MR. TADEO: As regular farm workers or even non-regular farm workers.
MR. NOLLEDO: Farm workers in the contemplation of the Code of Agrarian
Reforms, refer to farm laborers without tenancy relationship.
MR. TADEO: Oo, iyan ang ibig sabihin ng farm workers. Dapat umiral din sa
farm workers ang principles of agrarian reforms, hindi lamang sa tillers of the
soil with tenancy relationship. Sinasabi nating talagang kasama ang mga
farmers at farm workers. Ginamit natin itong farmworkers sa kadahilanang
itong
mga manggagawa natin sa mga babuyan at manukan ay agricultural workers
din.
MR. NOLLEDO: What is the concept of the Committee about agro-industrial
farms owned by corporations? To what extent may they own landholdings? I
did not
find any provision in the report about these entities that may be owned by
Filipinos or perhaps partly by aliens.
MS. NIEVA: I think that would pertain more to the Article on National
Economy and Patrimony.
MR. TADEO: Kay Commissioner Nolledo, ayon kay Dr. Mahar Mangahas, nang
imbitahin namin siya sa isang public hearing, ang kanyang definition ng
land ay
ito: In principle, the term land should include all forms of natural resources
including mineral, forest and water resources, whether public or private,
whether titled or untitled, or whether presently controlled by Filipinos or nonFilipinos over which there is social conflict induced by an unjust
distribution. Kasama po iyan.
MR. NOLLEDO: Salamat po.
MR. MONSOD: May I just clarify one more point?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes.
MR. MONSOD: When the Commissioner asked about the phrase planning,
organizing, and management, he should have noticed that the phrase that
follows is of
the program which refers to the agrarian reform and natural resources
program. Perhaps, he should distinguish that from participating in the
management of
companies engaged in agriculture. This section does not refer to that.
However, those who work in those companies would be covered by the
provisions on
labor where we are talking about their participation in policy-making and
decision-making affecting their rights and benefits.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you.
The first question is: When we speak of workers, do we have in mind those in
the private as well as in the public sectors?
MS. NIEVA: Yes, we do. However, we have that reservation as regards the
members of the Armed Forces and the civil defense.
MR. FOZ: Madam Chairman, I was informed before that the original provision
on this Article would make an exception with regard to members of the
Armed
Forces and members of the civil defense, referring to members of the police.
MS. AQUINO: The Committee is sharply divided on this matter. In fact, the
subcommittee report carried a specific proviso which would exempt
members as of
the Armed Forces, members of the civil service and the civil defense from
availing of the right to strike. But in view of the very strong divergence of
opinions within the Committee, I think there was a consensus to just reflect it
for purposes of the committee report and throw it to the body for
deliberation.
MR. FOZ: With that last response of Commissioner Aquino, is the
Commissioner saying that the Committee has no precise intention as to the
scope of this
first sentence under Section 4, whether this should apply to both private and
public employees?
MR. MONSOD: What the Committee is saying is that it recognizes that there
may be exceptions to this rule and we want to throw it to the body precisely
to
define it more clearly before it is finalized.
MR. FOZ: The Committee has in mind members of the Armed Forces and
members of the police force.
MR. MONSOD: As among the exceptions?
MR. FOZ: What other exceptions could there be?
MR. MONSOD: That is why we wanted to throw it to the floor for discussion in
case the body may want to discuss other exceptions. But from our point of
view, it is also possible that we will arrive at a phrase saying in accordance
with law. There are many ways to tackle that issue.
MR. FOZ: Thank you.
Relations of UP. The specific concern of this concept is, first, to address the
difficulties of the nonunionized employees and laborers and second, that of
the government employees. These two groups would suffer the same
difficulty in not having a specific collective bargaining agent to represent
them. So the
process of collective negotiation is to offset that disadvantage already. The
idea is to recognize it and provide a constitutional mandate for the process
of collective negotiation.
MR. FOZ: Thank you.
My next question is on page 2, line 8 of Section 4 which states: participation
in policy and decision-making. Does the Committee have in mind
representatives of the employees being allowed to sit in the board of
directors of the companies organized as corporations?
MR. MONSOD: The Commissioners question has relation to the earlier
question of Commissioner Nolledo. We suggest that the Commissioner read
that, together
with the following phrase: affecting their rights and benefits. The proper
implementation of that provision would rest to a large degree on
management
and labor themselves because that is not something that can be mandated
by the Constitution. In some cases, labor does not want to be in certain
bodies of
the management and the company for their own reasons; in others they do.
So we are leaving a lot of room here for management and labor to discuss
and agree
on the areas on which the participation should be promoted.
MR. FOZ: But may not Congress in implementing this provision provide that
employees should be allowed to sit in the board of directors of a corporation
to
participate in the discussion of matters affecting their rights and benefits?
MR. MONSOD: If the Commissioner is saying that they will be invited to
participate in the discussion when it affects their rights and benefits, that
probably is in order. I do not know whether the Commissioner means that
they are the elected directors of the company but can only participate in
areas
affecting their rights and benefits. I do not think that the intent of this
Committee is to tell Congress to mandate that labor sit on the board. There is
nothing in this provision that says that.
MR. FOZ: But they may be allowed under such a law to sit in the board of
directors if the matters on hand to be decided will affect their rights and
benefits.
MR. MONSOD: All these details could be a matter of legislation.
MR. FOZ: That is right.
My last question which is about compulsory arbitration has been taken up by
a previous Commissioner during the interpellations. I would just like to get it
clarified again that we are not ruling out compulsory arbitration in certain
cases, so that the law to be passed by Congress providing for compulsory
arbitration in certain serious cases may serve as an ultimate way of resolving
industrial or labor disputes in case of failure of labor and capital to
decide or to settle their own disputes.
Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Rosario Braid be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rosario Braid is recognized.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Thank you, Madam President and members of the
Committee.
First of all, may I make a few comments on the Committee provisions on
social justice, which I see as a unifying theme for several articles. I agree
with
the Chairman of the Committee when she said that this is the centerpiece. I
have difficulty in seeing this as a separate article unless it is of a general
nature. I had hoped that some provisions on agrarian reform and on labor
could be included in the Article on National Economy and Patrimony. In this
way,
we do not give the Article on National Economy and Patrimony the
impression that it is dealing primarily with the formal economy but not with
the
subsistence sector which consists of the majority of our population.
What I am saying is that the concept of non-monetized economy is perhaps
an area that could be addressed by both the Articles on Social Justice and on
National Economy and Patrimony. Likewise, I see the need, after reviewing
about 25 constitutional provisions in different countries, for locating the
concepts of social justice within a more comprehensive. framework. It is one
which views rural transformation and the delivery of services side by side
with the transformation in attitudes and the transformation of some of the
with a group as they vote, for the simple reason that I do not belong to
any group in this Commission.
First, Section 1, line 7, attempts a definition of what social justice is, when it
says, Social justice, as a social, economic, political, moral
imperative . . . If that was an attempt at a definition, I wonder why the
Committee did not look at, as part of the imperatives, the legal aspect.
Because
after all, regarding social justice for those who are not lawyers, but every
lawyer knows this the classic definition given by Justice Laurel in the
case of Calalang vs. Williams is:
Social justice is neither atomism, nor communism, nor anarchy but the
humanization of laws and the equalization of social and economic forces by
the State,
so that justice, in its rational and objectively secular conception may at least
be approximated.
I do not know why the Committee sort of overlooked the legal imperative for
purposes of social justice. Perhaps there might be a reason. Then it also says
that it shall be the primary consideration in the pursuit of national
development. It seems to give the impression that all other considerations
should
take a back seat to the social justice aspect.
Line 13 states: the inalienable right to human dignity, and redistribute
wealth and power . . . I do not know whether the power referred to here is
political power vis-a-vis Section 19, or some other kind of power. I suppose
the Committee can help me along this line later.
Line 16 states: shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use and disposition
of property and its fruits. We all know that the ownership of property
has, among its attributes, the jus fruendi the right to the fruits. Since it is
specifically provided here, we could be misunderstood; or is it correct,
or was it intentional that this phrase thereby excluded the other attributes of
ownership, like the jus possidendi the right to possess; the jus
disponendi the right to dispose; the jus abutendi the right to abuse; and
the jus destruendi the right to destroy? Here the Committee singled out
the
right to the fruits. I wonder why. Or should that have been already implied as
part of all the attributes of ownership?
The phrase and promote the establishment of independent and self-reliant
socio-political and economic structures, has for its antecedent property.
Perhaps at a later time, the Committee could help me find my way into the
schoolteachers. They were able to acquire a little piece of land less than
seven
hectares as covered by P.D. No. 27 for their old age and retirement. If we
were to require personal cultivation, I do not know how a poor retired
schoolteacher, at the age of 65, can still handle the plow and the harrow.
On another matter: Congress may prescribe a fair and progressive system of
compensation. I do not know if it is embraced in the concept of just
compensation under the Rules of Court, as well as in jurisprudence, on the
matter of appropriation as an exercise of the States right of eminent
domain.
This merely means the simple formula of just compensation the fair
market value plus the consequential damages minus the consequential
benefits, provided
that the consequential benefits shall not exceed the consequential damages.
But what bothers me is the progressive system of compensation. That again,
to my mind, is within the arcanum of the economists because I have never
pretended to be an economist I do not think I will ever be one for the
simple reason that monetarily, I do not know how to count.
Section 7 provides that:
. . . the State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform in the disposition of
other natural resources . . .
It has been mentioned here that natural resources include mineral lands. I do
not know whether offshore mineral lands within the continental shelf are also
included here. The provision includes inland or offshore marine and fishing
resources. I was wondering, however, whether it would include waters used
for
hydroelectric power. Assuming that they are all included since Section 7 says
that the State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform, I was wondering
what scheme or formula could be used for the principles of agrarian reform
in applying them to mineral lands, whether offshore or inland, forest lands,
sources of hydroelectric power; and with respect to mineral lands, whether it
will affect the age-old concept of the regalian doctrine with respect to
minerals under ones own property.
Section 8 is with respect to the communal use of marine and fishing
resources. I assume that the Committee has taken into account the problem
posed to the
Laguna Lake Development Authority on which there was a very strong
sentiment when we had a public hearing at Calamba.
Section 9 again is a matter on which I will seek the assistance and succor of
the Committee later to explain to me what is meant by an integrated
development of agricultural, fishing and marine resources.
The provision also speaks of the industrialization objective of the country. I
do not know what is the objective of the present government, whether we
are
going to stick to an agricultural economy like Thailand which has weathered
several crises, or whether we are aspiring for an industrialized program
wherein we suffered serious financial reverses of those 10 or 11 major
projects, or we are opting instead for the agro-industrial system.
With respect to Section 10, it states that: The State shall regulate the
ownership and use of urban land, as distinguished from rural land. In 1984,
there were decisions of the Supreme Court with respect to the distinction
between urban and rural land. One held that the distinction between urban
and
rural land was dependent on the actual use or the purpose to which the land
was devoted. The other decision was to the effect that whether it is urban or
rural depends upon its geographical situation, whether it is within a town,
municipality or city or outside thereof. This I will later ask the Committee to
enlighten me on.
On Section 11 regarding urban poor dwellers, I do not know if the discussion
yesterday covered the concept of urban poor dwellers, or to put it bluntly,
squatters. We have an Anti-Squatting Law and a presidential decree on antisquatting. I do not know if that was the purpose here, but I would think it
would refer to squatters because of the provision about dwellings and
habitations.
I have no property that can be squatted upon by squatters and
squattresses in the urban area, but what bothers me is the provision: No
resettlement
shall take place without consultation with the communities to be relocated.
Will it be the terms of relocation, the circumstances under which they can be
relocated or the places to which they will be resettled or relocated? For
instance, they will say that they are willing to be resettled; they will leave
the land on which they are squatting but they want to be resettled or
relocated in a particular community. If they cannot be resettled there, they
will not
agree to be resettled. Considering their involvement in its planning and
implementation, could they also be given the right to be consulted and insist
on
the type of dwellings that they will be resettled to, as well as the facilities
thereof?
In other words, the provision is so broad that they can say they would be
willing to be resettled only in such a place provided that it has three
bedrooms
and two bathrooms. We actually resort to reductio ad absurdum. I am just
trying to point out the dangers in the broad scope of language because while
there
are those who affect the mastery of the language, we must also be careful
about the tyranny of language.
There is still a provision here that I cannot really understand. It says:
The housing program shall extend to low-income rural dwellers in the context
of a comprehensive agrarian reform and development program.
Does this refer to residential lands classified as private property but on which
the squatters outside the urban areas have settled and who now demand to
be placed under a comprehensive agrarian reform program? It would be a
little dangerous because sometimes we give farm lots to our workers in the
provinces
which they are occupying in order to facilitate their access to the lands which
they till; and yet they may demand these farm lots as part of a
comprehensive agrarian reform program so that ultimately the owner of the
land will be left with only his own residential lot. All his other residential
lots on which these farmers, who were originally given just an entitlement to
possess and use for their dwelling, will eventually go to the farmers, in
addition to the agricultural lands they till. In other words, the means granted
to them to till the riceland was also at the same time an enabling
mechanism for them to eventually oust the owner from both the agricultural
portion of his lands, as well as the residential part thereof.
With respect to Section 16, I believe I will seek guidance from the
Committee, either together or individually, in understanding the phrase
optimum
working conditions especially in relation to their maternal functions. I will
have to ask my daughter who is a pediatrician what are these optimum
working conditions which have to be taken into account in connection with
maternal functions. Why maternal functions are specified here, I do not know
because definitely I am sure women cannot have paternal functions.
Section 17 states:
The State shall . . . promote the welfare and well-being of women to fully
realize their capabilities in the service of the country.
Does this refer to educational service, civil service or military service?
Section 19 provides:
. . . peoples organization as a principal means of empowering the people to
pursue and protect through peaceful means their . . . aspirations.
I do not know what is meant by political participation because we have had a
lot of discussions here about political participation by the common tao, not
only for political purposes. So, I hope that by Monday, after we shall have
lost our respective weekends, we can meet here early and then after the
Committee has guided me, perhaps I can formulate some acceptable,
rational and sane amendments. But if the Committee can explain them fully
to me, then I
will not participate anymore because I am satisfied and that will save the
Secretariat the duty of having to mention my participation in the Journal of
this Commission, such mention I am not particularly interested in at all.
Thank you.
MS. NIEVA: Thank you.
I think Commissioner Garcia who is responsible for the section on social
justice and peoples participation would like to respond.
MS. QUESADA: Madam President, before Commissioner Garcia responds, I
would like to respond to the tenor of Commissioner Regalado which smacks
of
professional ethnocentrism, meaning superiority, just because he can talk in
legalistic terms and we cannot express ourselves in the way that the legalist
minds can express themselves. His view that we were irrational and that we
had to come out with a more sane and rational presentation of our provisions
certainly sounded very condescending.
MR. REGALADO: Madam President, I said I intend to come up with sane and
rational amendments. There was no attempt at legalese. In fact, what I
pointed out
was that some phrases are actually phrases used by technocrats. How many
of us really understand these phrases? I confess, without any attempt at
self-delusion, that there are some phrases I really cannot understand, an
example of which is an integrated economic program. I frankly do not know
what
it really is. Other phrases like socio-economic structures and processes,
frankly, I do not know what they mean. I am always the first to confess to
something I do not know.
THE PRESIDENT: May we have the next speaker of the Committee?
achieve his
full development as a person. The communities themselves are concerned
about his welfare. And just as he receives from them, he is obliged to
contribute to
them. So, the definition that we originally agreed on in the Committee but
which is not part of the Article is that social justice is a condition of the
structures and institutions of society which reflect on the one hand the
inherent dignity and inalienable rights of the person, and the obligation of
the
community to use the material wealth and political power at its disposal for
the welfare of all its members, especially the poor and the weak; and on the
other hand, the individuals obligation to the community and to the welfare
of all its members.
As we can see, there is a dynamic tension throughout this Article on Social
Justice the individual and the community, and their mutual obligation to
each
other. We must admit that there is a definite bias for the poor and the weak;
but as the Gentleman himself mentioned, those who have less in life must
have
more in law.
Finally, why the primacy of social justice? Because. we want to tell the State
that the emphasis should not be simply on economic growth but basically, to
create egalitarian conditions, to create social justice. This is what will provide
lasting peace that could be the condition or the atmosphere within which
all other projects prosper.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, may I just add an idea. In case there is
some apprehension about what this means, Section 1, lines 10 to 14,
provides that the
State will directly redistribute power in the sense that it takes a position from
one person and gives it to another. I think this should be read in the
context of Congress in the clause: Congress shall give the highest priority.
We must assume that Congress does it in terms of measures that reduce
social, economic and political inequities, promote structures, redistribute
wealth and power. So, it is in that context that this should be read.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: Commissioner de Castro is the next registered interpellator.
MS. NIEVA: Excuse me, Madam President. I think Commissioner Tadeo would
like to give some reactions to the questions for clarification that were raised
by
Commissioner Regalado.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tadeo is recognized.
MR. TADEO: Madam President, ibig ko lamang sagutin ang mga paglilinaw ni
Commissioner Regalado.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tadeo may proceed.
MR. TADEO: Natutuwa naman ako sa mga tanong dahil kinakailangan
talagang linawin ang mapanlikhang kaisipan ng magbubukid. Hindi kami
technocrat bagamat
nagpapasalamat kami kay Commissioner Regalado na, sa kauna-unahang
pagkakataon, ang magbubukid ay tinatawag niyang technocrats. Ngunit ito
ay buhat
lamang sa mapanlikhang kaisipan ng magbubukid. Iisa-isahin ko ang mga
katanungan ni Commissioner Regalado at sasagutin ko nang isa-isa.
Sinasabi niyang ipinagbabawal daw namin ang leasehold; hindi ito totoo. Ang
tenurial status ay ganito; mayroong share tenant na 50-50, 60-40, 55-45, or
70-30 ang sharing. Ang isa naman ay ang leasehold na mayroong fixed
rental; hindi rin ito ipinagbabawal. Ang isa rin ay iyong owner-cultivator o
owner-operator na hindi rin ipinagbabawal. Ang ibig lang sabihin ay, mula sa
isang yugto ng reporma sa lupa leasehold tayo ay patungo na sa ganap
na
pagmamay-ari. Kayat isang yugto lamang ang leasehold.
Sa pangalawang katanungan ng Ginoo ay medyo hindi kami nagkaunawaan.
Ipinaaalam ko kay Commissioner Regalado na hindi namin inilagay ang
agricultural
worker sa kadahilanang kasama rito ang piggery, poultry at livestock
workers. Ang inilagay namin dito ay farm worker kaya hindi kasama ang
piggery, poultry
at livestock workers.
Ang pangalawang katanungan ay tungkol sa coverage. Ang coverage nito ay
all agricultural lands all arable lands, public and private. Ang ibig sabihin
ay
kasama ang coconut, sugar, sorghum na binanggit ng Ginoo kangina
vegetable, pineapple at banana plantation. Ang ibig pa ring sabihin ng arable
agricultural land ay cultivated area at iba pang mga lupaing maaaring
sabihing nababagay sa agrikultura.
Ano ang ibig sabihin ng owner-cultivators? Itinatanong ninyo kung ang ibig
sabihin nito ay personal cultivation. Ang ibig sabihin dito ng retention limits
umabot na sa
1.9 million. Sinasabi ng mga nananaliksik na mayroon nang tatlo hanggang
apat na milyong landless agricultural workers. Kaya isinama natin ang
Section 7
upang ang mga landless ay madala natin dito.
Noong magkaroon ng public hearing, sinabi ni Commissioner Bernas na
mayroon nang 605,000 kaingineros na pumapanot ng ating bundok.
Magiging isang malawak
na disyerto ang Pilipinas. Saan natin ngayon dadalhin ang mga kaingineros
na ito? Dito sa sinasabi nating public domain sa Section 7.
Tungkol naman sa communal fishing, ang halimbawa nito ay ang Laguna
Lake na binanggit ng aking kababayang Commissioner Natividad. Sa Laguna
Lake, iilan
lamang ang nagmamay-ari ng fish pens at nakikinabang sa biyayang bigay
ng Panginoon sa atin. Dapat ay magkaroon din ng karapatan sa direct and
communal use
ang mga small fishermen. Iyan ang ibig sabihin dito.
Sa Section 9, ang ibig sabihin ay hindi tayo dapat tumigil sa pagpapaunlad
ng ating agrikultura bilang isang agricultural country. Ang kailangan ay ang
tinatawag na integrated o pinag-isang pagpapaunlad ng agrikultura
kapanabay ng pagpapaunlad ng industriya gaya ng coconut na isang tree of
life. Huwag
tayong titigil sa pagiging hilaw na sangkap lamang nito; kailangan natin
itong gawing gatas sapagkat mayroon itong 20 hanggang 21 porsiyentong
protina na
maaaring tumugon sa malnourishment ng bansa. Ang ibig sabihin nito ay
hindi dapat tayong tumigil sa raw materials lamang; dapat ay magkaroon ng
high value
added.
Tumungo tayo sa Section 12 ukol sa urban comprehensive agrarian reform
program. Ayon sa RA 1199, sa 300 square meters na lupa ng magbubukid na
ibinigay
noong panahon ni Magsaysay ay maaaring maglagay ng bahay upang
maalagaan niyang mabuti ang bukid. Hindi niya kinukuha ang residential lot
na pag-aari ng
panginoong may lupa. Sa isang ektaryang lupa ay magkakaroon lamang siya
ng 300 square meters na home lot. Makakatulong naman ang pagkakaroon
ng tirahan
doon; hindi naman ito makapipinsala sapagkat araw-araw ay maaalagaan ng
magbubukid ang lupa. Kung ang bukid naman ay walang home lot at hindi
naman
protektahan.
Kaya kailangang bigyan ang kababaihan ng special care. Ang isa pang
kundisyon sa loob ng pagawaan na maaaring magbigay ng kabuwisitan ay
ang social at
psychological environment. Maraming mga tao ang walang appreciation sa
pangangailangan ng mga nagdadalangtao.
Ano ang maternal functions? Ito ay may reference sa kababaihan dahil sila
lang ang nagbubuntis at naghihirap sa pagdadala ng siyam na buwan sa
sanggol sa
kanilang sinapupunan. Kaya kailangang bigyan ng lipunan ng special care
ang kababaihan dahil kaiba ang kanilang function kaysa sa lalaki. Sa palagay
ko,
ito ang simpleng paliwanag na hindi technocratic.
MR. REGALADO: Madam President, may I comment on that?
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other comment from the members of the
Committee?
MR. BENNAGEN: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bennagen is recognized.
MR. BENNAGEN: Madam President, I am a member of the Committee except
that I chose to be on this side.
In the interest of having debates that would generate more light than heat so
that our weekend will not be spoiled, let me share with you two quotations.
On the first quotation, a philosopher gives us his answer on the question:
What is justice?
No other question has been discussed so passionately; no other question has
caused so much precious blood and so many bitter tears to be shed; no other
question has been the object of so much intensive thinking of the most
illustrious thinkers from Plato to Kant; and yet this question is today as
unanswered as it ever was. It seems that it is one of those questions that
man cannot find a definitive answer for, but can only try to improve the
question.
I think we have done that in terms of the questions that have emerged. But
let me read the second:
A society in which the questionings of justice ceased to be a constant prod
and perplexity would not be humane in any sense that matters.
Commissioner Regalado did. But they may say that I am not even a seventh
grade
graduate not to understand these things. I am glad that a distinguished legal
mind in our Commission finds himself in the same position as I am. That is
why I am saying this. Of the many times I read this Article, I thought it
contains socialistic, if not communistic, ideas. Pardon me if I am wrong.
Of the few words I understand on page 2, Section 4, line 6, does the word
strike include a wildcat strike? I had to see Commissioner Ople and ask him
what a wildcat strike is. According to him, it is a strike without notice. So, will
any member of the Committee answer my question if it includes a wildcat
strike?
MR. VILLACORTA: Madam President, I will not answer the second question but
the first one. Being a professor of political science, I think I know something
about communism. I do not know what the honorable Commissioner means
by communism as reflected in Section 2. If he will recall, Section 6, Article 11
of
the 1973 Constitution is almost identical to our Section 2.
MR. DE CASTRO: With a twist.
MR. VILLACORTA: Is the Gentleman saying that the 1973 Constitution has
elements of communism . . .
MR. DE CASTRO: This is with a twist. This is not exactly identical to the 1973
Constitution.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the Gentleman please allow Commissioner Villacorta to
finish his reaction to his question?
MR. DE CASTRO: I am sorry, Madam President.
MR. VILLACORTA: If I may read Section 2:
. . . the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use and disposition of
property and its fruits . . .
This is almost identical to Section 6, Article II of the 1973 Constitution. In
fact, the 1973 Constitution is even stronger because it says, equitably
diffuse property ownership and profits which we do not have here. That is
closer to socialism, in fact. If the Gentleman is referring to the second part
of Section 2 which says, promote the establishment of independent and
self-reliant socio-political and economic structures, I do not see anything
communistic. Independent simply means self-reliant. If we are not for
mendicancy and charity, we are for teaching the poor to fish but not giving
them
fish. If the Chair will allow me, I will give an enumeration of the salient
sections of this Article that provide assistance to the poor, being far behind
the starting line in comparison to the elite and the more privileged sectors.
We are simply providing aid, not perpetual assistance and patronage to the
poor.
For example, Section 4 guarantees the right of workers to self-organization,
again a right guaranteed in the previous Constitutions; Section 5 gives the
opportunity for tillers of the soil to own the land that they till; Section 6
provides participation of farmers and farm workers in the planning and
management of agrarian reform programs; Section 8 grants fishermens right
to communal use of marine and fishing resources; Section 10 provides for
ownership and use of urban land for the common good; Section 17 protects
the welfare of women and affords them ample opportunities to serve the
country;
Section 18 is on the development of indigenous communities; and lastly,
Sections 19 and 20 provide for the independent role and effective and
reasonable
participation of peoples organizations at all levels of decision-making, and
insure adequate consultation mechanisms for said participation.
These are the salient features of the Article on Social Justice. Pardon my
ignorance and probably density but I do not see anything communistic here.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you.
I am not a professor of political law; I may not see what the Gentleman sees
but he may not see what I see. Last night as I was reading this Article, my
daughter from Switzerland who happens to be vacationing with me, a
diplomate in international law and foreign relations and has studied the
government of
Russia and the governments of the international community, said: Ano iyan,
Papa? Sabi ko: Binabasa ko ito pero hindi ko maintindihan. Tingnan ko
nga,
sabi niya. Then she said: Papa, mayroon naman yatang communism iyan. I
did not see what she saw, and I cannot see what the Gentleman sees, and
perhaps he
does not see what I see. I will go to my question. On line 6, page 2, does the
word strike include a wildcat strike?
MR. MONSOD: May we answer that?
MR. DE CASTRO: Yes.
MR. MONSOD: No, it would not include a wildcat strike.
them without
due process.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, we just mentioned that there were
instances like those but we were not saying that the military and the police
do these
everytime. There were instances like those, and we cannot deny that these
happened in the past because of the policy of the State then under Mr.
Marcos.
MR. DE CASTRO: I am only after the accusation without due process. Lately,
when some people learned that that portion in the Pasig area was a prized
property of Mr. Marcos, everybody went there and put their stakes. The
police went there, and without going to court, they drove away those who
were
already building their shanties. This is of public knowledge. Is this a violation
of this portion which is being drafted?
MR. MONSOD: Under this provision, if the processes were not observed, that
would be a violation. This does not say, however, that they cannot be
evicted.
It just says that due process must be observed.
MR. DE CASTRO: Now, to my example when these people learned that the
property belonged to the Marcoses, they immediately went there and staked
their
claims. And so, the police and the army, without due process, went there and
drove them away.
Is this now a violation of this Constitution?
MR. MONSOD: It would be, if they did not observe due process.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you.
I hope I can still learn the many lubid ng buhangin in the Article on Social
Justice.
MS. NIEVA: Thank you very much.
May we just make a request. Since the body will be submitting proposed
amendments and since we are a rather large committee of 17 members who
are very
democratic in our consultations, it might take us a little more time than the
other committees to be able to come to an agreement on some of the
proposed
exceptional
rights to some sectors or classes of people, even in favor of labor workers,
farmers, farm workers but in contravention of the rights of the other sectors
of society, we are not promoting the common welfare of all the people.
For example, Section 1 says: . . . redistribute wealth and power. Does this
mean that private property can also be redistributed, or does it refer to
property belonging to the State or the public domain and other lands that are
not privately owned properties, which are covered by the law on land
registration, known as the Torrens system? Can registered private property
be redistributed also under this provision? That is one basic question that
should be clarified. When the Committee proposes to redistribute power, I
suppose that is covered by our electoral system this refers to the election
of
the President, Vice-President, Senators, Congressmen, the local officials and
others because sovereignty resides in the people. I cannot understand
redistribution of political power unless it is through periodic elections under a
representative government. The question is on the redistribution of
wealth I understand it means material wealth. If they are the natural
resources of the country, they should be available to all with equal
opportunity;
there should be no discrimination; there should be no injustice. But does the
statement redistribute wealth for the common good mean that one who
has
private property according to Commissioner Bengzon in a brief remark to
me, one has, for example, a farmland of only 20 hectares or so, planted with
calamansi, and he also has a small mill to produce calamansi juice, not only
for local consumption but also for possible export should have his business
expanded, or should such kind of property be redistributed? That is a
question I am propounding to the Committee because it is a basic principle.
MR. MONSOD: Earlier we said that the intent of the sentence beginning with
line 9 of Section 1, which says: To this end, Congress shall give the highest
priority, is that there should be measures that will promote those items
enumerated therein, such as the reduction of social, economic and political
inequities, the promotion of structures and processes and the redistribution
of wealth and power. With regard to the provisions on labor, for example,
giving labor certain rights to bargaining and negotiation, giving workers the
right to strike in accordance with the law, as well as participation in
decisions that affect their rights and benefits, these in effect will redistribute
some of the profits or revenues of the firm. But this should at the same
time protect the right of business enterprises to realize their growth
potentials and reasonable returns so that, in effect, this redistribution will
not,
in any way, run the business enterprise to the ground.
himself
did not implement except in the so-called depressed urban areas. The
committee report also mentions Urban Land Reform, on page 3, line 19.
Does this mean
that the Committee is endorsing P.D. No. 1517 and that a tenant will have
the right to acquire the premises he has occupied for, say, ten years as a
tenant? And is the supposed right of the tenant compulsory as against the
lessors, a supposed compulsory obligation on the part of the owner? It
seems
that the Committee, in including Urban Land Reform, is not only
recognizing and adopting the very extensive but objectionable decree of the
former
regime, but it may constitutionalize said PD on urban land reform. Said PD
was issued not for the common good or the common welfare, but to appease
or
flatter the group of urban tenants as a particular sector of our society. Is that
the intention?
BISHOP BACANI: Commissioner Padilla, please understand that the provisions
in the Article on Social Justice are not in contradiction with the other
sections of the Constitution, but they are meant to be complementary.
Hence, when we speak here of redistributing wealth, this is with due respect
for the
rights that are already enshrined in the Bill of Rights that this will not be
without due process of law. The Gentleman .seems to see these rights not as
explications or complements of what are said in the Bill of Rights, but as
contradictions which are not intended to be.
MR. GARCIA: Madam President, may I try to respond. I would also like to give
the rationale. I think what Commissioner Bacani said was a very good
answer.
With regard to the phrase redistribute wealth and power, I think the
rationale for this is that, in our society when we have unlimited access to
economic
wealth and economic power, we are effectively cutting off a large majority of
the people from enjoying those same rights which normally are enjoyed by a
few. Those who amass both wealth and power have undue advantage over
those resources and are effectively cutting off a majority from the enjoyment
of
these.
However, I do not see in this draft Article any kind of undue limitation on
private property. In fact, Congress is supposed to promote and provide those
measures which, under certain conditions and with due process, are always
for the common good. Can we then limit excessive property regarding land,
for
example, if it is excessive, but with due process always and for the common
good?
So, what I am trying to say is that basically the rights which we say could be
enjoyed by all are illusory if the protection over unlimited access to both
wealth and power is not, in a sense, checked and controlled.
MR. PADILLA: We have seen former President Marcos or some of his allies in
government distributing land certificates, but oftentimes he was distributing
the lands of private owners. So, it is very easy to distribute what is not yours.
But the fundamental Latin maxim is nemo dat quad non habet. Justice Laurel
in Lying to explain social justice in that case of Calalang vs. Williams also
had difficulty in defining social justice. But he stated, as quoted by
Commissioner Villacorta, salus populi est suprema lex. And it was very
difficult
to make a positive definition, for what appears in the Calalang decision is like
a negative definition, that social justice is not anarchy; it is not
despotism; it must be the equilibrium of all forces. I cannot quote exactly.
Maybe Commissioner Nolledo who has his book on the Constitution can
quote
that.
But Justice Laurel was stressing the equitable equilibrium of all political,
economic and social forces, so as to attain the objective of common welfare,
the common good, the welfare of all the people. And as stated in the
Constitution, it says all the people.
Madam President, it is not safe nor correct to be granting additional rights to
a few sectors in the guise of promoting the common welfare at the expense
of other sectors of society which must all be united in the common effort to
produce wealth. I have always been saying, Madam President, that the
solution
to our basic problems is for more production that will benefit not only the
capitalist in management of business and commerce and agriculture, but
also
those involved therein including the farm workers, the workers, the
distributors, wholesalers and retailers. In other words, the entire fabric of
society.
BISHOP BACANI: May I reply, Madam President?
Commissioner Padilla, the idea here is to attain the good of all those who
have less but should be enabled. What is being done here is to enable the
depressed sectors of our society, those who have been deprived precisely to
exercise their rights so that all in society would benefit. In other words, the
Nabanggit ng Commissioner ang mga palm and coconut trees. Ang totoo,
hindi tayo dapat magtanim ng palm trees sa Pilipinas sa kadahilanang ang
coconut natin
ay sapat na sapat na sa atin at kumukumpetensiya lamang ito sa ating
coconut oil at coconut trees. Masasakop din ito ng genuine agrarian reform.
Ang pagpapatupad ng tunay na agrarian reform ay gagawin sa isang
lehislatura kung saan mayroon itong phasing mayroong phase 1, phase 2
at phase 3. At
tungkol dito sa small landowner na inyong pinangangambahan, ang
pagpapatupad ng genuine agrarian reform sa small landowner ay sa huling
bahagi kung saan
ang industriyalisasyon ay maunlad na. Kung makikita niyang hindi na
produktibong manatili pa siya sa lupa, mas magaling pang lumipat na siya sa
industriya.
Tungkol naman sa palm trees na sinasabing bahagi rin ng ating agricultural
lands, ang ibig pong sabihin, magsisimula riyan sa farm workers union.
Dapat
magkaroon sila sa organization ng tinatawag na joint consultation dahil
mayroong social injustice. Dapat magkaroon sila, halimbawa, ng profit
sharing. Ang
pagpapatupad ng genuine agrarian reform ay hindi naman biglaan; ito ay
mayroong mga phasing.
Ang dahilan ng kahirapan natin sa Pilipinas ngayon ay ang pagtitipon-tipon
ng vast tracts of land sa kamay ng iilan. Lupa ang nagbibigay ng buhay sa
magbubukid at sa iba pang manggagawa sa bukid. Kapag inalis sa kanila ang
lupa, parang inalisan na rin sila ng buhay. Kaya kinakailangan talagang
magkaroon
ng tinatawag na just distribution. Ang puntong ginagamit natin ay ang sinabi
sa Chapter 2 ng Acts of the Apostles na binanggit kangina: Ipamahagi ang
lupa;
at ang right to property, batay sa pangangailangan ng bawat isa. Kung
lumalampas na sa pangangailangan ng isa at pumipinsala na sa iba, ang
karapatan niya
sa lupa ay nawawala. Ngunit hindi siya inaalisan, Madam President, ng right
to property. Ang tinatawag nating retention limit ay makatarungan pa rin.
Ano
ba ang pag-aari na kayang bumuhay ng isang pamilya? Kaya makikita ninyo
rito ang pagiging makatarungan nitong napalagay ditong genuine agrarian
reform.
MR. PADILLA: May I just give one last remark because I do not wish to
continue my interpellation much longer. If the holding of property can be
injurious
to the rights of others, that is the limitation already recognized in the Civil
Code on jus abutendi. Article 431 provides:
The owner of a thing cannot make use thereof in such manner as to injure
the rights of a third person.
However, the old Roman principle, as remarked by Commissioner Regalado,
has jus utendi, fruendi, disponendi, possidendi and also abutendi. The
Christian
principle has already been adopted and the owner has no right to abuse
because the enjoyment of his property should not injure the rights of others.
Thank you, Madam President.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Madam President, may I just have one minute?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rosario Braid is recognized.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: I am just trying to follow up Commissioner Padillas
concerns which are for balanced social order without really lessening or
underestimating the need to reduce inequalities and to move towards
preferential options for the poor, but to focus also on the need to improve
individual
capacities for productivity. This is why I underscored earlier the need for
cooperatives that would increase and provide better incomes for producers
and
better buying powers for consumers. What we should really focus on is the
need to improve individual capabilities and productivity and to improve
access to
opportunity by strengthening capabilities through education and information
so that the individual can compete. This would, therefore, lead to an
equilibrium or what is called a better, a more balanced social order. I think
that is what Commissioner Padilla would want to underscore in the
amendments.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. ROMULO: I ask that Commissioner Bengzon be recognized for two short
announcements.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
CONSIDERATION OF
CONSIDERATION OF
PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO 532
(Expressing the profound appreciation
of the Con-Com to the NAMFREL)
PERIOD OF SPONSORSHIP AND DEBATE
MR. BENGZON: I move that we consider Proposed Resolution No. 532.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
Consideration of Proposed Resolution No. 532 is now in order. With the
permission of the body, the Secretary-General will read only the title of the
proposed resolution without prejudice to inserting in the Record the whole
text thereof.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: Proposed Resolution No. 532, entitled:
RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE PROFOUND APPRECIATION OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION TO THE NATIONAL MOVEMENT FOR FREE
ELECTION (NAMFREL) FOR THE INVALUABLE
ASSISTANCE IN ORGANIZING PROVINCIAL CONSULTATIONS.
(The following is the whole text of the proposed resolution.)
PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 532
RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE PROFOUND APPRECIATION OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION TO THE NATIONAL MOVEMENT FOR FREE
ELECTION (NAMFREL) FOR THE INVALUABLE
ASSISTANCE IN ORGANIZING PROVINCIAL CONSULTATIONS,
Whereas, the Constitutional Commission is tasked with the drafting of a
charter truly reflective of the ideals and aspirations of the Filipino people;
Whereas, consultations with the Filipino people whose ideals and aspirations
are sought to be reflected in the proposed charter is essential;
Whereas, owing to the limited time allowed to finish the draft of the charter,
preparations for the provincial consultations have to be made in the
shortest time possible;
Whereas, the NAMFREL, in the very limited time given to it, selflessly
extended all the assistance necessary for the success of the provincial
consultations in forty-seven places outside Metropolitan Manila;
Whereas, the NAMFREL, notwithstanding the constraints and sacrifices
personally encountered by individual members in terms of demands on their
time and
money, untiringly continued to extend their support and involvement that
carried the public consultations to its successful culmination: Now, therefore,
be
it
Resolved by the Constitutional Commission, To express its profound
appreciation to the National Movement for Free Election (NAMFREL) for the
invaluable
assistance, selfless cooperation and untiring support in organizing the public
consultations all over the country;
Resolved, further, That a copy of this Resolution be transmitted to all the
chapters of the NAMFREL mobilized to organize the public consultations.
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 532
(Expressing the profound appreciation
of the Con-Com to the NAMFREL)
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, I move that we approve Proposed
Resolution No. 532.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, Commissioner Guingona has a short
announcement.
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President, I would like to inform our esteemed
colleagues that the sponsoring Committee will start working next week and
will be making
use of computers including the ones that we got from IBM.
Thank you.
ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION
R.C.C. NO. 47
Monday, August 4, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
At 9:52 a.m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia Muoz Palma, opened the
session.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is called to order.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please rise to sing the National Anthem.
Everybody rose to sing the National Anthem.
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please remain standing for the Prayer to be
led by the Honorable Adolfo S. Azcuna.
Everybody remained standing for the Prayer.
PRAYER
MR. AZCUNA: Remember You are Mother Mary, that You wont say You wont
because You are our Mother and You cant say You cant because You are
Gods mother,
so You will, wont You? Amen.
ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will please call the roll.
Present*
Natividad
Present*
Alonto
Present*
Nieva
Present
Aquino
Present*
Nolledo
Present
Azcuna
Present
Ople
Present*
Bacani
Present
Padilla
Present
Bengzon
Present*
Quesada
Present
Bennagen
Present
Rama
Present
Bernas
Present
Regalado
Present
Rosario Braid
Present
Reyes de los
Present
Brocka
Present
Rigos
Present
Calderon
Present
Rodrigo
Present
Castro de
Present
Romulo
Present
Colayco
Present*
Rosales
Present*
Concepcion
Present
Sarmiento
Present*
Davide
Present
Suarez
Present
Foz
Present
Sumulong
Present
Garcia
Present
Tadeo
Present
Gascon
Present
Tan
Present*
Guingona
Present
Tingson
Present
Jamir
Present
Treas
Present
Laurel
Present*
Uka
Present
Lerum
Present*
Villacorta
Present
Maambong
Present*
Villegas
Present*
Monsod
Present*
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
APPROVAL OF JOURNAL
MR. CALDERON: Madam President, I move that we approve the Journal of the
previous session.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
MR. CALDERON: Madam President, I move that we proceed to the Reference
of Business.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
The Secretary-General will read the Reference of Business.
REFERENCE OF BUSINESS
The Secretary-General read the following Communications, the President
making the corresponding references:
COMMUNICATIONS
Letter from Atty. Paz E. Vicada, Chairman, Socio-Cultural Task Force, PCCC,
Misamis Oriental, and fifty-six teachers with their corresponding schools,
requesting inclusion in the Constitution of the following proposals: (1) that
the educational system shall be free from political intervention; (2) that
public school teachers shall have the right to unionize as well as the right to
strike; (3) that city and barangay schools have their budget nationalized;
(4) that teachers shall have representation in the legislature and in academic
policy-making bodies; and (5) that there shall be a national commission to
investigate offenses committed by administrative officials against classroom
teachers.
(Communication No. 431 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Human Resources.
Letter from Mr. Ambrosio Rilloraza of 383 Bo. Cruz, La Trinidad, Benguet,
submitting for consideration of the Constitutional Commission his version of
a
new Constitution.
the
Constitutional Commission to incorporate in the Constitution a provision
obliging the State to protect the life of the unborn child from the moment of
conception.
(Communication No. 437 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Citizenships Bill of Rights, Political Rights and
Obligations and Human Rights.
Letter from Fr. Mario Cruz, 319 Elm Avenue, Apt. 3 Long Beach, California
90802, U.S.A., urging the Constitutional Commission to include in the
Constitution a provision allowing Filipinos to have dual citizenship.
(Communication No. 438 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Citizenship, Bill of Rights, Political Rights and
Obligations and Human Rights.
Letter from Ms. Ma. Luisa D. Palillo of the Planning Service, Ministry of
Education, Culture and Sports, Manila, submitting through the honorable
Commissioner Joaquin G. Bernas, S.J., her position papers, which are selfexplanatory, on religion in the Philippine schools, colleges, and universities.
(Communication No. 439 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Human Resources.
Letter from Dr. Jesus V. Tamesis of 42 Quezon Avenue, Quezon City,
submitting for consideration by the Constitutional Commission, his position
paper on the
protection of the patrimony of the nation.
(Communication No. 440 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on the National Economy Patrimony.
Communication from Ms. Teresita Quintos Deles of 61 Molave Street, Monte
Vista, Marikina, Metro Manila and one hundred five others, entitled:
Statement of
Common Position and Concern re: Proposed constitutional provision on the
Right to Life from the Moment of Conception.
(Communication No. 441 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
nito ay umiral din ang G.O. No. 47, iyong corporate farming program nila,
kung saan ito ay sumakop ng 104 corporations at mayroong 81,000 hectares
ang
nakuha nito. Kaya kung titingnan natin ang kabuuan ng programa ay
mayroong maliit namang tagumpay pero ang naging napakalaking kabiguan
nito ay kapanabay
namang ibinigay ang malawak na lupain, lalo na sa Visayas at Mindanao, sa
malalaking korporasyon at mga cronies at ang coverage nga ay totoong
napakaliit
kaya hindi nabasag ang monopoly.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Ako ay sumasang-ayon sa prinsipyo ng land reform,
subalit katulad doon sa amin sa lalawigan ng Laguna, ang tinatamaan ng
land reform ay
hindi iyong malalaking hacienda na nakakaiwas sa land reform sapagkat ito
ay pinalalabas na nahaluan ng agro-industrial entity, na ang mga
nagtatrabaho
rito ay suwelduhan, kundi ang kalimitan pong tinatamaan ay iyong mga
middle-class families. Hindi naman lingid sa inyong kaalaman na sangayon sa Public
Land Act noong araw ay hanggang sa ngayon, ang mga taong masipag ay
maaaring magkaroon ng 24 hectares of alienable and disposable land, at ito
ay naging
kanila sapagkat sila mismo ay magsasaka rin. Dahilan sa kanilang
pagpupunyagi, nakapagpaaral sila ng mga anak; ang iba ay naging
professionals doktor,
abogado, titser. Kung aagawin natin sa kanila ang kanilang lupang sinasaka
na naging kanila sa pamamagitan ng pagtatrabaho, sa pamamagitan ng
homestead
at alam naman ninyong bago naging kanila ang lupang iyan ay gubatan iyan,
pinagtatabasan nila ng katakut-takot na mga damo, mga malalaking kahoy,
at halos
ang kanilang buhay ay ipinain sa mga elemento, at ang iba riyan ay natutuka
pa ng ahas iyan ang idinadaing ng mga tao sa amin sa Laguna. Baka raw
naman
dito sa ating pagsusumikap na magkaroon ng land reform ay silang middleclass ang siyang maapektuhan at mawalan.
Hindi bale na raw na ipamigay iyong malalaki hacienda sapagkat iyan naman
ay kalimitang minana lamang nitong mga kasalukuyang nagmamay-ari. Pero
iyong
naging lupa nila sa pamamagitan ng pagtatrabaho, po ba iyan?
MR. TADEO: Kasi ganito iyan. Dapat muna nating makita ang prinsipyo ng
agrarian reform, iyong maging may-ari siya ng lupa na kaniyang
binubungkal. Iyon ang
a communal
fishing ground.
At ang issue po riyan ay ganito: 10,000 pamilyang nakatira riyan sa paligid
ng Laguna de Bay ang nawalan ng pagkakataon na makapangisda sa
tinatawag nilang
ancestral fishing grounds dahilan sa malalaking korporasyon. Korporasyon na
naman ang problema, katulad ng nasabi ninyo sa lupa. Ito ay korporasyon
namang
nagtatayo ng mga tinatawag na fish pen at halos iisa lamang ang may-ari ng
mga korporasyong iyan. Dahilan diyan ay nawalan ng pagkakataon ang mga
maliliit
na mangingisda.
Ang kinakatuwiran diyan lagi nitong mga fish operators ay magiging mahal
daw ang isda sa Kalakhang Maynila kapag inalis iyan sapagkat sila raw ang
supplier
ng maraming murang isda. Pero sa Laguna, ang nararamdaman ko, itong
mga 10,000 pamilyang nakatira dito sa paligid ng Laguna de Bay ang
madaling naaakit ng
mga kapatid natin sa labas na nagsasabing ang pamahalaan at ang batas ay
para lamang sa mga mayayaman at hindi sa mahihirap. That is why I would
like to
congratulate the Committee for this very revolutionary and progressive
provision.
When one of the Commissioners interpellated a member of the Committee,
he pointed out the use of the word shall. For example, The State shall
undertake
a genuine land reform; The State shall recognize the right of farmers. And
his question was: Can the citizen, for example, sue the State if it fails or
refuses to do what is mandated in these provisions? Then, a comparison was
made between the Bill of Rights and the proposal on social justice. And the
answer was that the Bill of Rights contains civil and political rights while the
latter contains provisions to enhance the social and economic rights of
the citizens.
In other words, the civil and political rights which are contained in the Bill of
Rights are for the protection of the citizens against the encroachment
and violation by the State of the right to due process and equal protection of
the law. In short, the individuals exercise these rights as inalienable and
being recognized as such by the State. The State cannot prevent the
individuals from exercising said rights without violating the guarantees in the
Bill of
Rights.
The purpose of the Bill of Rights, therefore, is to protect and free the citizens
from interference by the government. But the provisions in the Article on
Social Justice strengthen social justice rights and the State is being
mandated through its instrumentalities, like Congress passing the necessary
laws to
give real meaning and substance to the concept of social justice, not just a
mere philosophical or rhetorical concept. Is my understanding of the
provisions of the Article on Social Justice correct?
MS. NIEVA: Yes. Basically, I would say it is correct.
MR. DE LOS REYES: And contrary to the fears of some of our colleagues, the
proposals are not communistic or socialistic, for in the constitution of
socialist countries, there is a separate article on social and economic rights.
For example, in the constitution of Russia, Chapter X, Article 180 thereof
states that the citizens of the U.S.S.R. have the right to work; that is, the
right to guarantee employment and payment for their work in accordance
with
its quantity and quality; Article 119 states that the citizens of the U.S.S.R.
have the right to rest. Article 120 states that the citizens of the U.S.S.R.
have the right to material security; and Article 121 states that the citizens of
the U. S. S. R. have the right to education. Women in the U.S.S.R. are
accorded equal rights with men. These are not found in the proposals of the
Committee. The proposals of the Committee merely enjoin Congress to enact
the
necessary laws in order to enable citizens to enjoy social and economic
rights. Is that correct?
MS. NIEVA: Yes, we agree with the Gentleman.
MR. DF LOS REYES: Thank you, Madam President.
BISHOP BACANI: May I add, however, that even if we have those rights in the
Article on Social Justice, that would not necessarily mean that the Article is
communistic because those are very human rights also.
MR. TADEO: Siguroy magandang linawin na itong usaping ito tungkol sa
salitang communistic. Gusto kong makita ng lahat na mismong si Pope
John Paul II ay
nanawagan ukol sa just distribution of income. Noong pumunta siya sa
Bogota, Colombia, ito ang kanyang sinabi. Ito ay para lang makita ninyo ang
pagkamaka-Diyos ng Article on Social Justice na aming ginawa.
In an Indian mountain village and in a poor Bogotan neighborhood, Pope John
Paul II made strong calls in support of peasant property rights and more just
distribution of income, thus, championing the cause of the peasants who
Under this provision, when the property is excessive and when its use is
unlimited, the State can come in to make sure that it is used properly for the
common good.
And finally, due process of law, I think, is very important. It does not violate
any other rights of an individual as found in the Constitution.
MR. ROMULO: And Section 2 would apply to all types of property because it
says property without qualification. What does the Committee mean by
property?
Is it real property, intangible property or any kind of property?
MS. NIEVA: I think that would apply to land resources and wealth but, as one
says, how do we regulate bank accounts and so forth?
MR. ROMULO: Yes, because property is an all-encompassing term. It can
include money, jewelry and cars. So, what does the Committee really mean?
MS. NIEVA: The State regulates this through taxation.
MR. ROMULO: Yes, in a negative way. But the term property in Section 2
refers to what type of property?
MS. NIEVA: I would say then that it would refer to practically all properties
that may be taxable or that may relate to the social good of the people; that
is, for the common good.
MR. ROMULO: In its broadest meaning, that applies to everything including
the clothes I have on. Is that correct?
MS. NIEVA: I suppose, if we extend it to that limit. But I do not know if the
State will take the trouble to regulate that kind of property.
MR. ROMULO: I only ask because of future interpretations.
MS. NIEVA: This was lifted from the 1973 Constitution.
MR. ROMULO: Yes, but nevertheless, this is a new Constitution. So, we would
like to determine the limits or the nonlimits of the terms proposed in Section
2. As I am beginning to understand the Committee, it can apply to
everything and all types of property.
MS. NIEVA: And at the same time, it respects the right of ownership,
according to the declaration.
MR. ROMULO: It respects that, but on the other hand, we give the State the
right to regulate the acquisition, the ownership and the disposition of
property. I am not against this Article; I just want the parameters.
MS. NIEVA: I think our parameters would be whatever the common good
demands.
MR. ROMULO: The common good can be interpreted in many ways; that is of
no help.
MR. TADEO: Palagay ko, nakalagay ito sa 1973 Constitution. Ngunit
halimbawa, mayroon kang punong-kahoy at pag-aari mo ang punongkahoy
na ito, subalit kung
ang punongkahoy mo ay hahadlang sa kabutihan ng nakararami, ang
karapatan mo sa punongkahoy ay mawawala.
MR. ROMULO: In any case, this is always limited by the Bill of Rights and due
process and subject to legislative acts.
MS. NIEVA: Yes, I would say so, like just compensation and all the rest.
MR. ROMULO: In Section 4, when we speak of participation in policy- and
decision-making affecting the rights and benefits of labor, I take it that a
collective bargaining agreement would be one of the modes whereby they
would participate. Is that correct?
MS. NIEVA: Yes.
MR. ROMULO: If a company does not have a collective bargaining agreement,
in what form should this participation be?
MS. NIEVA: I think we provided for voluntary modes of settling disputes
between workers and employers, as well as collective negotiations which
would cover
the unorganized working force who do not enjoy the benefits of CBAs.
MR. ROMULO: Therefore, is the sponsor saying that the latter part of this
section spells out the ways and means whereby participation in policy- and
decision-making can take place? Is that its intention?
MS. NIEVA: In a very general way, but I think this can be worked out
depending on the situation of the companies, and maybe depending on what
the
legislature would provide for. It just provides in general for the right.
MR. ROMULO: I ask this because the opening line here says: It shall also
guarantee. They are very strong words, but the thrust of the sponsors
answers
seems to indicate that she is leaving this to voluntary methods. Is that
correct?
MS. NIEVA: Maybe, that is as far as disputes between workers and employers
are concerned, but maybe the Gentleman is referring to just and humane
conditions of work and job security.
MR. ROMULO: I am referring to the participative rights being granted to
employees and the manner by which those participative rights will be carried
out.
It is very important for us to know that. The sponsor has agreed that one
method is the collective bargaining agreement, and I think that is probably
one
of the best methods. But what are the other methods being envisioned?
MS. NIEVA: As we said, we provided for voluntary negotiations and voluntary
modes for the settling of disputes between workers and employers which can
take
various forms of labor-management cooperation as in other countries.
Because as we pointed out, five percent or so of our workers are covered by
CBAs, so
the vast majority do not enjoy these rights. That is why we are trying to
provide for some means by which they can seek redress.
MR. ROMULO: That is precisely my question. Where there is no CBA, because
labor is only 10 percent organized, what form does this participative device
take?
MS. NIEVA: Here we are being very general because we said it is up to the
legislature to provide for this later on, as well as for the different companies
to work out different ways of using voluntary methods of negotiations.
Maybe our Chairperson for labor can add something.
MS. AQUINO: One may notice that on line 4, page 2, there is a provision for
collective bargaining and negotiations. The concern here is to provide for
unorganized workers. So, this is the forum within which we can contemplate
statutory implementation of measures that would accommodate the need of
ununionized workers in their collective negotiation with management.
MR. ROMULO: Thank you.
MR. GARCIA: If I may add, the reason why guaranteeing the rights of workers
to self-organization is important is, one of its consequences is that once
workers get organized, the possibility of participation becomes more real and
effective. And I think that recognition is rather crucial in this entire
arrangement.
MR. ROMULO: Fine. So, the base is really the first part of the sentence; that
is, self-organization.
MR. GARCIA: Exactly.
MR. ROMULO: On lines 15 and 16, where reasonable return on investment is
mentioned, for the record, I assume that the Committee will take into
consideration the risks involved.
MS. NIEVA: Certainly, that is definitely an important element.
MR. ROMULO: Thank you.
On agrarian reform, I have very few questions. Generally, did the Committee
calculate the potential costs of agrarian reform?
MS. NIEVA: There have been different figures set up by the Ministry of
Agrarian Reform itself; so, I think, Commissioner Tadeo here may have more
to say.
MR. TADEO: Noong binabalangkas pa lamang ang RA 3844, nakita nilang
kakailanganin ang malaking pondo para sa pagpapatupad nito. At ang isang
nakita nilang
paraan ay ang ibenta ang mga military camps, katulad ng Camp Aguinaldo.
Kasi nakita nilang bakit kailangang mas marami ang militar kung nagugutom
naman ang
sambayanan? Mula rito sa mga kampong ito, nakita nilang matutugunan ang
pagpapatupad ng tunay na reporma sa lupa kayat hindi na kailangan ng
militar ang
mga kampong napakalalawak. Ito ay noon pang panahon ni Ginoong
Macapagal noong 1963. Isang maaaring pagmulan ng pondo ay ang
pagbebentahan sa mga kampong
ito. Isa sa mga sinasabi ni Ginoong Montemayor ay kung hindi natin
mapapaalis ang foreign military bases, dapat lakihan ang rentals dito para
maging pondo
ng agrarian reform. Isa lang iyan sa mga pagtanaw nila. Ngayon, nakikita
naming kung iyong mahigit na dalawang bilyong piso na ginasta sa power
plant ay
iniukol lamang dito, baka ngayon ay walang insurgency at hindi na
nagugutom ang mamamayan.
MS. NIEVA: And Commissioner Monsod may have something to add to that.
MR. ROMULO: So, what is the calculated cost of land reform? The methods
whereby it may be financed were indicated but I am just curious as to what
the cost
may be. It is never certain, but what would be the total cost if this program is
carried out?
MR. ROMULO: In other words, we are not certain.
MS. NIEVA: No.
MR. TADEO: Isa lang ang sagot ko roon, kakailanganin nga rito ang malaking
pondo, pero ang itutugon naman kasi ng magbubukid sa sambayanang
Pilipino ay ang
kaunlaran, ang pagkalutas ng problema sa bumabagsak na ekonomiya dahil
magkakaroon ng purchasing power ang mga magbubukid na mayroong mga
35 to 40 million.
Uunlad ang mga industriya, magkakaroon ng job opportunities. Kaya
bagamat malaki ang kakailanganin, ang magiging tugon naman dito ay ang
kaunlaran ng
sambayanang Pilipino.
MS. NIEVA: I think the land reform record of Taiwan would give us a lot of
insights into how the Chinese have managed to improve their economy and
everything.
MR. ROMULO: Yes, but Taiwan, in area and population, is very different from
us. For the record, I take it from Commissioner Tadeos previous answers to
other interpellations that fair and progressive system of compensation is
now the norm when it comes to land reform, rather than the old formula of
just
compensation. Is that correct?
MR. TADEO: Opo, dahil ang just compensation ay hindi naman ginamit sa
ilalim ng RA 3844 bagamat nasa jurisprudence ito kasama ang fair market
value. Ang
ginagamit natin sa ilalim ng RA 3844, sa ilalim ng right of preemption and
right of redemption ay ang reasonable capacity of the farmer to pay.
MR. ROMULO: Section 6 says:
The State shall recognize the right of farmers and farmworkers . . . to
participate in planning, organizing and management of the program . . .
which I take would be the program of land reform.
MS. NIEVA: I do not think that with this present formulation, the rights of the
existing lessors or lessees or concessionaires should be ignored or not
taken into consideration.
MR. ROMULO: With regard to urban land reform and housing, particularly, did
the Committee calculate the potential cost of giving them affordable
housing?
MS. NIEVA: I think the word housing here would now embrace the newer
concepts of sites and services. We will just provide for the development of
the
sites and services and encourage the urban poor themselves to build their
own houses. There are different methods now that are being considered.
MR. ROMULO: Yes.
MS. NIEVA: And I think it is beginning to be evident that there will never be
enough funds to give everybody a home fully built and all that. Since the
government cannot do that, the private sector has to come in very strongly.
And, therefore, we wanted to include here that the government should
encourage
home financing to assist the poor to acquire their homes.
MR. ROMULO: In providing the infrastructure and neighborhood services, et
cetera . . .
MS. NIEVA: That would be the role of the government, specifically.
MR. ROMULO: Yes. But did the Committee consult the housing authority as to
the potential cost of this program?
MS. NIEVA: We did not get the exact figures, but certainly that is the trend
now of the program of the housing authority itself; that is, to provide for
sites and services and the Zonal Improvement Program that is called ZIP.
MR. ROMULO: So, we have not determined the cost of this either.
With regard to Section 11 which says:
Urban poor dwellers shall not be evicted nor their dwellings demolished
without due process of law . . .
did the Committee take into account the fact that squatting has been
declared as a nuisance per se and it is punishable under the Revised Penal
Code?
do not die and be denied their right to life because we do not have the
necessary treatment or medicines.
And then the fourth area is rehabilitation which addresses itself to the
problem of the disabled. The people who become disabled as a result of a
complication of injury, trauma or disease, and even the people who are
mentally retarded need to be provided with necessary services.
So, at this point in time we have not computed the cost of this integrated
and comprehensive approach. As I said, we would like the State to respond
to
this kind of integration and comprehensiveness of health services to meet
peoples basic right to health.
MR. ROMULO: So, the thrust of this Article is to rationalize and integrate all
the health services being offered by various governmental agencies as the
first phrase of the program.
So, I take it at that point that it will involve mainly administrative costs?
MS. QUESADA: Yes.
MR. ROMULO: I take it, however, that in the second phase, the program aims
to improve the services being given by these various programs.
MS. QUESADA: Definitely.
MR. ROMULO: Of course, that is where additional funding will be required.
MS. QUESADA: That will necessarily involve additional funding if we want to
address ourselves to the right of people to health.
MR. ROMULO: From what the sponsor is saying, this refers mainly to
government services. The private sector has its own rather extensive
MEDICARE Program.
Does the Committee envision to integrate that as well or are these separate
concepts?
MS. QUESADA: I think when we talk of integration, it is a merger, a
collaboration between private and public sectors. Right now, I think our
government is
looking into this collaborative effort with the private sector.
MR. ROMULO: Yes, for example, we have medical benefits from the SSS and
we have MEDICARE benefits which we find inadequate. So, in the private
sector we
supplement these with private health benefit programs. And the problem
arises when one tries to integrate the two. It is not an easy job to do and,
more
often than not, we prefer to just do it on a private basis because each
program has different benefits and to try to supplement those benefits is not
easy
for the private insurances or whatever other programs are available. This is
because they work on a different basis. So, one has to really think how he
can
integrate the two. It might be better just to have parallel services rather than
a totally public-private integrated System.
MS. QUESADA: I think the nitty-gritty of this kind of collaboration will be left
to legislation but the important thing now is the conservation,
utilization or maximization of the very limited resources. We know that the
government alone cannot provide health services. That is why we believe it
is
the States responsibility to encourage more intersectoral efforts in the
delivery of health services to our people. The Ministry of Health right now
has
done so by looking into how the private sector can provide the health
services which the State facilities alone could not provide.
MR. ROMULO: The other problem is that, by and large, government services
are inefficient. So, this is a problem all by itself. On Section 19, where the
report says that peoples organizations as a principal means of empowering
the people to pursue and protect through peaceful means . . ., I do not
suppose
that the Committee would like to either preempt or exclude the legislature,
because the concept of a representative and democratic system really is that
the legislature is normally the principal means.
MR. GARCIA: That is correct. In fact, people cannot even dream of influencing
the composition or the membership of the legislature, if they do not get
organized. It is, in fact, a recognition of the principle that unless a citizenry is
organized and mobilized to pursue its ends peacefully, then it cannot
really participate effectively.
MR. ROMULO: And it is meant to say influence the legislature or supplant
the legislature.
MR. GARCIA: No, not to supplant the legislature. But there are periods, for
example, when a legislature can be remiss in its obligations and, therefore,
the proper atmosphere is created so that the legislature can take note that
there is a clamor for a particular issue or direction. During martial law, this
was evident. When the legislature was no longer responsive to the needs of
Special Provident Fund to provide homes for the homeless poor at subsidized
cost.
I suppose that if this were considered, it would have provided some
supplements to the cost that is expected to be shouldered by the State. And I
suppose
that it would not be limited merely to housing, but also to the other social
services.
MS. NIEVA: Yes, we have the Pag-I.B.I.G.
MR. BENNAGEN: No.
MS. NIEVA: Pag-I.B.I.G. is in the same vein as a provident fund.
MR. BENNAGEN: No, but this is a special proposal.
MS. NIEVA: Yes, I know.
MR. BENNAGEN: It says that a citizen, upon acquiring a fortune sufficient to
insure a reasonable security for the members of his/her immediate family as
indicated by the amount of his/her net assets . . .
MS. NIEVA: I said that will be taken cognizance of by the legislature, I am
sure, when they prepare the statutes that would implement this.
MR. BENNAGEN: My interest, of course, is to bring this out, so that maybe it
can be considered in the deliberations of Congress as a very concrete way of
meeting some of the costs, without necessarily just depending on the State,
because, as is, the government is already strained for finances.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
BISHOP BACANI: May I also add that when the programs are implemented,
they will be implemented gradually. Hopefully, with the greater development
of the
country, funds will become more available. And then finally, as was
mentioned before, the cooperation of nongovernmental offices (NGOs) and
private
enterprises will be sought.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, for some prejudicial questions on behalf of the
Committee on Sponsorship, Chairman Guingona would like to be recognized.
Sponsorship and Style to add to the Bill of Rights a provision which includes
the right
to strike with or without exceptions Without that authority, I do not believe
either Committee could make an addition to the provisions on the Bill of
Rights because this would be a matter of substance.
The other point that I would like to respectfully bring to the attention of the
honorable Commissioner is the matter of just compensation. We have
provided
in our Bill of Rights, in the matter of the exercise of the power of eminent
domain, the payment of just compensation which Commissioner Bernas has
explained to us as enunciated by the courts in many cases, to be the market
value plus the consequential damages minus the consequential benefits,
provided
the benefits do not exceed the damages. Madam President, I see two other
forms of compensation mentioned. In Section 5 of the proposed provision on
agrarian and natural resource reform, we speak of a fair and progressive
system of compensation. In Section 10 of the provision on urban land reform
and
housing, we speak of compensation which should be affordable to deserving
low-income citizens. I would respectfully suggest that we should perhaps
decide
on whether or not these two types of compensation suggested by the
Committee actually mean just compensation because if they really mean so
then we should
change the wording to just compensation. But if they do mean different
things, then who is going to bear the difference? Nevertheless, under the
provisions of the Article on Social Justice, I assume that the difference would
be that the proposed compensation would be less than the just
compensation
as contained in our jurisprudence. Again, the question would be: Who is
going to bear the difference? If it is the State, through subsidy or through
some
other form of State assistance, there will be no problem because the owner
in the transaction would still be receiving just compensation. But if it is the
owner who will bear the difference between the market value and the socalled progressive system of compensation, then we should make exceptions
here. In
which case, we in the Committee on Sponsorship as well as those in the
Committee on Style, with the permission of Chairman Rodrigo would like to
seek
authority to add the exceptions in the provision on the exercise of the power
of eminent domain already approved by us under the Bill of Rights. Without
that authority again, we cannot include such exceptions in the Bill of Rights
because these will be matter of substance.
Finally, I notice that in our previous deliberations, we have not been very
clear on the use of the word shall. This has prompted some of us to ask
whether the word shall in certain cases means mandatory while in other
cases it means merely directory. I suggest that in the discussion of this
particular Article, the Committee should inform us which provisions use the
word shall to mean must and which provisions use the word shall to
mean
maybe.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair and the Commission appreciate the remarks of
the honorable Chairman of the Committee on Sponsorship: But as to the
authority being
desired, the Chair suggests that the Committee on Sponsorship take time in
its work until after the different provisions shall have been clarified and
settled in plenary session so as to avoid any difficulty. We are sure that the
Committee will be guided by whatever is decided here on the floor. In fact,
caucuses will be held to harmonize, if there is need to harmonize or
reconcile, provisions in the different Articles of the proposed Constitution.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bernas is recognized.
FR. BERNAS: May I just be allowed to make two remarks about the remarks
made by Commissioner Guingona. First of all, also in line with what Madam
President
has already said, I would oppose any attempt to give the Committee on
Sponsorship an advance authority to make any adjustment. If it is going to
make any
adjustment, this adjustment has to be done by way of presenting it to the
body for approval or disapproval.
Second, on the matter of just compensation as mentioned in Section 5 of the
present report and I am glad this came up my thinking is that there is
no
incompatibility between what the Bill of Rights says and what this provision
says when it defines compensation as fair and progressive system. Rather,
what we have here, it seems to me, is an attempt to fine-tune the meaning
of just compensation, which is a flexible meaning, for the purposes
specifically
of agrarian reform. The very general meaning of just compensation in the Bill
of Rights is that it is the price which the property will command in the free
market; that is, considering a seller who is not obliged to sell but is willing to
sell and a buyer who is not obliged to buy but is willing to buy. I
think that the just compensation in the Bill of Rights takes primary
consideration of the cost to the owner, what is just to the owner. But in the
attempt
here to call just compensation fair and progressive, there is a very clear
attempt to determine what is just compensation in the context. not just of
what
is due the owner but of the capabilities precisely of the underprivileged. It
will entail not a diminution of the substance of what the seller or the owner
will get but rather, I see progressive as meaning, as entailing not a
reduction of the price but a programming of the compensation in such a way
that it
becomes affordable to one who cannot pay immediately. So I really do not
see here incompatibility between the two but rather an attempt, as I say, to
fine-tune just compensation, precisely to give substance and meaning to the
general concept of social justice as an attempt to enable the law to make
things more affordable for those who cannot afford.
Those are just the two points I would like to make.,
MR. REGALADO: Madam President, just a point of information.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Regalado is recognized.
MR. REGALADO: With respect to this matter of just compensation, the basic
jump-off point is the matter of fair market value because the formula is: fair
market value plus consequential damages, minus consequential benefits
provided that consequential benefits will not be more than the consequential
damages equals just compensation.
Commissioner Bernas has given us the jurisprudential meaning of what is fair
market value the amount for which the owner who is not compelled to sell
will part with his property to a buyer who is not compelled to buy. But under
martial law, that concept was changed by Mr. Marcos in a series of decrees,
some of which found their way into the Tax Code, to the effect that fair
market value is the amount which the owner of the property declares to be
worth
vis-a-vis the amount which the assessor declares the property to be worth,
whichever is lower. Of course, at that time we could not raise that issue of
why
the assessor is given the power to countermand the declaration of the owner.
So I think the Committee will also look into that aspect because we all start
with the phrase fair market value. But this has two meanings now the
first, by jurisprudence, because there was no law on that point but it was
declared by the Supreme Court as its interpretation; and the second, by
presidential decree, which says that it is the amount declared by the owner
or the amount declared by the assessor, whichever is lower. The latter is the
present rule on that point. I request that the Committee also look into this
because we are talking here of just compensation also in relation to the Bill
of Rights.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bernas is recognized.
FR. BERNAS: This is still in relation to just compensation and to the
presidential decrees as referred to by Commissioner Regalado. In the course
of our
discussions of just compensation during our discussions of the Bill of Rights,
we always stated that the determination made by presidential decree was a
prima facie determination and, again, I do not see that as contradictory to
the jurisprudential meaning of just compensation; but rather, it is an attempt
by the legislative authority to create a prima facie case prima facie
meaning of just compensation always subject to review by judicial bodies
because
it is a question of fact. I am not aware of any Supreme Court decision which
says that that meaning is binding on the courts.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: I would like to propound a few questions to Commissioner
Bernas. I had a cursory glance at land reform in Taiwan when I was still a
member of
the Senate. The purpose of land reform in Taiwan is two-pronged: to give the
land to the cultivator and, at the same time, to give enough compensation to
the previous owner so that he could invest that money in business. And so,
land reform is successful in Taiwan.
But then, in order to enable the owner from whom the land was going to be
taken to invest the money in business, he had to be given a lump sum.
Otherwise,
if it were just a yearly pittance, he could not invest that in business. And so,
this is where the government comes in. The government finances the land
reform by paying the landowner the full amount. And the tenants pay the
government.
My question is: Is this Taiwanese practice feasible here?
FR. BERNAS: I am not a member of the Committee; I base my answer
completely on what is written in the text. I do not see the committee report
as excluding
that possibility. I agree completely with the Commissioner that the matter of
just compensation should not involve a diminution of what the owner gets.
The
primary thing here when we speak of progressive compensation is the
programming of what is due from the poor. The programming could be in
terms of what is
given to the government at the same time. That is perfectly possible under
this system.
MR. RODRIGO: In other words, there might be a difference between the
amount of just compensation and the affordable cost. In all probability, there
will be
such a difference. The affordable cost will be less than the just
compensation.
In that case, under this proposal, will the government come in to finance the
difference between the just compensation and the affordable cost?
FR. BERNAS: I do not see the possibility of massive land reform unless the
government somehow gets involved in the financing; and I think one of the
reasons the past land reform program did not have the success that it gave
the impression of having was precisely the fact that there was no effective
financing system for it.
So, all of these will have to be necessarily packaged into the land reform
program.
MR. RODRIGO: That is why the questions by Commissioner Romulo were very
pertinent. Has there been an estimate of its cost to the government? It is not
only
in the difference in the cost but also in the mode of payment. As I said, in
order to enable the former owner of the land who will lose his land and the
income from that land to invest in business, the money that he will get as
payment for the land must be paid in lump sum, unlike what was done here,
where
a pittance was given and the rest was in land bonds, payable in many years.
MR. VILLEGAS: Madam President, may I volunteer some information
concerning the question of Commissioner Rodrigo.
MR. RODRIGO: I will be very glad to listen to the explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Villegas is recognized.
MR. VILLEGAS: Although all the details will have to be threshed out by
legislation, definitely right now, as Commissioner Bernas says, unless the
government and the so-called official development agencies get involved
with our land reform, it will never take off.
Let me just inform the body that right now there are quite a number of
official development agencies, both government as well as nongovernment,
that are
willing to commit large funds to get small holders to acquire land from
existing landowners who will be compensated by these official grants or aid
that
will be coming in. So for the first time in our land reform history, there is the
possibility of our following the Taiwan model where existing landowners
do not have to be saddled with land bonds which were very unproductive in
the past. Also, there are very friendly outsiders who realize that we will never
have economic and social stability unless we have a thorough land reform
program going on that will apply not only to rice and corn but also to the
other
crops.
So, this is what is going on right now, and I am sure the Minister of Agrarian
Reform, Minister Alvarez, can. give more information or details of what I am
describing. But let me inform the body that definitely, we are looking into the
Taiwan model on how to enable land-owners to immediately get a lump sum
instead of waiting forever for a land bond.
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Guingona is recognized.
MR. GUINGONA: I submit to the ruling of the Chair. May I just clarify that both
the Committees on Sponsorship and Style have included in our proposed
timetable that we would submit or jointly present to the body in plenary
session the proposed corrections for approval. But according to the timetable
as
contained in our Rules, we are supposed to begin our work on August 16, so
that would give us only one week.
I particularly mention this because what I perceive to be inconsistent as
regards the right to strike can be resolved now. I do not foresee any other
Article where this problem of just compensation would come up in the future.
If this can be decided now, the body would save us time which is a very
important element in our work, since we are under time constraint. But, of
course, if the body feels that it is better for us to wait and present the whole
thing together, then we submit.
The sense of this as we had composed it is that any problem which may arise
with regard to interpretation is referred to the proper committee. If it falls
within the jurisdiction of several committees, then those committees should
meet jointly to settle the problem.
MR. AZCUNA: Madam President.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Azcuna be
recognized.
MR. GUINGONA: May I react first to the statement of Commissioner Romulo?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Guingona is recognized.
MR. GUINGONA: The Commissioner envisions a situation where there is no
conflict among committees. We are assuming that there would be conflict
and we would
have to bring the matter to the Commission in plenary session. That is what
we are thinking about. Of course, if the committees agree in view of what is
contained in the Rules that Commissioner Romulo read, then we would have
no problem. However, if they do not agree, then we would have to run to the
Commission in plenary session to find out the real intention of the
Commission because the committees cannot speak for the Commission.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you; who is the next speaker?
Commissioner Azcuna is recognized.
MR. AZCUNA: Thank you, Madam President.
I just would like to ask the Committee some clarificatory questions.
The first opening section of the Article on Social Justice states that social
justice is an imperative, and yet it does not state what social justice is.
Consequently, the subsequent sentence says: To this end, Congress
shall. . . and Section 2 says: Towards these end, the State shall . . . To
what end
will all these be done to promote social justice?
These sections do not define the components or elements and the end or
objective of social justice. It is stated here that it should be given primary
consideration in the pursuit of national development. But what is it?
MS. NIEVA: I think that is contained on lines 10 to 18, which read:
in
their movements, who can pursue these objectives till the end.
MS. NIEVA: Maybe one example is the Samahang Nayon which was imposed
by the State with very little consultation with the people. Most of these
organizations are now inactive and have not been effective because the
people themselves were not consulted from the very beginning.
MR. AZCUNA: That is all right. Finally, regarding this provision on women, I
believe that this treats more of rights of working women rather than
womens
rights in general. Is that right?
MS. NIEVA: Yes, because we have included womens rights in general in the
Declaration of Principles.
MR. AZCUNA: Would the Commissioner be amenable to the inclusion of
CHILDREN in this particular provision to read: Women and CHILDREN?
MS. NIEVA: We are open to that.
MR. AZCUNA: Thank you.
MS. NIEVA: Thank you.
Madam President, Commissioner Bengzon has some remarks with regard to
the observations of the previous speakers.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: I just would like to remark on the comments of Commissioner
Rodrigo and the thrust of the questions of Commissioner Romulo a few
minutes ago.
I am a member of the Committee and I would like to state that the Article on
Social Justice is an article that articulates concepts and objectives. This is
very clear. We do not want to spell out details in this Article. It is up to the
Congress or to the proper agency of the government to pursue these
concepts and objectives under circumstances that are available to the
government and to the people. This could take a few years; this could be on
a
long-term basis. But what we are putting here are concepts and objectives
which we feel should be attained. As to whether they would be attained or
they
may remain Utopia is another question. But the fact is that we are providing
the direction. So I hope that the Commissioners would take it in that light.
lands and/or government and military reservations and ranches suited for
agriculture? Is this the intent of the words all agricultural lands?
MR. TADEO: Yes.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I proceed to another question, Madam President.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: On behalf of the Committee, may I briefly reply to
Commissioner Sarmiento?
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner may proceed.
MS. AQUINO: Section 5, line 22 provides that the State undertakes the just
distribution of all agricultural lands, regardless of whether planted with rice
or corn. This provision is pertinent to our background discussion in the
Committee that as the land reform program stands now, it covers only about
4.1
million hectares, which is only about one-third of the agricultural lands. On
the basis of this program, there is only a maximum of 17.1 percent of the
landowners who would be affected by operation land transfer. As for the
tenants, it covers only about 393,780 or roughly only five percent of the 7.7
million workers engaged in agriculture, fishing and forestry.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I go to another point, Madam President.
Section 5, line 8 reads: The State shall undertake a genuine agrarian reform
program . . . When the Commissioner says genuine agrarian reform
program,
is he referring to several phases of genuine agrarian reform? For instance,
phase 1, confiscation and distribution of lands owned by the deposed
President
and his cronies; phase 2, the expansion of free distribution to all crop lands;
and phase 3, the nationalization of transnational agri-business plantations
and the total abolition of feudalism.
May I be clarified on this point by Commissioner Tadeo?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tadeo is recognized.
MR. TADEO: Ang binabasa ni Commissioner Sarmiento ay ang programa sa
lupa ng Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas.
During the time of President Marcos, he issued many decrees, like P.D. Nos.
1517 and 1640; Proclamation Nos. 1767, 1893, 1967, and many others. As a
matter
of fact, one proclamation was issued declaring Metro Manila as an urban land
reform area but before one could avail of the benefits under that
proclamation, there were so many requirements; for instance, he should
have stayed in that place for 10 years, he should be a genuine tenant, and
he should
have the right of first refusal. And not only that President Marcos issued
several limitations for urban land reform to prosper. He limited it to only 244
sites, not the entire Metro Manila area.
Is that the intent of this Committee, to refer only to these 244 sites and to
the limitations provided in several proclamations on urban land reform?
MS. NIEVA: No. I think that Article XIV, Section 12, which explicates the urban
land reform proviso, is maintained. However, for the present Constitution
that we are formulating, we are asking the State to carry out the
implementing legislation not necessarily according to the rules or regulations
and PDs
that former President Marcos had mandated; we are asking the State to
implement and flesh out this directive.
MR. SARMIENTO: So we are not just adopting the proclamations and decrees
issued.
MS. NIEVA: No, we are not adopting them in toto. The concept is very, very
sound. But, again, the way it was carried out left many loopholes.
MR. SARMIENTO. I thank the Commissioner for that clarification because such
decrees to me were restrictive and oppressive because they limited urban
land
reform to certain sites but not to all sites with urban poor dwellers and
squatters.
Section 11, line 25 on page 3, states: their dwellings demolished without
due process of law. I have to commend the Committee for the inclusion of
the
words without due process of law because during the past administration,
we handled several cases of the urban poor. After their houses had been
dismantled, the dwellers were ejected on the basis of mere clearances issued
by the National Housing Authority and the City Engineers Office. As a matter
of fact, another decree was issued during the past regime, P.D. No. 691,
dated May 16, 1978, which, according to the then administrator of the NHA,
General
Tobias, was the strongest anti-squatting issuance from the President. It was
the strongest because the decree directed all local government officials to
immediately apprehend all squatters and demolish the illegal Constructions
they had built on public and private lands and after the arrest and
demolition,
it was only then that they were prosecuted before the appropriate court.
I have two more points. My concept of social justice is justice to the common
tao to the little man. Dean Sinco of the UP College of Law defines social
justice as looking after the well-being and economic security not only of large
groups but also of particular persons or interests who are under real
handicaps in the struggle for existence. I notice that the Article on Social
Justice and this was also the observation of Commissioner Azcuna
mentions
groups like farmers, fishermen, workers, indigenous cultural communities
and women, but it has no provision on youth. In the Article on the Legislative,
we
provided a system of sectoral representation whereby groups like women,
urban poor, peasants, indigenous cultural communities and youth were
included. But
in this Article on Social Justice, no mention is made of those important
sectors, as well as those of children, infants and mothers. We all know that
these
sectors are exploited in our society. We have child labor, child prostitutes, et
cetera.
MS. NIEVA: We do not want to duplicate, since we were told that the Article
on the Declaration of Principles has several sections that deal with the youth,
providing for their physical, mental and spiritual welfare and also against
their exploitation.
Also, in the Article on Human Resources, there is a section on that; likewise
in the Article on Family Rights, we are also adverting to the youth. So we
thought that we would not wish to be accused by the Committees on Style
and Sponsorship of duplication. But I think the observation was already made
that
the exploitation of minors at work should certainly be mentioned here. And
we will deal with that.
MR. SARMIENTO: Does not the Chairman of the Committee think a provision
on youth should be included since we already have a provision on women?
MS. NIEVA: Yes.
MR. SARMIENTO: We can also include provisions on indigenous cultural
communities and on labor just for the sake of fairness.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, the Article on Social Justice assumes a very
peculiar bias, and the bias is in favor of the underprivileged, the oppressed
and
the marginalized sectors. Our focus is that the cause of this marginality is the
social structures.
The problem of the youth such as exploitation of minors as workers or as
farmhands might be the only problem pertinent to this Article. We also
believe
that the problem of pedophilia and other problems would be more effectively
addressed in the other Articles of the Constitution.
MR. SARMIENTO: But during our discussion on sectoral representation, we
made it clear that the youth is one of the marginalized sectors, so much so
that we
included the urban poor, laborers, peasants, women indigenous cultural
communities and the youth.
MS. AQUINO: Yes, we appreciate that.
MR. SARMIENTO: So maybe at some appropriate time, will the Committee be
willing to accept an acceptable and palatable provision on youth?
MS. AQUINO: For clarification, if only to settle and put to rest the problems of
the youth, I think the reason we incorporated the youth as a sector in the
scheme of sectoral representation is that they comprise a basic sector, not
essentially because they belong to an underprivileged or marginalized sector.
That would give us the conceptual difference of approaches in the Article on
Social Justice.
MR. SARMIENTO: But will the Committee be willing to accommodate at the
appropriate time provisions on infants or children and mothers?
MS. AQUINO: For the moment, I am very reluctant to incorporate those
provisions in this Article on Social Justice, but it is my humble submission
that they
should be rightfully placed in the Articles on Human Resources, Declaration
of Principles and State Policies and Family Rights.
.MR. SARMIENTO: As for my last point, Section 1, line 10, speaks of reduction
of social, economic and political inequities. Does not the Commissioner think
that since the thrust of social justice, being the centerpiece of the 1986
Constitution, is the enhancement of human rights or the realization of human
dignity, should we not use the word ELIMINATION instead of reduction?
MS. NIEVA: I think we are just being practical, and so we feel that we can
start with reducing. I do not know if we will ever eliminate those inequities
entirely. But as the Commissioner says, we will entertain any amendment to
that effect.
MR. SARMIENTO: That is all right. Line 11 speaks of promotion of structures
and processes. Can we not replace the word promotion with CREATION, so
that
it will read: CREATION of structures and processes which protect and
enhance the inalienable right to human dignity?
MS. NIEVA: We can consider that as another amendment.
MR. SARMIENTO: Thank you very much, Madam President.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. ROMULO: Commissioner Tingson would like to be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tingson is recognized.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, I have just two or three short questions
directed to Commissioner Tadeo.
I know that a great deal of ideas about the agrarian reform programs of this
committee report, if I understand it right, are mainly from Commissioner
Tadeo
When we say here genuine agrarian reform, does this mean that the
Commissioner was not satisfied with President Macapagals agrarian reforms
and those of
the deposed President Marcos P.D. No. 27 which attempted to introduce
agrarian reforms?
MR. TADEO: Sa kaalaman ni Commissioner Tingson, kagaya po ng
ipinaliwanag ko kanina, ang coverage ng land reform program ay mga areas
planted with rice and
corn lamang. Sa P.D. No. 27, ang nasakop na kabuuang area cultivated by
13.7 percent lamang at ang farmers involved ay 13.1 percent lamang. Kaya
makikitang
hindi pa nawasak ang land monopoly.
MR. TINGSON: Thank you very much.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, may I add some more to the answer of
Commissioner Tadeo. The inadequacies of the land reform program of
President Macapagal
and that of President Marcos in P.D. Nos. 2 and 27 would account for four
factors:
The first factor is the inadequacy or the very narrow coverage when it
provided only for the rice and corn lands which according to statistics would
only
benefit less than 1/3 of the tenants or about 393,000 as compared to
521,000 more who remain as leaseholders because they work in farms which
are less than
seven hectares.
The second factor is the very weak governmental machinery in the
implementation of the program because the implementors are either
inadequate or
indecisive.
The third factor is the economic difficulties arising from the mandate of
President Marcos land reform program. P.D. No. 27 speaks of high-yielding
varieties which necessitate heavy infusion of expenditures for the purchase
of machinery and fertilizers. This is a kind of relationship that breeds all
the more the dependence of the farmers on usurious interests. In the long
run, what we have are paid or waged farm workers because they are being
eased out
from the equitable sharing in the land reform program precisely because of
the oppressive consequences arising from the implementation of the
program.
Then, of course, we are aware of the forced contribution to the Samahang
Nayon which also draws further the purchasing power of the farmers.
Finally, the fourth factor is that the land reform program of President Marcos
is basically flawed because it lacks the participation of the farmers in its
planning and implementation. This is the comprehensive concern of genuine
land reform as it is being envisioned in this Article.
MR. TINGSON: The answers are very well-said and I thank the Commissioner
very much.
My next question is: When we speak here of to own directly or collectively
the lands they till, is this land for the tillers rather than land for the
landless? Before, we used to hear land for the landless, but now the slogan
is land for the tillers. Is that right?
MR. TADEO: Ang prinsipyong umiiral dito ay iyong land for the tillers. Ang ibig
sabihin ng directly ay tulad sa implementasyon sa rice and corn lands
kung saan inaari na ng mga magsasaka ang lupang binubungkal nila. Ang
ibig namang sabihin ng collectively ay sama-samang paggawa sa isang
lupain o isang
bukid, katulad ng sitwasyon sa Negros.
MR. TINGSON: Thank you very much.
I am from Negros Occidental so I need to know this matter. When we speak
of distribution of all agricultural lands in relation to this genuine land
reform program, does this include sugar lands?
MR. TADEO: Yes.
MR. TINGSON: Thank you very much.
I notice that Commissioner Tadeo is very fond of quoting verses from the
Scriptures and I appreciate that because we were all given copies of the Holy
Bible by the Philippine Bible Society and the Koran by the Moslem Society.
In the Book of Acts, Chapter IV, may I read just a few verses:
The group of believers was one in mind and heart. No one said that any of
his belongings was his own, but they all shared with one another everything
they
had. With great power the apostles gave witness to the resurrection of the
Lord Jesus, and God poured rich blessings on them all. There was no one in
the
group who was in need. Those who owned fields or houses would sell them,
bring the money received from the sale, and turn it over to the apostles; and
the
money was distributed to each one according to his need.
Since Commissioner Tadeo seems to be very knowledgeable in the Scriptures
and I am sure he has read this portion, may I ask whether or not Section 5 is
partly based on the philosophy of this portion from the gospel?
MR. TADEO: Ito ay isang paglilinaw lamang. Iyong sinabi ko tungkol sa ating
Secretary-General Flerida Ruth Romero ay halaw sa isang interview na
naganap
noong April 20, 1986 noong wala pang Con-Com. Baka masabi ninyong
nakikialam ang ating Secretary-General. I just quoted her in that interview.
Ang mahalaga kasi dito sa Acts 4:32-35 ay kung ano bang talaga iyong just
society o lipunang ninanais ng mga unang Kristiyano noong namatay na si
Kristo.
Ang isa pang mahalaga dito ay ang konsepto o kaisipan ng Panginoon
tungkol sa property o pag-aari. Dito ay sinasabi Niyang ang pag-aari ay
para sa lahat,
at ito ay ipamamahagi batay sa pangangailangan ng bawat isa Dito po natin
makikita ang ibig sabihin ng isang just society na nagsisimula sa concept
of
property na ayon sa Panginoon ay para sa lahat.
MR. TINGSON: Maraming salamat po.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, may I suggest; suspension of the session?
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended until two-thirty this afternoon.
It was 12:18 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 2:48 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: We are still in the period of interpellations on the Article on Social
Justice. There are still nine Commissioners registered to interpellate,
and we are hoping to close the debate to enable us to move a little faster.
I ask that Commissioner Natividad be recognized, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Natividad is recognized.
May we ask the members of the Committee on Social Justice to please join
the Chairman.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Thank you, Madam President.
At the outset, I would like to premise my questions with my belief that there
can be no social justice unless there is a redistribution of land and more
equitable diffusion of wealth.
During the Fifth Congress of the Philippines, that was two terms before
martial law, we were then in the opposition and we were sponsoring the
Agrarian
Reform Code. We were told that the failure of the agrarian reform laws was
due to the fact that the government bought large landed estates from
landlords
and then gave or sold these lands to the farmers. Thereafter, the
relationships between the tenants and the landlords were presumed to have
been cut and
the farmers who became owners of the land were expected to be successful.
However, the fact that they did not have the funds to maintain the
cultivation of
the land was a vital factor. In addition, the farmers did not have the funds for
fertilizer, for their day-to-day living, for the education of their
children, and for medicine. Consequently, we were told when we were
drafting the Agrarian Reform Code at that time that within five years the
lands were
sold back to the former landowners and the government had to buy the
landed estates once again in a vicious circle.
Then came the time of President Marcos. Again, we were told that land
reform failed because the Land Bank did not perform well as expected. It was
supposed
to fill the void left by the landlords by lending money and helping the farmers
sustain their day-to-day living. We were also told that land reform failed
because not all agricultural lands were included under land reform, and so
forth.
My question is: Since we are embarking on this new thrust in land reform,
would these pitfalls that once caused the failure of land reform before be
avoided in this proposal? May I ask the Committee whether these pitfalls that
have been cited are now dealt with effectively and adequately in this new
Article on Social Justice?
MS. NIEVA: Yes, with regard to the second part of the Commissioners
observation. A portion of Section 6 says that the State shall provide the
necessary
support to agriculture through appropriate technology and adequate financial
production and marketing assistance because we agree that the lack of such
support was the main reason for the failure of land reform.
MR. NATIVIDAD: On what page is that?
MS. NIEVA: This is on page 2, Section 6, lines 28 up to 30.
MR. NATIVIDAD: What role does the Land Bank play in this matter?
MS. NIEVA: I suppose that is one of the instrumentalities that would be called
upon to provide adequate financial assistance.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Yes, so this includes the support that the Land Bank will
extend even without mentioning that bank. Is that correct?
MS. NIEVA: Yes, but we presume that it would include the various agencies.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Yes. The other observation I would like to mention is that in
the implementation of land reform the small landowners like teachers who
have
served to own two, three or seven hectares of land were the main
complainants against the land reform program of the previous
administration. Will this be
repeated in the same vein in this new program? Will they not be allowed to
manage and till their own lands? Remember that these are small land
owners. Our
teachers have developed the habit of being frugal and saving in order to buy
land for themselves. When we were young, the slogan was land is wealth.
This
slogan was printed even on school books. And so, consequently, our teachers
saved money and bought a few hectares for themselves. However, under
land
reform they were deprived of their lands and they cried out and complained
against this unfair and unjust practice. My question, Madam President, is:
Shall
we maintain this unfair and unjust feature of our present land reform
program in the land reform program being proposed under this Article?
MS. NIEVA: We have said that the distribution will be subject to the retention
limits that would be provided for by Congress. Congress would provide
specifically for the size of land that may be kept in order to preserve the
viability of the operations.
MR. NATIVIDAD: But our command to the legislature is not clear on this
matter.
MS. NIEVA: We are not stating here the specific sizes of land because these
might vary with the different crops that we are considering.
MR. NATIVIDAD: How about mechanization, is this important to the
Committee?
MS. NIEVA: I think that will be referring to appropriate technology as found on
line 29.
MS. NIEVA: That is why those of us who believe that this right to strike should
not be extended to all government employees have taken such examples in
other countries into consideration. So I think this is a matter that will be
debated upon very strongly in this forum.
MR. NATIVIDAD: In other words, the Committee is willing to consider an
amendment so that the matte can be decided by the Commission?
MS. NIEVA: Yes.
MR. NATIVIDAD: For example, a military organization goes on strike and it
refuses to obey orders to return to work. Another military unit is sent to
enforce the orders. We will have an armed military confrontation in this case.
MS. NIEVA: There is a school of thought among the members of the
Committee that the military and the civil defense forces do not strictly fall
under the
purview of the term workers. I do not know how the Commissioner views
that concept.
MR. NATIVIDAD: The very nature that they are armed is dangerous to the
stability of our government. If the government will allow them to strike, then
I
will have to object.
MS. NIEVA: Personally, I agree with the Commissioner. But, as I said, we are
divided in the Committee. There are some of us who feel that perhaps the
term
workers does not cover the military and the civil defense. So that will be
really up to the body to decide.
MR. NATIVIDAD: I thank the Chairman, anyway.
So, that will have to be settled by an appropriate and seasonal amendment.
MS. NIEVA: Yes. As we said, we welcome the amendment ahead of time so
the Committee can discuss this matter.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Just one more question. I know the Floor Leader would like
me to abbreviate matter so I am cooperating.
Section 14 on page 4 states: The State shall maintain an effective food and
drug monitoring system . . . I am interested in this provision because I am
wondering whether or not this drug monitoring system will include a program
on the prevention of drug abuse. We all know that drug abuse is a very
serious
threat not only to the health of the nation, but also to the general well-being
of the people, most specifically the youth.
I would address this to Commissioner Quesada, that perhaps we can include
in this provision the prevention of drug addiction. It should be the main
concern
of the State because when we speak of the health of the nation we have to
face reality that we ought to have a program for the prevention of drug
addiction.
MS. QUESADA: The problem of drug abuse is definitely addressed in this
particular provision. In fact this goes beyond the problem of drug abuse.
When we
talk about the food and drug monitoring body, it encompasses all other areas
that would refer to food and drugs. But definitely we consider the problem of
drug addiction as a major health problem which the State should address,
and if the Commissioners can come out with a formulation that would
address
specifically the problem of drug addiction, then I suppose the Committee will
be amenable to its consideration, except that I think that would probably
fall within the purview of legislation.
In fact, we have already the Dangerous Drugs Act, which I understand the
Commissioner himself formulated when he was in the Congress.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Yes, I was the author of that law; but there should be a
continuing concern for this problem to be enshrined in the Constitution.
May I ask one more question. What is the percentage of the disabled in our
country?
MS. NIEVA: During a public hearing, we were told that they constitute 13
percent of the population but then that is probably a very broad view.
MR. NATIVIDAD: I was the author of the law on mobility of the disabled in the
previous Batasan and I wrote that law on the basis of the figure that they
constitute 10 percent of the population. This is a universal ratio. Now, it is 13
percent, so it is increasing.
MS. QUESADA: There are an estimated 800,000 disabled.
MR. BENNAGEN: Madam President, the figure that was submitted to us in the
public hearing is around 6.75 million disabled.
MR. NATIVIDAD: So, this provision on the disabled, Section 15, goes beyond
just giving them more mobility. It also provides a program for their
rehabilitation.
MS. NIEVA: That is the main emphasis; so that they may be totally integrated
into the mainstream of society. That is the objective.
MR. NATIVIDAD: In the old Batasan, our attention was often called that this
was a very neglected area of public service. That law which I authored is the
first law on the disabled, but it only gives increased mobility for the disabled.
So this provision goes beyond that. Is that right?
MS. NIEVA: Yes, as we said, it is for the rehabilitation, self-development and
self-reliance of the disabled towards their total integration into the
maintenance of society. In fact, we are providing for a special body that will
handle this efficiently.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Will it be private or government?
MS. NIEVA: It is a government body. The State shall establish a special
government body with private participation.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Maambong be
recognized to interpellate.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, I just want to clarify certain points from
the members of the Committee. I notice that our sections now on social
justice
total 20 as against the previous social justice section which was only one.
However, I would like to ask the Committee whether or not these social
justice
provisions are all-encompassing, considering that I notice in other portions of
the 1973 Constitution carried over to the present formulation that we have
several social justice clauses. To give an example, we have the clause on
social services, protection to labor, equal protection of the law, due process,
non-imprisonment for debt or non-payment of poll tax, the clause against
involuntary servitude, the clause on the non-imposition of excessive fines,
free
access to the courts, emancipation of the tenants, expropriation of private
lands and free education. Are these also covered by the social justice
provisions or are these considered in their totality as part of the social justice
concept?
MS. NIEVA: Most of them are explicitly provided for in this Article. However,
some of them are included in the Bill of Rights, Education, Human Resources
and some are in the Article on the Judiciary, like free legal services.
MR. MAAMBONG: In other words, when we say social justice, we also think
of other provisions of the Constitution?
MS. NIEVA: Yes, definitely.
MR. MAAMBONG: According to Commissioner Bengzon, we have to proceed
in terms of concepts. I would want to be clarified on Section 1. It is my
understanding
of Section I unless I am wrong that the main objective of the social
justice provision is the pursuit of national development because it says that
the
primary consideration of the State is the pursuit of national development In
the pursuit of national development, I notice that there are two things that
the State is supposed to do: One is to reduce inequities in social, economic
and political life; and the second is the promotion of structures and
processes. Is that a correct understanding that the main objective is pursuit
of national development?
MS. NIEVA: No, I do not think so. Actually, we should consider all of these
while we are pursuing our objectives of national development.
MR. MAAMBONG: Because my understanding of the provision is that to
pursue national development, first, we must reduce inequities. I have no
difficulty with
that. However, I have some difficulty on the promotion of structures and
processes. Does this refer to government structures or private structures?
MS. NIEVA: That would encompass both.
MR. MAAMBONG: That is clarified then.
Mention is made about the protection of the rights of the people which are
inalienable to human dignity. I have here the provision of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, Article XXII. I would like to read it for the
record. It says:
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is
entitled to realization through national effort and international cooperation
and
in accordance with the organization and resources of each state of the
economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free
development of his personality.
promotion of
the welfare of all the people, the adoption by the government of measures
calculated to insure economic stability of all the component elements of
society
through the maintenance of proper economic and social equilibrium in the
interrelations of the members of the community, constitutionally through the
adoption of measures legally justifiable or extraconstitutionally through the
exercise of powers underlying the existence of all governments on the
time-honored principle of salus populi est suprema lex.
I think what is in the mind of many Commissioners is this: Is this principle or
meaning of social justice as enunciated in the case I cited, still
applicable in the present provision on social justice?
MS. NIEVA: I do not see any contradiction at all. think this is just a clearer
formulation of how we think social justice can be achieved.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you for that, Madam President.
I think it solves a lot of problems.
I will also cite another case, Guido vs. Rural Progress Administration, 1984
Phil. 847. This refers to the rights guaranteed by social justice and it says:
Social justice does not champion the decision of property or equality of
economic status; what it and the Constitution do guarantee are equality of
opportunity, equality of political rights, equality before the law, equality
between values given and received, equitable sharing of the social and
material goods on the basis of efforts exerted in their production as applied
to metropolitan centers, especially in relation to housing problems. It is a
command to devise ways and means for the elimination of slums, shambles,
shacks and houses that are dilapidated, overcrowded, without ventilation,
light
and sanitation facilities and for the construction in their places of decent
dwellings for the poor and the destitute. Condemnation of blighted areas
bears
direct relation to public safety, health and/or morals and is legal.
My question is: Does this principle enunciated in the case cited apply to the
present configuration of the social justice provision?
MS. NIEVA: Definitely, we are grateful for the support of the provisions
through the cases the Gentleman has just cited.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you.
Finally, I will cite another case, Samanilla vs. Cruz, CA-G.R. No. 598, decided
in 1947. The decision said in effect that social justice is not a license
to trample upon the rights of others. It says:
Charity and social justice cannot be properly resorted to to trample upon the
rights of others nor to shield illegal acts prejudicial to the rights of
property owners who, under the Constitution, are also entitled to protection.
In another case, Astudillo vs. Board of Directors of PHHC, L-28066,
September 22, 1976, the Supreme Court said:
The State is committed to promote social justice and to maintain adequate
social services in the field of housing, but the State solicitude for the
destitute and the have-nots does not mean that it should tolerate
usurpations of property, public or private.
Do these enunciations still apply in the present configuration of the social
justice provisions?
MS. NIEVA: Yes, we have stated that all of these provisions will be subject to
the due process of law; and the provisions of the Bill of Rights will
definitely be observed when we discuss the details of the implementation of
the various provisions. Congress will definitely take this into consideration,
while at the same time recognize the need of providing for the greater good
of the greater number.
MR. MAAMBONG: Forgive me for citing these principles enunciated by the
Supreme Court but these are basic ones which are clear.
I will go to another portion which speaks of genuine agrarian reform
program. This has been taken up by other interpellators, but I would like to
call the
attention of the Committee that the agrarian reform program, from my
notes, appears to have started way back in 1963.
On August 8, 1963, the Agricultural Land Reform Code or Republic Act 3844
was enacted. On September 10, 1971, Republic Acts 6389 and 6390, known
as the
Code of Agrarian Reforms, were passed. Finally, on October 21, 1972, P.D.
No. 2 was passed, emancipating the tenants from the bondage of the soil;
then
there was an agrarian reform decree, P.D. No. 27, which proclaimed the
whole country as a land reform area.
My question is: Are the principles enunciated in all these laws I cited
applicable to the present formulation of our social justice provision on
agrarian
reform?
MR. TADEO: Yes.
MS. NIEVA: I do not see any conflicts; definitely the principles are applicable.
MR. MAAMBONG: In other words, if this provision on agrarian reform is
passed, it will not repeal these laws at all because the principles enunciated
are
the same.
MR. TADEO: Yes.
MS. NIEVA: They would just extend the scope but they will not repeal.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you.
Section 10 also says that it regulates the ownership and use of urban land for
the common good. This phrase common good has been recurring in all the
provisions and I would like to call the attention of the Committee to this
citation. It says in the book of Taada and Fernando:
The principle asserts that the well-being and economic security of all the
people is the end and justice the means. It is a recognized fact, however,
that
social justice is not necessary for the well-being and economic security of the
higher-income groups because through their own efforts they can stand even
without governmental help.
When we say common good, do we, therefore, refer to those in the lowincome groups?
MS. NIEVA: I think we refer to the whole of society.
MR. MAAMBONG: The whole of society.
MS. NIEVA: Yes, to the whole, but we are focusing our attention to those who
have less because they have less opportunities and less voice.
MR. MAAMBONG: Regarding the portion on urban land reform, I would like to
call the attention of the Committee that we have several laws on urban land
reform. For the record, we have P.D. No. 1893, declaring the entire
Metropolitan Manila area as an urban land reform zone; P.D. No. 1517 (June
11, 1978)
which is the Urban Land Reform Decree; and P.D. No. 1640 (September 21,
right
to quiet title.
Will these Civil Code provisions not be affected by the social justice
provisions?
MR. SUAREZ: I suppose these are specific provisions under the Civil Code
that may be affected if there will be full implementation of the constitutional
provisions as they now appear. The reconciling factor will be the safety
clause in a manner as may be provided by law.
So, these possible conflicts between the Civil Code provisions governing
possession and ownership may have to be subordinated to the constitutional
provisions which the Commission is in a position to approve.
Of course, after that, legislation takes over; but any legislative measures that
would have to be adopted must be in line with the constitutional
provisions. But basically they will be respected.
There may be, like what was pointed out by the Honorable Regalado and the
Honorable Padilla regarding jus abutendi, jus ustendi and jus disponendi,
which
legal terms may not be understandable to many of us who are laymen
here . . . For example, in jus disponendi, this right to dispose of ones
properties may
be circumscribed because of the greater interest of the people for the
common good.
MR. MAAMBONG: That last reply specifically gives me some worry because
when rights granted to owners by some provisions in the Civil Code,
particularly
Articles 428, 429, 435, 437, et cetera, will be affected by the provisions on
social justice and these rights are not only in the law; they have been
enshrined by our jurisprudence that could give some sort of alarm unless
it could be explained in such a manner that the property owners will really be
assured that the due process clause of the Constitution will specifically
protect these rights which are now in the Civil Code.
But anyway, I leave that for Commissioner Padilla to comment on later. I am
not an expert in civil law.
Thank you very much.
MR. BENNAGEN: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bennagen is recognized.
For those who want to go further into this, I suggest that they go through the
article in Batas at Katarungan. It is available at the UP Law Center.
Just a brief background on Section 1 where social justice is mentioned as a
social, economic, political, moral imperative in the pursuit of national
development:
The concept of national development as expressed in several national
development plans of the previous regime was developed around three
major objectives:
growth, equity and the preservation of our natural resources not only for the
present but also for future use.
In practice, however, development has been skewed in favor of growth, to
the extent that in cases where it happened, the gap between the rich and
the
poor widened. It is our feeling that at this stage, the State, as an agency of
change, can so order its resources as to favor the majority or the poor.
This is in violation of existing theories of the State where, one, the State is
assumed to be a neutral agency serving all classes. In the other
formulation usually identified with classical Marxism, the State is nothing
more than an alliance of dominant classes which, through the government,
becomes also the executive committee of these dominant classes. What we
are trying to say is that the Article on Social Justice will go against these
major
classical formulations on the nature of the State so that for once, following
certain traditions of Filipinos, perhaps we can develop a Filipino style
theory of the State that responds to the need of our historical conditions as
well as the structures of society today in favor of the poor. It is for this
reason that several provisions so mandate the State. But even as we
mandate the State, the people themselves should be drawn from their inertia
and
participate through the peoples organizations in providing the necessary
stimulus, the necessary impulse for the State to respond to the needs of the
greater majority or to the poor. But it does not mean that it should be at the
expense of the rich. Essentially, what we are saying is that the State, now
acting as an agency of the poor, should not do these against the interest of
the rich. We are merely saying that it should pay attention to the basic
inequities of society, so that society itself shall maintain and reproduce itself,
without necessarily going to those convulsions usually associated with
the historical traditions both in the West and in the Philippines. Time will test
the validity of this theory.
Having stated that, let me just go back to the concept of agrarian reform as
embodied in the Article. There have already been discussions as to the
reasons
for the failure of agrarian reform. Let me just refer to a survey of the
literature done by two American economists covering agrarian reforms both
in
ancient times and in modern societies in Europe, Latin America, North
America and in Asia, particularly, East Asia. In this survey of literature, they
claimed that the reasons for failure of agrarian reform are: 1) lack of
management capabilities; 2) apathy of government and sometimes even of
peasants
themselves; 3) inefficient or inadequate organization of complementary
resources and services this would refer to services like credit, irrigation,
technical inputs and others; and (4) lack of indigenous research and
development, and where research and development exist, insufficient
diffusion of its
results. These have to do essentially with making scientific the process of
agrarian reform. The studies point out that this is the single element lacking
in many of the agrarian reforms but which are present in successful agrarian
reforms. It was pointed out that eventually, the success of agrarian reform,
particularly the liquidation of feudalism, has taken place alongside with
industrialization, the expansion of markets as well as in the increase in
disposable income of the marginalized sectors. The study also shows that in
cases where feudalism has failed in increasing productivity as well as in
enhancing the egalitarian distribution of income, it is because it has taken
place within a wider framework of power and privilege. This has been the
case
in the Philippines for several years. This one should be interesting to us,
particularly to Congress which should see to it that indeed the appropriate
legislation for successful agrarian reform should be enacted.
Let me quote:
Successful agrarian reforms, both in Europe and East Asia, have been
characterized by economic growth, coupled with equitable distribution of
income. In
these cases, land is open to peasants, decisions over prices and products are
vested in the peasants, terms of trade are not manipulated through prices,
taxes or monopoly rent and last, peasants are not discriminated against in
the provisions of credit and technical inputs.
We are saying, therefore, that there are already extensive and
comprehensive studies on agrarian reform and we should profit from these.
Mention was made
of Taiwan, but I would imagine that there would be other models that could
be investigated. More importantly, it is for us to really go into the historical
and structural background of agrarian reform in the Philippines, and pay
attention to these particular conditions because as the literature itself says,
it
is difficult to draw generalizations from the comparative studies because it is
the particularities of that societys history and structure that define the
success of agrarian reform.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Ople be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: Thank you, Madam President.
I am a member of the Committee and, of course, I support the main thrust of
the Article on Social Justice but I did take the prudence to indicate that they
would have some reservations, especially in the matter of constitutional
language. But I think it is incumbent on the Commission to try to discover,
unravel and perhaps determine the significance and implications of a radical
proposal for the reorganization of our society in terms of, in particular, a
land reform program. I would like to assure that we cannot employ our time
more usefully than really to try to determine not only the merits and
soundness
of these proposals, but also the underlying intent of the Committee and of
the Commission, considering that millions of individual and family interests
are
involved, and considering the great passions that radical approaches to
social and economic relations based on land are capable of being generated.
There was in the 1 960s a major study, which I think no one has yet
mentioned, on the causes of poverty in Asia. It was called The Asian DramaAn Inquiry
into the Poverty of Nations by Gunnar Myrdal, probably the leading
institutional economist of our time. After three volumes of detailed studies,
especially
of the South Asian economic, social and political settings, he came to two
major conclusions: First, the reason Asia remains economically backward is
that
most of it are soft states. They did not have the political will, for example, to
enforce genuine civil equality. Under the Constitutions prevailing, the
rich and poor are equal before the law. But the public could not miss many
glaring evidences in their own lives of how, in real life, this principle of
genuine civil equality is mocked.
The second major conclusion was that these countries are arresting their
own growth by lacking the political will to introduce radical social reforms,
especially in land. Of course, he traced the long history of land reform effort
in Asia, including the Philippines and the other Southeast Asian nations,
and his dismal conclusion was that while professing to inaugurate a social
revolution through land reform, most of these governments in the region, in
actual fact, sought every means and every pretext to thwart genuine land
reform. Of course, all it took was for the National Assembly or the Parliament
to
deny funds to land reform in order to stifle it.
In this regard, we heard Commissioner Romulo raising the favorite bogy of
most governments in Southeast Asia against meaningful land reform there
is no
money. Yet, this morning, I saw in the business page of the Manila Bulletin
that P29 billion is being allocated under the 1986 budget to the so-called
GFIs, government financial institutions, primarily the PNB and the DBP. The
reason for this equity infusion is to prevent them from total collapse. Of
course, P29 billion is about 20 percent of the entire national budget, all of
which will disappear without a trace during the year 1986. These banks have
to be made viable, of course, but if one were weighing all these budgetary
allocations on a scale of justice and priority, I think this would dwarf the
entire budget of the Ministry of National Defense and the Ministries of Health
and Education combined. But these are fait accompli to which the
government
must respond.
Government corporations in 1986 will absorb more taxpayers money than
we ever dreamt of spending for land reform or even for new school buildings
for our
children, especially in the distressed communities.
The point, therefore, is that it is possible the Philippines today has become
the economic laggard of its statute because we have not mustered the will to
transform social and economic relations based on land through a meaningful
land reform program.
That is the reason: It is in terms of our social relations that we can be
imprisoned in poverty It is practically choosy to remain stagnant
economically.
Later on, I hope the Committee will consider, from one of its own members,
an amendment on Section I which will link social justice to another jugular
value and goal; that is, economic growth. It is not only a case of dividing the
existing limited pie more equitably. It is through this that we can enlarge
the pie for the enjoyment of all our citizens, and I am referring in particular
to the land reform program. I think the money will come when there is the
political will to commit a whole nation to land reform. It is at this point that I
hope to get some elucidation from Commissioner Tadeo concerning Sections
dito sa ating
pinag-uusapang Article on Social Justice?
MR. TADEO: Sasakupin nito ang mga hasyenda at ang mga plantasyon
kagaya ng sinabi ng Ginoong sampung ektarya, subalit kung ang may-ari ng
lupa ay
owner-cultivator lamang, wala siyang mga kasama hindi ito masasakop. Kung
mayroon siyang mga kasamang farm workers, ang lupa ay masasakop.
Marahil ay dapat iwasan ang salitang buwag dahil ang pagpapatupad ng
agrarian reform ay dadaan pa sa Kongreso. Ang Kongreso ang magbibigay ng
mga
detalye.
MR. OPLE: I am not concerned about the big estates. I think we have
dismantled a lot of big estates since the time of Roxas, foremost of which
were the
friar lands. In January 1954, President Magsaysay made me chairman of the
first agrarian committee created under that government. I investigated the
Dinalupihan Land Estate in Bataan so that it could be redistributed to the
tenants there. I am not concerned about these big landed estates including
Canlubang, Hacienda Luisita, although probably later on, we should also take
them up. I am concerned about literally millions of small plantation owners in
the coconut industry and sugar industry as well. Is it the intention that
wherever there are tenants, the land should be broken up and distributed to
the
tenants? Is that a correct assumption?
MR. TADEO: Yes.
MR. OPLE: Alam natin na sa industriya ng asukal, iba ang Luzon sa Bisayas.
Dito sa Luzon ang umiiral ay tenancy. Sa Bisayas, lalo na sa Region VI, ang
umiiral ay labor-management relations. Baka naman kung ang patakaran ay
batay sa kung mayroong tenant o wala, lahat ng plantasyon ng asukal sa
Luzon ay
masasakop ng land reform; ang Bisayas hanggang Mindanao ay ligtas sa
land reform. Gusto ko lamang na pag-aralan natin iyan sa kalaunan, at gusto
ko ring
itanong kung kasama rito ang mga palaisdaan. Kaming dalawa ni
Commissioner Tadeo ay galing sa isang lalawigang ang hanapbuhay ng
karamihan ay sa
baybay-dagat nagmumula, sa palaisdaan. Alam ni Kasamang Tadeo na ang
inyong lingkod ay lumaking isang mangingisda at magsasaka. Maaari bang
malaman kung
kasama ang palaisdaan?
holders of these leases, which can number by the thousands, operating the
timber industry right now, will be disturbed under Section 7? Maaaring
bawiin ang lisensiya. Kung sabagay, si Ginoong Maceda lamang ang kayang
magbawi ng
lisensiya; it is an administrative power; it is an executive authority. But is that
what is intended in Section 7?
MR. TADEO: Uulitin ko ang definition na ibinigay ni Mahar Mangahas tungkol
sa full natural resource coverage:
In principle, the term lands would include all forms of natural. resources,
including mineral, forests and water resources, whether public or private,
whether titled or untitled, whether presently controlled by Filipinos or nonFilipinos, over which there is social conflict induced by an unjust
distribution.
MR. OPLE: So, the timber concessions are included.
Speaking of land in general and we know that the Philippines has been
under a Torrens title system for the better part of a century since the start of
the American regime, while Taiwan opted for a Torrens title system only after
World War II will this whole infrastructure of land rights represented by
the Torrens title system be made insecure by a general mandate of the
Congress to redistribute all agricultural lands, except I suppose where
residences
stand on these lands, and where commercial and industrial improvements
have been established thereon? All the rest may be presumed to be subject
to
redistribution provided there is fair and progressive compensation regardless
of crop. Will this be correct?
MR. TADEO: Yes.
MR. OPLE: Thank you.
I think I will put this question again to the Committee at a convenient time so
that it may present a more balanced answer because the Torrens title system
underpins the entire system of private property in the Philippines based on
land. Many people would be concerned, if the Committee admits that this will
be
the start on a wholesale basis by this proposed Article on Social Justice.
I think the other question to ask is: Will all these earned rights, contractual
rights, vested rights in land, in effect, in the ultimate stage be
nullified by our land reform proposal? Or do we merely contemplate a
situation where the Torrens title will be transferred to new owners?
1.2 million hectares of land already previously assembled and which are now
at the disposal of the government. Sa public domain, hindi tayo gaanong
mahihirapan sapagkat kung ang gobyerno ang may-ari, mas malaya at
walang sakit ng kaloobang maipagkakaloob ang mga lupa sa mga
nangangailangan. Ang higit
na magdudulot sa atin ng problema, sa aking palagay, ay ang tinatawag na
private agricultural lands.
Tungkol sa Section 9 na nagsasabing: The State shall promote the
integrated development of agricultural, fishing and marine resources, hindi
po ba ang
ibig sabihin ng integrated development of agricultural resources ay katulad
ng ginawang integrated development ni Ambassador Eduardo Cojuangco, na
mula sa
binhi ng niyog hanggang sa ito ay gilingin at maging coconut oil, hanggang
sa bangkong pagdaraanan? Iyon po ba kaya ang kahulugan na ating ikakapit
sa
integrated development of agricultural fishing and marine resources, a kind
of UNICOM, UCPB, COCOFED approach?
MR. TADEO: Puwede sigurong sagutin natin ng ganito: Ang Cojuangcong ito
ay magiging mga magbubukid na magmamay-ari mula sa hilaw na sangkap
hanggang sa
finished product.
MR. OPLE: Mula sa binhi, sa bugsok hanggang sa organisasyon ng COCOFED,
UCPB at doon sa dakong itaas, itong coconut oil mill at saka UNICHEM.
MR. BENNAGEN: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bennagen is recognized.
MR. BENNAGEN: On behalf of the Committee, may I respond to that very
briefly because I was part of the move which formulated that. When we
speak of
integration, we speak of one integration within each sector, for instance,
within agriculture itself. We also speak of integration among the various
components of agriculture, marine and other resources, and the way they
should be related to the overall industrialization thrust of the country. We are
saying that we cannot simply rely on agrarian reform in terms of attaining
the overall objectives of gross and equity, and that the agrarian reform
program
should be integrated, should be linked in appropriate ways with
industrialization of the country, the form of which shall, of course, be
determined in due
time.
MR. OPLE: It is really saying that land reform beneficiaries can, at a certain
stage, federate to enjoy economies of scale through integration.
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes.
MR. OPLE: The State now pays for the land that is to be redistributed under a
fair and progressive compensation system; will the State ever recover this
money of the taxpayers?
Bibigyan ba natin ng pananagutan ang mga magsasaka na siyang
magtatamo at magtatamasa ng lupa na magbayad naman sa gobyerno ng
ibinayad ng gobyerno para sa
lupang ito?
MS. NIEVA: When the Committee was discussing this, we did not mean to say
that the beneficiaries would just be receiving these lands as doleouts. But
where
they are capable, they also have to pay back on amortization for cumulative
years.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, mukhang hindi iyan ang nakita kong nakatitik
sa programa ng Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas. Isa sa kanilang mga
kahilingan
ngayon ay tapusin na ang pagbabayad ng amortization sapagkat hindi na
kaya ng magsasaka, lalo na ang presyo ng mga pesticide at pataba. Sa
kabila ng
pagbagsak ng presyo ng langis ay patuloy pa rin ang pagtaas ng presyo ng
mga inputs ng mga maliliit na magsasaka.
So, one of the demands is to stop the payments because after all, this land
belongs to them.
Ano kaya ang masasabi ng Kapatid na Tadeo tungkol dito?
MR. TADEO: Magkakaroon ng fair and progressive system of compensation.
Priorities should be given to small and medium-size landholdings without
adding to
the burden of the beneficiaries. The compensation package should be
improved at ang mga maliliit na panginoong may lupa should be paid
promptly. Kung ang
dating pagbabayad natin noon sa ilalim ng P.D. No. 27 or Republic Act 3844
ay 10 percent cash at 90 percent bond, maaaring baliktarin natin ito upang
maging 90 percent cash at 10 percent bond para sa mga maliliit na
panginoong may lupa.
MR. OPLE: I am calling for a separate policy for the small landowners to be
placed under land reform and the bigger landowners.
Sa ngayon ang bayad ng Land Bank sa ilalim ng batas ay 90 percent Land
Bank bond at 10 percent cash. Dati ay tinatanggap ng PNB at DBP bilang
kolateral o
pambayad ng mga existing arrears ang 90 percent bond ng Land Bank;
ngayon ay ayaw na nila itong tanggapin. Samakatuwid lumilitaw na sa papel
lamang itong
90 percent bond; it has no negotiability now. Kung babayaran ng
pamahalaan ang Hacienda Luisita, malaki-laki ito. Remember that its
acquisition cost about
30 years ago was only P9 million so it will now cost hundreds of millions of
pesos. Paano ngayon ang pagbabayad sa gobyerno? Hindi na makababawi
ang
gobyerno sapagkat naipamahagi na ang lupa sa mga magsasaka
MR. TADEO: Ang talagang layunin ng bonds ay upang bumili ng stock o share
sa isang korporasyon. Ito ay maaaring i-convert sa cash at magagamit ito
kung
magtatayo ng mga industriya na kakailanganin ng ating bansa. Ito ang
sinasabi namin noon na ang natutulog na kapital sa lupa ay dapat magamit
sa
pagpapaunlad ng industriya. Kaya kung ito ay susuportahan ng pamahalaan,
hindi natin kakailanganin ang foreign loan, foreign aid, and foreign
investment.
Ang unang kailangang gawin natin ay bigyan ng purchasing power o lagyan
ng laman ang bulsa ng 35 hanggang 40 milyong magbubukid. Sa pag-unlad
ng domestic
sector ay uunlad ang industriya kasabay ng genuine agrarian reform.
MR. OPLE: Totoo po ang sinabi ng Ginoo. In the case of Taiwan, in the early
1950s, two billion nationalist Taiwan dollars was released by land reform so
that this capital, otherwise locked in the land, was now liberated to become a
fuel for the industrialization of Taiwan. But the vehicles for investments,
government corporations whole shares of stock, are available to the landowner who has been placed under land reform. All these corporations were
making
huge revenues and profits. So, we might say that the sequestered landowners felt very happy about receiving bonds and shares of stock in
corporations that
were profitable. Many of these landowners became richer through land
reform, after supposedly having been impoverished. But in this country, I
hope the
Gentleman can point to a single government corporation whose stocks will
be coveted by the landowners who will lose their lands as a result of land
reform.
I do not want to take too much of the time of the Gentleman but before I
leave this podium, I have to put a question or two to the Committee
concerning the
labor provisions. I refer to Section 4 which states:
The State shall guarantee the rights of workers to self-organization, collective
bargaining and negotiations, peaceful and concerted activities for their
own protection, welfare and mutual aid, including the right to strike. It shall
also guarantee job security, just and humane conditions of work and
participation in policy and decision-making affecting their rights and benefits.
I see that the option of the State to use compulsory arbitration has been
dropped for the first time since 1935. The provision for compulsory
arbitration
appears in exactly the same form in both the 1935 and the 1973
Constitutions The State may provide for compulsory arbitration. Since
Section 4 now
proposes voluntary modes of dispute settlements and compels attention for
having eliminated a familiar provision in both the 1935 and the 1973
Constitutions, what conclusion should arise from this is that, in the opinion of
the proponent, all disputes should now be settled through voluntary mode,
and the State is deprived of the power of compulsory arbitration. Does this
mean the abolition of the National Labor Relations Commission?
At this juncture, the President relinquished the Chair to the Honorable Florenz
D. Regalado.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado) : Commissioner Aquino is
recognized.
MS. AQUINO: May I be allowed to answer that question in behalf of the
Committee. The express proviso on compulsory arbitration is in the General
Provisions
of the 1935 Constitution. At best, it was adopted in the Industrial Peace Act,
Republic Act 875, which provided for compulsory arbitration pertaining to
the Court of Industrial Relations on matters which involve unfair labor
practices and strikes which are certified by the President to involve national
interest. However, the 1973 Constitution provided for an express designation
of compulsory arbitration in the Declaration of Principles. When the
Committee
dropped that express proviso without intending to exclude the right of the
MR. LERUM: May I comment on the so-called right to lock out? There is no
such right to lock out. There is nothing in our Constitution that gives
management
the right to lock out. Under the present Constitution, what is recognized is
the right of workers to security of tenure but there is no provision
recognizing the right of any employer to lock out its employees because this
is against the right of the workers to security of tenure.
MR. OPLE: I am speaking of the general practice the world over.
MR. LERUM: But that is not so in the Philippines It may be true in other
countries but in the Philippines, there is no such right.
MR. OPLE: Does the Gentleman mean that the right to lock out is denied to
the employers but the right to strike may not be abridged for the workers? Is
that how Commissioner Lerum stands on this question?
MR. LERUM: The question is whether the right to lock out . . .
MR. OPLE: Employers have no right to lock out even where there is a right to
strike by the workers?
MR. LERUM: Yes, that is how the present Constitution reads. I am referring to
the present, not to this proposed Constitution that we are discussing today.
Because the moment we recognize the right of the workers to security of
tenure, that means they cannot be locked out.
MR. OPLE: I do not know what the Supreme Court may have said about that
but it is generally true that there is a symmetry of final actions in collective
bargaining acknowledged throughout the world and that is the right to strike
and the right to lock out because without arbitration we are back to a trial
of strength between the parties in the picket line and that is what American
collective bargaining is all about that there is finally a trial of
strength. Naked economic coercion will determine the outcome of the
contest and that is the reason I feel reassured about the statement of the
Committee,
through Commissioner Aquino, that with this provision in Section 4, we do
not really forego the instrument of compulsory arbitration provided it is a last
resort Strikes and lockouts have to be acts of last resort and perhaps at the
proper time, I can propose a minor amendment just to take care of that
contingency. May I ask the Committee whether in terms of the voluntary
modes of dispute settlement and the primacy given to collective bargaining,
the
State may not now enact a minimum wage law to fix minimum wages,
whether nationally or by industry, because that is State intervention and
perhaps State
coercion? It is noteworthy in this respect that recently, both the NEDA and
the Ministry of Labor and the President have said that they were no longer
going to abide by a minimum wage system which is very important
especially for the unorganized workers because they prefer labor and
management to settle
the terms and conditions of work. Is there anything in this provision, Section
4, that precludes Congress in the future from enacting new minimum wage
laws?
MR. LERUM: May I answer that. There is nothing in this proposed Constitution
that will prohibit the government from fixing wages or from fixing a minimum
wage.
MR. OPLE: Thank you very much, Mr. Presiding Officer. I think I have used
more than my first share of the time. Thank you very much for giving me the
floor.
MR. BENNAGEN: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado) : Commissioner Bennagen is
recognized.
MR. BENNAGEN: I wonder if Commissioner Ople would yield to just a few
questions.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado) : Commissioner Ople may reply.
MR. BENNAGEN: Mention was made of political will, of political commitment
as a sine qua non of a genuine agrarian reform and all the other reforms that
are
suggested in the Article on Social Justice. I am constrained to ask this
question on the assumption that since he has seceded from the Kilusang
Bagong
Lipunan, he has acquired some objective distance from the Marcos years to
be able to provide us some object or moral lesson in the study of political
commitment or political will. As an insider, could the Gentleman share with
us some of the limitations of the concentrated power of the Marcos years
that
prevented the successful implementation of agrarian reform?
MR. OPLE: I participated in agrarian reform planning during that period and I
think P.D. No. 27 did achieve a sort of transformation in the lives of those
that benefited from it. We have in this Commission colleagues who lost their
lands to their own tenants as a result of P.D. No. 27. Commissioner Bengzon
lost the family land in Pangasinan; Commissioner Rodrigo lost the family land
in Bulacan. It was a painful and traumatic experience for many Filipino
landowners. And I think that program should have been extended beyond
rice and corn to other crops.
But at that point, the government really ran into a solid wall of resistance. All
the politicians served notice that they would rebel politically if
coconut and sugar lands were touched. So, notwithstanding what I thought
were the mighty efforts that Minister Estrella and I, together with
Montemayor,
Lerum, Taruc and others, exerted to extend P.D. No. 27 to other crops,
politically the President at that time thought that the cost was unaffordable.
That
was the reason why the agrarian reform program got stuck on rice and corn
and could not move beyond the metes and bounds of these two crops.
I think one reason we have a more exciting proposal here in the Article on
Social Justice is that land reform will become all-encompassing, although the
specific approaches and modalities within all kinds of agricultural lands will
be left to Congress to determine. But no piece of agricultural land may be
considered exempt after we approve the pertinent sections of this Article on
Social Justice.
Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. ROMULO: Mr. Presiding Officer, I ask that Commissioner Davide be
recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado) : Commissioner Davide is
recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
I seek clarification on certain points from the Committee. On interpellation by
Commissioner Maambong, the Committee answered that the doctrine laid
down
by the Supreme Court in the following cases: Calalang vs. Williams, Guido vs.
Rural Progress Administration, Samanilla vs. Cruz, Astudillo vs. Board of
Directors of PHHC decided in 1976 had been taken into account and the
provisions on social justice would be deemed to have actually taken into
account the
said doctrine of the Supreme Court in these cases. Is my impression correct?
MS. NIEVA: That is right.
MR. DAVIDE: In other words, in the application and interpretation of this
proposed Article on Social Justice, the said doctrines I mentioned in the cases
I
enumerated would remain valid and subsisting and are not deemed
modified, repealed, or superseded in any way?
MS. NIEVA: Yes, we understand that until Congress shall decide otherwise.
MR. DAVIDE: In other words, in the interpretation and application of this
proposed Article on Social Justice, the doctrines laid down by the Supreme
Courts
as such shall prevail.
MS. NIEVA: That is right.
MR. DAVIDE: In the proposed Section 1, I would like to invite the attention of
the Committee on the concept of promotion of structures and processes. For
the record, we would like to know what these structures and processes are,
or what are included in these structures and processes?
MS. NIEVA: May we ask Commissioner Garcia.
MR. GARCIA: When we speak of structures and processes which deliver social
justice to the people, we speak of both economic and social, and political
structures of a given society which provide equality of opportunity. These
structures provide. for example, in the area of housing, decent shelter to the
majority of its inhabitants: or work for the great majority of the people in a
given society.
MR. DAVIDE: In concrete terms, what are these?
MR. GARCIA: Basically in a given structure, for example, housing, it is the
ability of a given society to provide shelter for the majority of its people.
In concrete terms, it means the housing services given to community in a
determined place.
MR. DAVIDE: On the matter of processes, could we be enlightened on what
these processes are and what are excluded from these processes?
MR. GARCIA: Basically the processes which are referred to in a given society
are those of participation and consultation, mechanisms whereby popular
consultation is afforded so that people become part of decision mechanism,
giving them a say in decisions which affect their lives.
MR. DAVIDE: And included, therefore, are initiative and referendum?
MR. GARCIA: Initiative, referendums and even elections.
MR. DAVIDE: This includes their participation, for instance, in the legislative
body through the party list system or sectoral representation.
MR. GARCIA: These are different mechanisms within the proper legislative
structures, or there can be extra legal processes whereby the people can
participate, through their own freedom to organize and demonstrate the
consultation and mechanism in the different Ministries, the Office of the
President
and in the public hearings that the legislature provides so that they can give
their ideas. These are the processes envisioned to shape the direction of
that societys future.
MR. DAVIDE: Definitely then, in the interpretation/application of the Article on
Social Justice, everything must be within the framework of democratic
processes.
MR. GARCIA: Yes, within the framework of democratic exercise and also of a
just and humane society. That is the ultimate.
MR. DAVIDE: Is it within the context of the concept of a just and humane
society as embodied in the Preamble, and nothing more?
MR. GARCIA: Exactly.
MR. DAVIDE: I would like to invite the attention of the Committee to Section 5
which provides that lands are to be distributed to farmers and farm workers.
Are landless farmers and farm workers the beneficiaries under Section 5,
meaning, farmers who do not originally have lands of their own, and farm
workers
who do not have lands of their own?
MS. NIEVA: I think the section refers to the lands which farmers till.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, but could the particular farmer tilling a land which does not
belong to him, and who has a land of his own, still be allowed? For
instance, I am a farmer with five hectares of land exclusively belonging to
me, but I am working on the farm of another. Would that owner of the land I
am
working on be under obligation to give in payment of just compensation the
very parcel or portion cultivated by me because I am the farmer? Such that if
I
am working on two hectares of the property of B, but I have my own six
hectares, will I eventually own a total of eight hectares?
MR. TADEO: Kung mayroong five hectares si Commissioner Davide at ownercultivator pa siya, pagkatapos gumagawa siya sa iba, batay iyan sa needs
and
capacity.
MR. DAVIDE: But I can afford to cultivate 10 hectares. I already own six
hectares and I still work on the land of another.
MR TADEO: Dahilan sa just distribution, ang unang bibigyan ng prioridad ay
iyong maliit ang lupang sinasaka at walang sinasaka. Kung ang sinasaka ng
Ginoong limang ektarya ay sapat na sa kanyang pangangailangan.
mawawalan na siya ng karapatan doon sa isang lupain at itoy ipagkakaloob
sa maliliit ang
mga lupang sinasaka.
MR. DAVIDE: So, it is now very clear that the intention is to give priority to
the landless farmers. Would that be the same interpretation insofar as farm
workers and seasonal workers are concerned? For instance, I am a farmer
with two hectares of land, but off-season in my land, I can work on the land
of
another. Would I be entitled to that portion of the property of another which I
am working on?
MR. TADEO: Kung wala kayong sinasakang dalawang ektarya.
MR. DAVIDE: But I have my own two hectares.
MR. TADEO: Does the Commissioner own the two hectares?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, but off-season in my farm, I work on the farm of another.
MR. TADEO: Kung ang dalawang ektarya ay hindi makasasapat sa inyong
pangangailangan may karapatan kayo doon sa kabila.
MR. DAVIDE: Who shall determine whether what I own is enough or not
enough for me?
MR. TADEO: Dapat tayong magkaroon muna ng mga batayan tulad ng RA
3844. Makikita rito na ang tatlong ektaryang irrigated ay kayang
magtaguyod ng pamilyang
mayroong lima o anim na miyembro. Maaaring maging batayan ang mga
batas na ito.
MR. DAVIDE: I will give a very concrete example. I have a one-hectare land.
My neighbor has another one hectare. I planted corn on my land and I have
to
wait for about three months before I could harvest the corn. While awaiting
the harvest of my corn, I will work on the land of my neighbor; I work about
half a hectare of his one-hectare land. Would I be entitled to that one-half?
MR. TADEO: Gaya ng sinabi ko, kung ang sinasaka ninyo ay hindi
makasasapat at gumagawa pa kayo sa iba, maaari kayong magkaroon ng
karapatan doon.
MR. DAVIDE: I see. In that particular case, my neighbor would lose one-half
and I will have all in all one and a-half. That could be the effect.
MR. TADEO: Ang may-ari ba ng sinasaka ninyong lupa ay magbubukid o
nakikigawa lamang?
MR. DAVIDE: My neighbor is also a farmer.
MR. TADEO: Kung magbubukid lamang ay hindi. Akala ko po ay panginoon
siya at may lupa.
MR. DAVIDE: He can be the landlord because he allows people to work on his
land because he is already infirm for instance, he is disabled. So, he
cannot
work on the land.
MR. TADEO: It shall be unlawful for the agricultural lessee to contract or work
on additional landholding belonging to a different agricultural lessor.
Akala ko kasi kangina ay iyong panginoong may lupa.
MR. DAVIDE: In other words, all laws affecting land reform now or agrarian
land reform shall remain valid and in force. Is it also the sense of the
Committee that upon the effectivity of this Constitution, the land reform or
agrarian reform program will be governed by existing laws?
MR. TADEO: What are proposed in this draft Article will still have to be refined
and improved.
MR. BENNAGEN: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado) : Commissioner Bennagen is
recognized.
MR. BENNAGEN: I think the Gentleman is asking whether existing laws shall,
upon the ratification of this Constitution, be applied with respect to agrarian
reform.
MA. DAVIDE: The Committee said that they will remain in force.
but in terms of
the organizations capability to develop its own programs of action.
MR. DAVIDE: But this particular section relates precisely to the support and
assistance by the government.
MR. BENNAGEN: That is right.
MR. DAVIDE: If we have to qualify and distinguish between members of
independent farmers organizations and members of nonindependent
farmers
organizations, we are practically creating a class struggle between two kinds
of farmers organizations, and that is inconsistent with the thrust of social
justice.
MR. BENNAGEN: No, not necessarily, because I would imagine that there will
be other organizations which are sponsored by the State such as officially
sponsored cooperatives which are not formally independent. I think the
distinction is crucial in the sense that we should have organizations which
are
formally independent of the government.
MR. DAVIDE: I see. What is really bugging me is the application of the
principle of agrarian reform in the disposition of other natural resources. I
wonder
if the Committee has defined natural resources in the manner that the term
is defined in the present Constitution I am referring to Section 8, Article
XIV of the 1973 Constitution:
All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum and other
mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, wildlife, and other
natural resources of the Philippines belong to the State.
I think this is really the concept of natural resources. Is this the meaning of
other natural resources outside of agricultural lands as cited in Section
7 of the draft Article?
MS. NIEVA: Yes, we have defined this as forest and pasture concessions, like
those especially parceled out to cronies and occupied by cultural minorities.
We have lands of the public domain . . .
MR. DAVIDE: What is really the extent of the term other natural resources?
Under Section 8 of Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution, natural resources
refer to:
All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum and other
mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, wildlife . . .
MR. TADEO: Ang ibig sabihin dito ay ang mga arable lands na maaaring
sakahin. Ngayon, itong mga coal, petroleum, mineral oils, under the regalian
doctrine, ay pag-aari ng Estado. Pero mayroong mga bagay sa natural
resources na naaangkop lamang para sa agriculture.
MR. DAVIDE: So, these can be classified as agricultural lands.
MR. TADEO: Yes.
MR. DAVIDE: In other words, the use of the words and other natural
resources is really meaningless because the phrase actually refers to
agricultural
lands.
MS. NIEVA: In addition to that, we are referring to such areas as forest and
pasture concessions, especially those occupied by cultural communities.
MR. DAVIDE: I understand that the Committee on the National Economy and
Patrimony, in its report, allows grants by way of leases or concessions to
private
corporations or to individuals. In the latter case, the grants are given to
Filipino citizens and, in the former, to corporations, sixty percent of whose
capital is owned by Filipino citizens.
Now, my question is, under that particular proposal of the Committee, and as
provided in the 1973 Constitution, will these grants be in the nature of
leases or concessions, and therefore the ownership remains with the
government or the State? Under this proposal, once a certain area is leased
to a
corporation or to an individual and this particular corporation will now hire
certain individuals to work in the concession or leased area, they can now
acquire ownership over the area which they are tilling or cultivating. Is that
the intention of the Committee?
MR. TADEO: In principle, the term lands should include all forms of natural
resources, such as minerals, forest and water resources, whether public or
private, whether titled or untitled, whether presently controlled by Filipinos or
non-Filipinos, over which there is social conflict induced by an unjust
distribution.
MR. DAVIDE: What exactly does the Gentleman mean by a social conflict in
an area covered by a concession or a lease? Necessarily, I would suppose
that the
conflict is between the workers in this area under concession or under lease,
and the concessionaire.
MS. NIEVA: Not necessarily. Like in the case of CELLOPHIL in Abra, it was the
minority group of Tingians which was most affected. The group was not
necessarily the workers at that area but they were residents there.
MR. DAVIDE: But does not Commissioner Bennagen believe that if there is
the necessity of protecting the interests of these cultural communities, the
rule
should be in the Article on the National Economy, that no leases shall be
granted over lands where there is a claim for ancestral homes or ancestral
domains by the tribal groups? This is not really the proper subject of agrarian
reform; otherwise, if we apply the principle of agrarian reform, this means
that workers in the concession will be entitled to obtain that particular
portion which they are working on. It may be a lease for grazing purposes, so
there are some hired hands.
MR. BENNAGEN: May I answer that. The idea with respect to the situation
cited is that the workers could be present in the area, could work on the land,
without necessarily acquiring personal, private titles to this land.
MR. DAVIDE: Without necessarily . . .?
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes, it could be stewardship.
MR. DAVIDE: So, the mandate under Section 7 which says:
The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform in the disposition of
other natural resources, including lands of the public domain under lease or
concession,
simply means that lands covered by concession or lease cannot really be
given to those who are working there because it would precisely violate the
egalitarian doctrine.
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes, but we are also saying that complementary structures
which allow the development of these areas for the benefit of those who are
working
should be set up. The situation is that, even if these areas are being worked
on by those staying in the land, the kaingineros, for example, the objectives
of growth and equity are not attained without the complementary structures.
That is the reason mention is made of the application of the agrarian
principles.
MR. DAVIDE: My question on urban land reform and housing refers to line 20
which provides decent housing at affordable cost to deserving low-income
citizens. What is the perception of the Committee with regard to deserving
low-income citizens? Up to what level do we consider the earner as lowincome?
And once having classified citizens as low-income, how do we now determine
whether one is deserving or not? If a low-income earner is deserving, what
about
those who are less deserving? Will not social justice apply to them? Is it not
that social justice is more called for because they are less deserving?
MS. NIEVA: Is the Gentleman saying that we should provide for those who
have no income whatsoever?
MR. DAVIDE: My point is, we should not qualify in favor of the low-income
citizens entitled to decent housing because we are practically granting relief
to
those who are deserving since they are of low income; but what about those
who are deserving and yet are without any income or have a much lower
income?
They cannot enjoy social justice.
MR. BENNAGEN: May I answer that with a general principle. That partly
answers the query as to the meaning of structures and processes. I think
that in
non-market allocation of goods and services largely through the bureaucracy,
some things have to be done in terms of setting the rules for classifying
beneficiaries or clients, as some agencies call them. Some sets of priorities
and the rules for implementing these would have to be established so that
not
anyone who claims to be poor and deserving should be granted these
services. This is because in the history of access to goods and services, the
rules and
methods have been honored in the breach. We are saying now that given
adequate monitoring of statistical information and adequate research into
the social
and demographic characteristics of Philippine society, we ought to have
some clear scientific basis for categorization
MR. DAVIDE: That is exactly the reason why categorizing low-income citizens
into deserving or not deserving or less deserving is, in effect, dangerous
because I do not think that the concept of social justice should also
categorize the people as to whether they are deserving or not, especially in
the
matter of urban land reform and housing.
Section 11 provides:
Urban poor dwellers shall not be evicted nor their dwellings demolished
without due process of law.
We have the Anti-Squatting Law which is P.D. No. 772. According to the law it
is a crime to squat, and ones dwelling unit can be demolished even without
court order because the act itself of occupying a private land or a public land
according to that decree is a crime. I agree that this should be
interpreted to mean that P.D. No. 772 would be deemed repealed upon the
ratification of this Constitution.
I would like to get the sentiment of the Committee because that is my stand.
MS. NIEVA: We shall welcome some kind of amendment or reformulation of
this section because this is a very crucial issue, and different views have
been
presented on why we should not punish the poor for being what they are,
and whether we are referring here to those who have already been paying
for their
lands but are being evicted unjustly.
MR. DAVIDE: That is why I am really for the immediate repeal of that unjust
decree.
Another point, Mr. Presiding Officer, on Section 11 again. Of course, this does
not refer to private contracts for occupancy of a house by an urban poor
dweller. This has reference to urban poor dwellers on lands where they have
built their own barong-barong. In short, this is not intended to negate or to
be in derogation of the ordinary contract of lease.
MR. GARCIA: May I answer that. Our historical experience precisely refers to
urban poor communities occupying unused idle lands or abandoned lands
where
they have been living for a long time. In the past, whenever there was an
excuse for the government to evict them, it would bring in the military or
police
to drive the people out by force without any kind of consideration as to the
historical circumstances and to the rights of these inhabitants who, after
many long years, have been residents of that area and have found jobs
nearby.
MR. DAVIDE: So in other words, the answer is no.
MR. GARCIA: No.
the
request of the leadership of the Commission.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado) : Mr. Floor Leader, who is next in line
to interpellate?
MR. ROMULO: Mr. Presiding Officer, on behalf of the Committee.
Commissioner Villacorta would like to be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado) : Commissioner Villacorta is
recognized.
MR. VILLACORTA: Mr. Presiding Officer, this is a reaction to the observations
and questions, particularly of our lawyer-colleagues in the Commission. I can
understand why they are especially concerned with existing laws and with
how these laws harmonize with the sections that we are proposing. However,
we
should not forget that the Article on Social Justice spells out a vision that will
take our society towards a certain desired direction. Our Committee
provides the legal framework for such a vision and does not seek to shelve
laws or judicial precedence for as long as they are consistent with this vision
and unless they are subsequently repealed. I say this because I am bothered
by this preoccupation with existing laws, decrees and judicial precedence. I
would also like to stress that the vision of our Committee is not new; it was
also the spirit underlying the 1971 Constitutional Convention. Even former
Chief Justice Fernando, in his book on constitutional law, acknowledged that
the spirit of the times is not inclined towards laissez faire but towards
social welfare. Commissioner Maambong has referred to the Calalang vs.
Williams case which affirms that social justice means the adoption by the
government of measures calculated to ensure economic stability of all the
competent elements of society through the maintenance of a proper
economic and
social equilibrium in the interrelations of the members of the community.
Economic and social equilibrium is predicated on the idea of social balance.
In the situation of acute imbalance that we are now in, the proposals of our
Committee, which seek to achieve balance by raising the poorest quality of
life, take on an extreme urgency. Social equilibrium assumes an environment
in
which peaceful transactions are possible. But we know that given unjust
relations and structures, the future of peaceful transactions is imperilled in
our
country. Widespread insurgency and continuing unrest will bear out the claim
that this equilibrium in its very serious form prevails in Philippine society.
position of lawyers. They may be candid when they ask questions which they
foresee
are those they will have to answer later. It would be embarrassing for
Members of this Commission to be unable to explain adequately the contents
of the
new Constitution in simple language understandable by the masses. And that
is our actual problem as we draft the Constitution. Some are apparently
under
the impression that there is so much verbiage that the substance is lost in
elaborating the form. It is something like one of these beauty pageants
where
the first presentation shows the candidates in elaborate costumes more or
less exaggerated, that one would not really know who is pretty and who is
not.
(Laughter)
Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. VILLACORTA: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I just address a clarificatory
question to the honorable Commissioner Concepcion. I think this is very
fundamental since we are speaking of premises in our discussions.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado) : Commissioner Villacorta is
recognized.
MR. VILLACORTA: I fully appreciate the manifestation, but I would like further
clarification. Is it correct for us to assume that this Constitution we are
framing will necessarily overrule our existing laws and decrees?
MR. CONCEPCION: That depends upon the provisions of the Constitution we
are drafting.
MR. VILLACORTA: What about in cases of conflicts?
MR. CONCEPCION: That is precisely the problem of the lawyers. They do not
know how the Constitution we are drafting will affect the past jurisprudence.
MR. VILLACORTA: Many of us are getting the impression that there is so much
preoccupation with legalese. And in speaking about a basically nonlegal
issue
such as social justice, the main consideration should not be the legal status
quo precisely because the provisions on social justice are aimed at
restructuring society for the good of all. So that when we speak of the rights
of the poor, we are not particularizing solely for the benefit of the poor,
but for the benefit of society as a whole.
MR. CONCEPCION: I agree with the Gentleman entirely. But still we cannot
help those of us who have grown up in a climate of legality not to think in
terms
of legality because these provisions will have to be brought to the courts of
justice. So we are supposed to defend them one way or the other or apply
them
or reconcile them or state that they have been modified. And that is the
point; it is communication.
MR. VILLACORTA: Thank you very much, Mr. Presiding Officer. I think the
clarification has helped very much to improve communication between us
and sharpen
future perceptions.
MR. CONCEPCION: Thank you.
SR. TAN: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado) : Commissioner Tan is recognized.
SR. TAN: Commissioner Concepcions intervention has given me the courage
to speak like this, because I have been feeling very uneasy about these
lawyers
and nonlawyers. We work very hard in our Committee, but it seems that we
are working on two parallel lines.
So we plead to the lawyers to help us because we do not know how to
formulate this in legal language. Instead of trying to look for loopholes and
our
mistakes, we ask that they help us so that what will come out will be legal
and will be helpful to the 70-percent majority, instead of trying to catch us
every time.
Thank you very much.
MR. ROMULO: Mr. Presiding Officer, Commissioner Rosario Braid would like to
be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado) : Commissioner Rosario Braid is
recognized.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Mr. Presiding Officer, members of the Committee: since
we are trying to evolve a genuine agrarian reform program, perhaps we
could link
it with a little of history in terms of the attempts of past laws, such as P.D.
No. 27, in trying to transfer power from the hands of many to a few, and
how we tried to rectify the Macapagal Land Reform Code which did not have
enough safeguards against the transfer of ownership and tax evasion by
landlords.
With all its rhetoric, P.D. No. 27 failed to materialize because of programs of
government that lessened its effectiveness. For instance, General Order 47
established the Corporate Farm Program to boost food production. It became
clear that the Corporate Farm Program proceeded at a much faster pace than
the
agrarian reform program. For example, from 1977 to 1982, there were a total
of 60,424 hectares divided among the 487 participating public and private
corporations. P.D. No. 619 permitted the conversion of such lands into
reserves for large-scale grazing projects. LOI 46 stated that in the
implementation
of the agrarian reform program, the requirements of the agro-industrial
program should be given equal consideration.
So, what I am saying is that some of these decrees and I could cite other
decrees placed the government in a situation where it had to reconcile its
conflicting goals of social justice and productivity. Also, we have to operate in
present-day realities where the issue of survival is paramount, where
putting employment and income in the hands of the farmer is a priority goal.
The search for alternatives such as making some of these existing corporate
farms available to individual farmers with technical assistance from the
former provides another alternative. There are alternatives in the form of
communal farms and nucleus estates.
When we examine the agrarian reform program in the past in terms of costs,
we could see that only one million beneficiaries have benefited. On the other
hand, there were 1.4 million agricultural workers who were left out. Only 17
percent of the total agricultural lands is under the land reform program. We
also learned from research about the dependency on export markets and
imported inputs. We have seen that where there was increased productivity,
there were
negative consequences such as an estimated loan default of P3.5 billion in
1983 as a result of the land reform program.
With regard to the first section on social justice, may I suggest such concepts
as equitable sharing of fruits and means of production and power, need
rather than merit, and active participation of people in planning and
implementation of development. Another concern is the apparent lack of
linkage
with nonformal education and information that would insure the needed
attitudinal transformation. This would require reaching the middle class, the
employer, the landowners, the planters as the linking mechanisms in
development. If we could direct existing human resource development
programs in terms
I have one last question. During the past administration, the President issued
eight decrees on urban land reform; namely, P.D. Nos. 1517, 1640, 1642;
Proclamation Nos. 1767, 1893, 1967; LOI No. 935 and B.P. Blg. 25.
May I know the effect of the ratification of this Constitution on these existing
proclamations or laws on urban land reform?
MR. SUAREZ: I think there is a general provision regarding those. All of those
presidential decrees, laws, general orders or letters of instructions which
may be inconsistent with the provisions of this new Constitution will no
longer have valid effect and will no longer be operative. In the Committee on
Amendments and Transitory Provisions, we have provided, as a matter of
fact, such a section and I suppose the Commissioner has in mind what are
known as
the blighted areas where the BLISS Housing Programs had been organized,
principally in Metro Manila. If those eight or nine decrees enumerated will not
be
inconsistent with the provisions in the Article on Social Justice which may be
approved by the Commission, they would continue to flourish, prosper and
perhaps solve ultimately our social problems obtaining in Metro Manila.
MR. SARMIENTO: Thank you.
MR. ROMULO: Mr. Presiding Officer, I ask that Commissioner Bacani be
recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado) : Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: I was warned that we are going to adjourn at six oclock, so I
will just ask two very brief questions. I belong to the Committee but I
signed with minor reservations and these are the two points that I would like
to bring up. After a long discussion on the right to strike, even by
government employees, I was wondering whether a distinction that we use in
social philosophy could be helpful here and solve the difficulties of the other
Members of the Commission. In social philosophy, we admit the existence of
a right while, at the same time, we say that that right may, under some
circumstances, not be exercised. For example, every man has a right to
marry, but when he takes the vow of celibacy, he cannot exercise that right,
although the fundamental right remains and is acknowledged by the Church,
even in our case. We have the right to marry and that is not denied, and yet
we
cannot exercise that right. A Carmelite sister has a natural right to travel and
to change abodes but when she takes a vow as a Carmelite, then she cannot
travel; that is, she therefore renounces the exercise of that right.
And so, would not that be a solution to possible difficulties regarding the
statement that even government employees have a right to strike, but under
certain circumstances, they will not be able to exercise that right? For
example, the doctors and nurses who are about to conduct an operation
cannot join
a strike, otherwise the patient will die. So, would that be a distinction
admissible to the Commission?
MS. QUESADA: Yes, I think that is a very useful explanation of how the
exercise of such right could be restraining for certain sectors. And I am one
of
those who personally believe that the right to strike should not be denied the
government workers; that is why we deleted the early formulation of
Commissioner Aquino that we include a proviso that the Armed Forces and
civil defense and civil servants be excluded in the exercise of the right to
strike. I believe that they have such an understanding, and I personally
believe that government workers who have been for years conditioned and
indoctrinated to subservience, obedience and compliance will not resort to
that particular measure. During the previous years, we saw that teachers
and
some other health workers have tried to exercise concerted action, precisely
because of the neglect of the State to correct the conditions that prevent
them from exercising their obligation, which is, to render essential services
to the people. We have heard of doctors and nurses actually resorting to
concerted action because they believed that the conditions they were
exposed to prevented them from exercising primarily their right and their
duty to
render essential services to prolong lives or take care of the sick
because of the decision of officials to deny the people of those basic rights.
So,
there are situations where government workers resort to the ultimate
recourse for them to correct the conditions which prevent them from
exercising their
basic duties as members of government.
BISHOP BACANI: May I ask the lawyer in the Committee whether in law there
is admitted that distinction between having a right and actually being able to
exercise that right, or will the denial of the ability to exercise a particular
right actually mean in law the denial of a right?
MR. SUAREZ: I think the conclusion of Commissioner Bacani is correct in that
regard. The right may exist, but the exercise of that right may be restrained;
it all depends upon the one exercising the right. But the mere fact that that
right exists will pose a number of complex problems. Of course, one can
always waive that right, except in certain instances where a right granted by
law or by the Constitution is not waivable, but normally that right may not
be exercised by the one entitled to the exercise of that right. But it is very
difficult to provide for that in the Constitution.
BISHOP BACANI: My second question is this: We had a long discussion on
Section 5 but, finally, we could not come to a full agreement regarding the
primacy
of the rights of farmers and farm workers to own directly or collectively the
lands they till. I am mindful that this Constitution is being written not
only for the next five years or ten years, and that in twenty-five years time
we might have highly mechanized farming in the Philippines. Suppose a man
is
employed to farm a certain land owned by another man, and works on it for
about three or four hours a day, would Commissioner Tadeo say that the man
would
have the primacy of right to own the land? Is there no need to change this?
The more important thing does not seem to be the right to own, but the right
to use and the right to enjoy the fruits of ones labor or ones crop or ones
property. That is why I would like to propose that the Committee, without
going into the question of primacy of the rights of farmers and workers to
own
directly or collectively the land they till, could state as a policy of the
government the encouragement and undertaking of the just distribution of
all
agricultural lands.
MR. TADEO: Ang tunay na reporma sa lupa ay pangunahing nakabatay sa
kapakinabangan ng mga biyaya nito sa nagbubungkal ng lupa at lumilikha
ng yaman nito at
sa nagmamay-ari ng lupa.
BISHOP BACANI: Ngunit katulad noong kasong binanggit ko sa inyo, bakit ba
siya ang dapat magmay-ari kung mayroong may-ari ng lupa at itoy
tinatrabaho lang
niya, halimbawa sa isang araw lamang dahilan sa mechanized farming?
MR. TADEO: May mga katangian para masabi nating siya ay isang
magsasaka. Halimbawa, mula sa pagpupunla at sa paghahanda ng lupa, siya
ang gumagawa. Siya
rin ang nangangasiwa sa lahat, bagamat mayroong mga pagkakataong
umuupa siya. Lahat ng operasyon ay ginagawa niya, at ang pagsasaka ay
ang kanyang primary
occupation.
BISHOP BACANI: Nang akoy nagbakasyon sa France, doon sa village na
tinirhan ko ay mayroong mga nagtatrabaho roon, ngunit hindi nila pag-aari
ang lupa.
Sila raw ang nagtanim at sila rin ang aani. Sandaling-sandali lang nilang
inani ang mayroong limang ektarya. Ang magsasaka ang siyang nagtanim,
siyang
nag-alaga at siyang nag-ani. Puwede ba niyang sabihin, kung mangyari iyon
dito sa Pilipinas, Dapat ako na ang magmay-ari nito bastat mayroon akong
ibabayad. Kailangang ipagbili ninyo sa akin. At iyon ay maaaring hindi na
malayo kung tayoy umunlad sa ating agrikultura.
MR. TADEO: Sa ilalim ng RA 3844, para masabi mong tenant ka,
kinakailangang magkaroon ng tenancy relation na nagbubuwis ka, para
masabing ikaw ang siyang
tunay na tenant. Itoy iiral doon sa mga asyenda, mga plantasyon, regardless
of tenurial arrangement. Para bang ipinapakitang ang pangunahing
katangian ng
isang tunay na reporma sa lupa ay iyong ikaw ang nagbubungkal, regardless
of crops, regardless of tenurial arrangement.
BISHOP BACANI: Hindi ba ang dapat ay mapunta sa iyo ang karapatan mo at
ikaw ang dapat maunang magtamasa ng bunga ng iyong ginawa?
MR. TADEO: Ganito lang po iyon, Commissioner Bacani, parang inilalabas mo
lamang ang tricycle ng may-ari. Iba iyong pag-aalaga mo sa tricycle kung
pag-aari
mo ito kaysa sa itoy nililinis mo lamang.
BISHOP BACANI: Ngunit maaaring mangyari ito. Hindi natin masasabi na
hindi mangyayaring ang isang tao ay magmana sa kaniyang magulang ng
lupa na within a
retention limit naman. Pagkatapos, iyong lupang iyong hindi niya mismo
matrabaho ay maaaring ipatrabaho niya sa iba. Dahil sa minana lamang sa
ninuno ang
lupa, sasabihin niya: Mahal na mahal sa amin ang lupang ito. Maaari bang
sabihin noong magsasaka: Dahil ako ang natatrabaho rito, kahit na minana
mo pa
iyan sa tatay mo o sa lolo mong nagpakahirap diyan, kailangang ipagbili mo
na sa akin.
MR. VILLACORTA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado) : Commissioner Villacorta may reply.
MR. VILLACORTA: Dahil sa si Bishop Bacani ang nagsasalita, naalaala ko
iyong Ebanghelyo kahapon buhat kay San Lukas na kung saan sinabi ng
isang tao na
sumasalubong kay Kristo, Tulungan Mo naman akong makuha ko sa kapatid
BISHOP BACANI: Mainam sana kung ganoon dahil masasabi ko ring may
symbolic values sa akin iyong lupang iyon dahil pinaghirapan naman ng lolo
at ng tatay
ko.
MR. BENNAGEN: But eventually, magkakaroon din ng pagbabago iyong
ganoong pananaw. Kaya nga long-term ang dapat na pagtingin sa agrarian
reform.
BISHOP BACANI: Maraming salamat po.
MR. ROMULO: Mr. Presiding Officer, Commissioner Padilla wishes to be
recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado) : Commissioner Padilla is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I have been hearing many statements
which I feel should not remain as truth and should be challenged. In answer
to
Commissioner Bacani, Commissioner Villacorta made the statement that
Ang mana ay hindi karapatan; it is a privilege. That is a strange doctrine
because
that will destroy the whole system of succession in the Civil Code. Why will
parents sacrifice and work hard to provide financial security for their
children? The theory will abolish incentives to hard work and industry. I also
heard that there is a right but it may not be exercised. Right and duty are
correlative. If one has a right, others affected by that right have an
obligation. One may waive his right or the exercise thereof may be limited by
law or
by some public interest or by the police power of the State. But if a person
has a right, he should have the right to exercise it. Commissioner Bacani
mentioned the right of a person to marry. Is that a right or is it more a
freedom? One may have the right to marry but no one is bound by a
reciprocal
duty.
There was also that biblical quotation from Commissioner Tingson regarding
a small community that works together, maybe owns property together, and
shares
the benefits together. That is all very good, but that will be some sort of a
voluntary association or a partnership or co-ownership sharing the profits
proportionately. Let us consider the case of Commissioner Bernas who, by
joining the Society of Jesus, waives certain rights because he takes
voluntarily
the vows of poverty, obedience and chastity. But it is not correct to apply
that biblical quotation to the entire nation. That is good from a voluntary
standpoint.
We always invoke the common good there can be no dispute about the
common good or common welfare. In fact, it is the inherent power of the
State to
promote the common welfare by the exercise of police power. Whether we
like it or not, if our acts or even our rights are detrimental to the common
good,
these obstruct the promotion of common welfare. These rights can be
restricted, limited or even denied. But when we talk of common good, the
members of the
Committee assume that all that they have proposed in the Committee report
are for the common good even if by so doing, they have imposed so many
obligations for the State to provide this, to undertake, to help this and that.
We are actually restricting, if not impairing, the rights of others.
I am alarmed by a statement of Commissioner Villacorta when he said that
there is now a present far-reaching imbalance which we must correct in this
Constitution, otherwise we may have a revolution. I think that is not only an
overstatement but a misstatement. Let us not alarm the Members of the
Commission to approve all these very far-reaching programs under the socalled social justice because of the fear that our people and our nation
cannot
proceed gradually and peacefully. I have always been mentioning that one
can have progress and prosperity through investments and hard work, but
not
through rights granted to one sector at the expense of other sectors.
What is wrong with a person having property, private property? According to
President Lincoln:
Property is the fruit of labor. Property is desirable. It is a positive good in the
world. That some should be rich shows that others may become rich, and
hence, it is just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who
is homeless pull down the house of another but let him work diligently and
build one for himself, thus, by example, assuring that his own shall be safe
from violence when built.
Some questions like those of Commissioner Sarmiento assume that the
urban land reform program by presidential decree of President Marcos during
martial law
was not only for the common good or was valid or was proper and desirable.
My own personal opinion is that many decrees of the past regime during
martial
law should no longer be honored because they are not good laws. On one
The promotion of social justice ordained in the Constitution does not supply a
paramount basis for the untrammeled expropriation of private land by the
Rural Progress Administration or any other government instrumentality.
Social justice does not champion division of property or equality of economic
system. What it and the Constitution do guarantee are equality of
opportunity, equality of political rights, equality before the law, equality
within values given and received, and equitable sharing of the social and
material goods on the basis of efforts exerted in their production.
And from the Baylosis case on the Article on the Constitution about landed
estates, I quote:
It intended to discourage the concentration of excessive landed wealth in an
entity or a few individuals but surely it did not intend or seek to distribute
wealth among citizens or take away from the citizen land which he did not
actually need and give it to another who needs it. That does not come within
the
realm of social justice.
I have many more statements but I will not impose upon the indulgence of
the Commission.
Thank you.
MR. VILLACORTA: Mr. Presiding Officer, a matter of personal privilege since I
was alluded to twice.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado) : Commissioner Villacorta is
recognized.
MR. VILLACORTA: I would just like to mention that I cited the Bible which is a
source of moral law, not a source of positive law. When I said that my
interpretation of that biblical excerpt is that inheritance is a privilege rather
than a right, I was invoking what we believe to be the Word of God, not
what human laws say. I think that even in a legalistic body such as this, we
cannot be constrained from quoting from the Christian doctrine which we feel
is more reliable than human statements. If we are to take literally, for
example, the decision penned by Supreme Court Chief Justice Jose Laurel,
Sr., I
can see no reason why we could not quote from St. Luke and use it as an
equally authoritative source for determining principles of morality and law, I
will
not quote from Abraham Lincoln nor from other Chief Justices. I would like to
quote from respected fellow Commissioner Francisco Soc Rodrigo:
R.C.C. NO. 48
Present*
Natividad
Present*
Alonto
Present*
Nieva
Present
Aquino
Present*
Nolledo
Present*
Azcuna
Present*
Ople
Present*
Bacani
Present
Padilla
Present
Bengzon
Present*
Quesada
Present
Bennagen
Present
Rama
Present
Bernas
Present
Regalado
Present
Rosario Braid
Present
Reyes de los
Present
Brocka
Present
Rigos
Present
Calderon
Present
Rodrigo
Present
Castro de
Present
Romulo
Present
Colayco
Present*
Rosales
Present
Concepcion
Present
Sarmiento
Present
Davide
Present
Suarez
Present
Foz
Present
Sumulong
Present
Garcia
Present
Tadeo
Present
Gascon
Present
Tan
Present
Guingona
Present
Tingson
Present
Jamir
Present
Treas
Present
Laurel
Present
Uka
Present
Lerum
Present
Villacorta
Present
Maambong
Present
Villegas
Present
Monsod
Present
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
MR. CALDERON: Madam President, I move that we proceed to the Reference
of Business.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
The Secretary-General will read the Reference of Business.
REFERENCE OF BUSINESS
The Secretary-General read the following Communications, the President
making the corresponding references:
COMMUNICATIONS
Letter from Mr. Oscar N. Rivera of Zobel Street, San Miguel Village, Makati,
suggesting that the issue of United States military bases in the Philippines
be treated as a separate proposal independent of the main Constitution
when the Constitution is presented to the people for ratification.
(Communication No. 442 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions
Letter from Fr. Raymundo Hilot of the Episcopal Commission on Tribal
Filipinos, 372 Cabildo Street, Intramuros, Manila, submitting a resolution
adopted by
the 5th SILDAP-SIDLAKAN General Assembly, seeking inclusion in the
Constitution of provisions on the national tribal Filipinos right to
self-determination.
(Communication No. 443 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on General Provisions.
Communication from Sheikh Ahmad Bashier, Chairman of the Bangsa Moro
Multi-Sectoral Conference, submitting proposals on autonomous
governments and autonomy
for the Bangsa Moro nation as special constitutional provisions.
(Communication No. 444 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Local Governments.
Erric Rico
and forty-one others, urging the Constitutional Commission to consider the
following proposals: (1) that the Lumads be given the right to own/utilize
their
ancestral domain; (2) that the Lumads be given the right to selfdetermination; (3) that the Lumad culture be honored and respected; (4) that
a government
agency motivated to serve the Lumads and the rest of the minority peoples
be created; and (5) that government services be made available to the
Lumads.
(Communication No. 449 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on General Provisions.
Letters from Mr Bienvenido A. Castillo of 50 McKinley, Pulilan, Bulacan,
suggesting the following prohibiting election officials from acting as sponsors
in
weddings or baptism to do away with the padrino system; congressional
approval of the declaration of martial law, suspension of the writ of habeas
corpus
and foreign borrowings; prohibiting members of the Cabinet from holding
other government offices; prohibiting the President to grant reprieves,
commutations and pardons; trial by jury, among others; opposing the
creation of autonomous governments of Cordillera and Mindanao; opposing
land reform,
saying that it is outright landgrabbing and a political gimmick of the past
regime, and opposing the discussion of the U.S. military bases issue at this
time as it is delaying the countrys economic recovery.
(Communication No. 450 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Steering Committee.
Letter from Mr. Briccio T. Aguilos, Jr., Provincial Attorney of Leyte, submitting,
upon direction of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of said province,
proposals on local government autonomy.
(Communication No. 451 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Local Governments.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
CONSIDERATION OF
PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 534
(Article on Social Justice)
Continuation
PERIOD OF AMENDMENTS
MR. RAMA: On the agenda this morning, we still have the continuation of the
consideration of the Article on Social Justice. We have just finished the
period of sponsorship and debate. The last interpellator spoke at the end of
the session yesterday. So, I move that we close the period of sponsorship and
debate on the Article on Social Justice.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
MR. RAMA: I move that we proceed to the period of amendments.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
The body is now open to consider amendments. We are requesting the
different proponents to submit their proposed amendments to the
Committee.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: To give the Committee time to deliberate on the
amendments and to enable its members to express their reactions thereto,
the Chair suspends
the session for a few minutes.
MR. RAMA: Thank you, Madam President.
It was 9:59 a.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 10:17 a.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President.
MR. OPLE: Yes, I favor a transposition, Madam President. Moreover, I think the
right way of entry for freedom of initiative should be in connection with
the consequences of social justice in the sense that this opens up new
opportunities for economic development. I laid the basis for this amendment
yesterday when I said that in the case of the so-called economic miracles
now in our neighborhood such as Japan, Taiwan and Korea. it was necessary
to
introduce first radical land reform before new courses and new capital could
be released from the land. so that land reform fuelled industrialization
rather than hindered it. If this is correct, I see no reason why it can be
controverted.
Then the new growth, new development through freedom of initiative can
become the consequence of the social justice policy. I will leave it to the
craftsmen . . .
MR. ROMULO: Yes. May I ask Commissioner Ople and Commissioner Aquino to
indicate where they feel this freedom of initiative or private initiative
should be placed?
MR. OPLE: It will look more technically correct and, perhaps, more elegant in
terms of constitutional, concepts if this probably can be made supportive of
Section 1 in a new section.
MR. ROMULO: May I ask Commissioner Villegas if he will agree?
MR. VILLEGAS: I can agree; it can be a separate section.
Let me just reiterate what I said. A lot of injustices are being committed
against small entrepreneurs or self-employed people and they should also be
the
object of our concern for social justice. So, I am not thinking of economic
growth here. Economic growth will be addressed sufficiently in the Article on
National Economy and Patrimony.
I am thinking here of precisely historical, monopolistic, feudalistic and other
practices which favor either state corporations or large corporations to
the detriment of a lot of people who are trying to start their own businesses.
I think this has to be recognized in the Article on Social Justice because
we are trying to give everyone his due. Remember, justice is defined as
trying to give everyone his due, and from our analysis of Philippine economic
history, a lot of small- and medium-scale entrepreneurs have been
systematically prejudiced by State policies, as well as by the practices of
private
monopolies whether multinational or national.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: By the way, may we request all Members who have already
proposed amendments to give copies to the Secretary-General so that they
can be
reproduced and distributed?
MR. REGALADO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Regalado is recognized.
MR. REGALADO: May I offer a further amendment, a very simple one, to the
proposed amendment of Commissioner Romulo. I propose to insert the word
CULTURAL
after SOCIAL, so that it will read: BY REDUCING SOCIAL CULTURAL,
ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL INEQUITIES, because there are such things also
as cultural
inequities especially when we consider our indigenous cultural
communities.
MR. ROMULO: I accept, Madam President.
MR. REGALADO: Thank you.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I think I should now retire and rewrite this
section together with the amendments I have accepted, and then ask the
Secretariat to circulate it so that somebody else can proceed with Section 2.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. By the way, we have already stated that the Committee
will be given time to go over all these proposed amendments. We are not
expecting
the Committee to give its official reaction right away, unless there are
individual Members who would like to react on these amendments. So, we
can now
proceed to the next proposal.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Davide be
recognized for Section 2.
THE PRESIDENT: Section 2. Is there any other amendment or version for
Section 1?
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Padilla be
recognized for Section 1.
THE PRESIDENT: The Vice-President is recognized.
read:
acquisition, ownership, use and disposition of property and INCREMENTS
THEREOF.
THE PRESIDENT: We do not have the proposed amendment of Commissioner
Romulo yet.
MR. SARMIENTO: Commissioner Romulo has already accepted my
amendment, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: But what is his amendment? This is the problem of the
Chair. The Chair is equally confused. We are not given copies of the proposed
amendments, so how can we be expected to participate even just by way of
making our own comments?
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I ask that we proceed to Section 3
because the proponents are pooling their amendments on Sections 1 and 2
and
preparing a draft thereof?
THE PRESIDENT: Shall we proceed to Section 3?
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Davide be
recognized for his amendment on Section 3.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: May I have a stenographer right here beside me?
MR. DAVIDE: The proposed amendment will actually cover Sections 3 and 4
or a combination of both. The same is contained in the mimeographed copies
of this
amendment.
It shall read:
SECTION _.IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE STATE TO:
(A) AFFORD FULL PROTECTION TO LABOR, BOTH DOMESTIC AND OVERSEAS,
ORGANIZED AND UNORGANIZED, AND TO PROMOTE FULL EMPLOYMENT AND
EQUALITY OF EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITIES REGARDLESS OF SEX, AGE, RACE, CULTURE, CREED OR
POLITICAL AFFILIATION;
B) GUARANTEE THE RIGHTS OF WORKERS OF ANY CLASS OR KIND TO SELFORGANIZATION, COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND NEGOTIATIONS, PEACEFUL
CONCERTED ACTIVITIES, FOR
THE MUTUAL BENEFIT, WELFARE OR AID, SECURITY OF TENURE, JUST AND
HUMANE CONDITIONS OF WORK, AND TO PARTICIPATION IN POLICY AND
DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES
AFFECTING THEIR INTERESTS;
C) PROMOTE VOLUNTARY MODES OF SETTLING DISPUTES BETWEEN
WORKERS AND EMPLOYERS, INCLUDING CONCILIATIONS, AND ENFORCE
MUTUAL COMPLIANCE THEREOF;
D) REGULATE RELATIONS BETWEEN WORKERS AND EMPLOYERS IN A
MANNER THAT RECOGNIZES THE MUTUALITY OF THE RIGHTS OF WORKERS
TO JUST RETURNS OF THEIR LABOR AND
EMPLOYERS TO REALIZE THEIR GROWTH POTENTIAL AND REASONABLE
RETURNS ON INVESTMENTS; AND
E) PROVIDE FOR COMPULSORY ARBITRATION BETWEEN WORKERS AND
EMPLOYERS IN SUCH CASES WHERE THE STABILITY OF THE GOVERNMENT OR
ANY OF ITS AGENCIES, OR THE
PUBLIC INTEREST, GENERAL WELFARE OR COMMON GOOD IS SERIOUSLY
AFFECTED.
THE PRESIDENT: Have copies been distributed to the Commissioners?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Do all the Commissioners have copies of this proposed
amendment of Commissioner Davide?
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Nolledo is recognized.
MR. NOLLEDO: I am sorry I came late. I also submitted an amendment
combining Section 1 with Section 2. I would like to present it before the
Committee for
consideration if the Chair would permit me.
THE PRESIDENT: We will take that up later; we will settle first the proposed
amendment of Commissioner Davide. We are not voting on the amendments
right
now.
compulsory
arbitration, it is proposed that we retain that particular power.
BISHOP BACANI: May I ask Commissioner Davide two questions? When the
Commissioner refers to the equality of employment opportunities regardless
of race,
would that mean that a noncitizen would be deemed under our laws to have
the same opportunities for employment as a citizen?
MR. DAVIDE: What I added are only the words RACE and POLITICAL
AFFILIATION.
BISHOP BACANI: But suppose a person is of another race and he is not a
Filipino citizen, will the matter of citizenship be the more preponderant
consideration?
MR. DAVIDE: Precisely I included the word RACE because there might be a
distinction between a natural-born Filipino citizen and a naturalized citizen.
So
to be very clear about it, we should add the word RACE.
BISHOP BACANI: So that is the point of the Commissioner?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes.
BISHOP BACANI: May I be clarified also on the deletion of the words
including the right to strike. Even with that deletion, is the Commissioner
nevertheless really including the right to strike?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, as a matter of fact, the language of the original proposal
already indicates that that right is there. So it is included already in the
phrase concerted activities.
BISHOP BACANI: Thank you.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: May I ask a question of the proponent.
In the 1973 Constitution, the duty of the State to afford protection to labor is
found on Section 9, Article II under Declaration of Principles and State
Policies which reads:
The State shall afford protection to labor, promote full employment and
equality in employment, ensure equal work opportunities regardless of sex,
race, or
creed, and regulate the relations between workers and employers. The State
shall assure the rights of workers to self-organization, collective bargaining,
security of tenure, and just and humane conditions of work. The State may
provide for compulsory arbitration.
We do not have yet the report of our Committee on Declaration of Principles.
Where does the Commissioner think this particular provision should be
incorporated? Should it be in the Article on Social Justice or, as indicated in
the 1973 Constitution, in the Article on Declaration of Principles and
State Policies?
MR. DAVIDE: In the light of the special importance that we are giving now to
social justice and the necessity of emphasizing the scope and role of social
justice in national development, I strongly believe that it should be here in
the Article on Social Justice and not just in the Article on Declaration of
Principles and State Policies.
MR. RODRIGO: I think the Chairman of the Committee on Declaration of
Principles and State Policies is Commissioner Rosales and the Vice Chairman
is
Commissioner Tingson. So, they can just get together and decide where it
will be included.
MR. ROSALES: It should be in the Article on Social Justice. In the 1973
Constitution, there was no separate article on social justice. There is such an
article now, and we concede this declaration in favor of the Article on Social
Justice.
MS. QUESADA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Quesada is recognized.
MS. QUESADA: I would just like to make some comments on the presentation
of Commissioner Davide.
The body must know that we have had about four public hearings involving
labor. In all these public hearings, the people have been very strong in their
position that their right to strike should be really spelled out in the
Constitution. As a matter of fact, they did comment that in other
Constitutions of
the world, such right has been very explicitly mentioned.
The Constitution of Uruguay says:
MR. DAVIDE: That would not really be inconsistent because of the silence of
the Article on the Civil Service. So, I think the proper area really for the
spelling out of the exception will be here; that is, if the thinking of the
Committee is to exclude public services from the scope of strike. As a matter
of fact, personally I would even say that it should apply only in instances
which would involve the exercise of governmental functions or constituent
functions.
MS. QUESADA: The earlier proviso in the original draft only excluded the
Armed Forces and the civil defense.
MR. DAVIDE: I would rather opt for functions involving exercise of constituent
functions or governmental functions.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, the Committee is also divided on this
issue. So, I would suggest that we leave the discussion on that particular
point. When
the proper time comes, we can just throw that matter on the floor.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: Since the Committee is going to study this matter, I would like
to add a point.
If I heard Commissioner Quesada correctly, she read one of the provisions of
a constitution in Latin America. In mentioning strikes, she also mentioned
lockouts. So, that is something which should also be studied by the
Committee. I think during the interpellations, this was brought out by one of
the
Commissioners, that if we guarantee the right to strike, should we not also
protect or guarantee the right to lock out? I am just submitting that for the
study of the Committee.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Foz be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Foz is recognized.
MR. FOZ: Madam President, my proposed amendment would only affect the
last sentence of Section 4. It would actually be rearranged, but it is not a
matter
of style because some substantive ideas are sought to be incorporated. My
proposed amendment is as follows: THE STATE SHALL REGULATE THE
RELATIONS BETWEEN
understand that Commissioner Lerum, who is known for his concern for
labor, will have no objection to such a suggestion. In other words, instead of
rewriting Section 9 and making it much longer and more complicated, I
wonder if the Committee will consider the transposition of Section 9 of the
Article
on the Declaration of Principles to the Article on Social Justice.
MR. BENGZON: We will consider that, Madam President.
MR. LERUM: Madam President, may I comment on the statement of
Commissioner Padilla?
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner may proceed.
MR. LERUM: I told the Commissioner that I am in favor of having that
incorporated in the Article on Social Justice, but it does not prevent the
inclusion
later on of other provisions. Actually, that provision is all-embracing, and I
think it covers several sections on social justice. So, my conformity is
that it could be a part of the Article on Social Justice.
MR. PADILLA: But if this provision, this Section 9 Declaration of Principles
is already all-embracing, pursuant thereto, regarding details or some
measures to implement those principles, it will be for the Congress to enact
the measures as suggested in the Romulo amendment to Section 1. We
declare the
fundamentals or the objectives, and let us not burden the Constitution with
so many additional words or additional paragraphs. Make it simple, of course,
with the understanding that the Congress may always enact measures to
implement these fundamental principles and objectives.
MR. BENGZON: We will consider, Madam President, in the Committee.
MR. PADILLA: Thank you.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I ask that Commissioner Nolledo be recognized for an
anterior amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Nolledo is recognized.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you, Madam President.
should
accrue to the benefit of not only himself but of others.
My amendment consists of combining Sections 1 and 2 of the report of the
Committee on Social Justice, because I think Section 2 is merely a sequel to
Section 1 and, therefore, Sections 1 and 2 must go together.
I have reproduced many of the words of the Committee.
I would like the Commission to know that the Supreme Court of the
Philippines, in the case of de la Cruz vs. Paras, on July 25, 1983, said that
regulation
does not mean control. There is no control involved- there is no prohibition
involved. So, regulation for the common good is an expression that should
find
acceptance in modern Filipino society.
So, Section 1, as amended, should read: Social Justice, as a social,
economic, political AND moral imperative DESIGNED TO PROTECT AND
ENHANCE THE
INALIENABLE RIGHT TO HUMAN DIGNITY AS WELL AS TO PROMOTE THE
COMMON GOOD shall be CONSIDERED BY the State in national development.
To this end, THE
Congress shall give the highest priority to the reduction of social, economic
and political inequities BY REGULATING THE ACQUISITION, OWNERSHIP, USE
AND
DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY AND ITS FRUITS, ESTABLISHING INDEPENDENT
AND SELF-RELIANT SOCIO-POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC STRUCTURES,
AFFORDING PROTECTION TO LABOR,
WOMEN AND MINORS, UPLIFTING THE CONDITION OF THE POOR,
PROTECTING THE HEALTH OF ALL THE CITIZENS AND RESPECTING THE
RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS COMMUNITIES.
Madam President, this provision reflects the entire contents of the report of
the Committee on Social Justice. We will notice that the definition of
social justice by Jose P. Laurel in Calalang vs. Williams talked only of social
and economic structures or aspects. I commend the Committee on Social
Justice for adding the political aspect as well. When Commissioner Regalado
asked about the legal aspect, I think it is already included in the political
aspect.
There are some good points in the Romulo amendment such as respect for
human dignity and distribution of political power. I did not find the word
political; I found only the word power. So, I would be happier if the
Romulo amendment will incorporate the power of the State to regulate
property of
any kind for the common good.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the reaction of the Committee?
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, the Committee has more than enough
enlightenment from Bible quotations. We will consider the . . .
MR. ROMULO: Just a point of clarification, Madam President. Actually, I did not
amend Section 2. I was only concerned with Section 1. So, as far as I am
concerned, Section 2 is still in the draft.
MS. NIEVA: Yes, we understand that, Commissioner Romulo.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Davide be
recognized for his amendment on Section 5.
MS. QUESADA: Madam President, before we proceed to Section 5, may I be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Quesada is recognized.
MS. QUESADA: I would like to state some observations on Section 3, on labor,
which I would like to put on record because these have not been brought out
in
earlier discussions. This is the inclusion in Section 3 of the State affording full
protection to labor, both domestic and overseas. I would like to
highlight the problem of Filipino overseas workers.
As a matter of fact, in our Committee, there was a proposal to have a
separate section, particularly for the problems of overseas workers. But since
we
wanted to be brief but broad, we covered this as part of the provision on
Section 3. The original intent was really for the State to recognize the right
and welfare of Filipino overseas workers, and for the State to exercise firm
control over manpower export and promote bilateral labor agreements with
countries of employment. There is recognition that the problems of overseas
or migrant workers are distinct and they have characteristics entirely
different from domestic labor, more particularly under the social environment
in which these migrant workers operate.
So, this section is with the understanding that the State should afford special
protection to our overseas workers who are not covered by Labor Code
violations of law in the picket lines, all of which have the effect of judicial
intimidation of workers picketing a firm, which means that the hand of the
law, in this case, an injunction by the courts, is seen as repressive of the
right to picket. I therefore would like to inquire whether the authors of this
Section 4 may have taken this into account and whether they agree that we
should add a sentence or insert a new section which will prohibit the courts
from
enjoining strikes.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, on behalf of the Committee, may I reply to
Commissioner Ople?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Commissioner Aquino may proceed.
MS. AQUINO: I would have a lot of difficulty accepting his proposal for an
expressed provision on the prohibition against court injunctions. In the first
instance, it is a generally accepted principle of labor- management relations
that the court cannot by judicial fiat enjoin labor disputes by way of
return-to-work orders. Besides, there is a statutory provision in the Labor
Code on this matter which prohibits courts from enjoining labor disputes.
MR. OPLE: Which the courts routinely disregard.
MS. AQUINO: Yes, in fact, the origin of the statute is the Norris-La Guardia
Act.
My problem is that an expressed proviso which attains the level of a
constitutional provision might unduly stymie the possibilities of settlement of
disputes which would involve national interest and national welfare.
However, I would like to assure Commissioner Ople that when we say there
should be
preference for voluntary modes of settling disputes, the position is to reduce
to the barest minimum State intervention and State interference in the
settlement of labor-management conflicts.
MR. OPLE: And this includes court injunctions.
MS. AQUINO: This includes court injunctions.
MR. OPLE: If that is the intendment of the Committee and of the Commission,
then I will not press this amendment, Madam President.
Thank you.
MS. AQUINO: I thank the Gentleman.
collectively? Ang
ibig sabihin nito ay ang sama-samang paggawa batay sa tenant
prerogatives; sa tanim tulad ng asukal, pinya at saging; at sa sukat ng lupa
sapagkat kung ito
ay maliit, makakamit ng mga magbubukid ang economies of scale sa samasamang paggawa. Iyan ang ibig sabihin ng collectively.
Tungkol naman sa sinasabing just distribution of all agricultural lands, ang
ibig sabihin nito ay tuluyan nang wawasakin ang tinatawag na land
monopoly.
On lines 23 and 24, the term retention limits ay nangangahulugang
binibigyan ng proteksiyon ang maliit na panginoon ng lupa lalo na ang
owner-cultivator
na maiiwanan ng lupang maaari niyang sakahin. Ang pangalawang
napakahalagang nagbibigay proteksiyon sa panginoon ng lupa ay ang fair
and progressive
system of compensation. Ito ay hindi just compensation na
nangangahulugang fair market value sa jurisprudence. Ang batas ay
pasulong at hindi paatras sa
ilalim ng right of preemption and right of redemption. Ang ibig sabihin nito ay
kailangan ang reasonable capacity of the tenant to pay. Ayon sa mga linyang
23 at 24, kapag maliit ang lupa, malaki ang halaga nito; at habang lumalaki
ang lupa, lumiliit ang halaga nito upang mabigyan ng proteksiyon ang
tenant-beneficiaries.
Ang Section 6 ay nagsasabi ng mga component ng agrarian reform; hindi
sapat lamang ang agrarian reform.
MR. DAVIDE: My amendment is only on Section 5 yet.
MR. TADEO: Kung maaari lamang ipaliliwanag ko munang lahat.
Magpapaliwanag muna ako upang malutas ang kaguluhan sa dalawang araw
nating pagtatalakayan. Ito
ang layunin ko.
Ang ibig sabihin ng Section 6 ay may mga component ang agrarian reform
gaya ng farmers and farm workers participation in planning, organizing and
management of the program, plus appropriate technical assistance,
adequate financial and marketing assistance. Ito ang mga component ng
isang matagumpay na
programa.
Ang Section 7 ay tungkol sa pagbibigay o disposisyon ng ibang natural
resources, public domain and public lands sa tatlong milyong tao. Ito ay ang
pagpapatupad ng prinsipyong land for the landless.
Bumalik tayo ngayon sa Section 5. Gaya ng sinabi ko, nawawala rito ang
primacy of the rights of farmers and farm workers. Inalis na ba ng Ginoo ang
land
reform?
MR. DAVIDE: By the way, I would like to make a correction. Instead of FARM
HOLDERS, it should be FARMWORKERS.
MR. TADEO: Iminungkahi ng Ginoo na tanggalin na ang natural resources
subalit isinama namin ito sa kadahilanang saan natin dadalhin ang tatlo
hanggang
apat na milyong landless agricultural workers?
MR. DAVIDE: That is on the title only, not on Section 5.
MR. TADEO: Hindi na kasi ginamit ng Ginoo ang land reform; mas tamang
salita ang agrarian reform. Ang ibig sabihin ng land reform ay problema sa
lupa
lamang; ang ibig sabihin ng agrarian reform is the land in relation to farmers
and farm workers.
MR. DAVIDE: That is correct.
MR. TADEO: Kayat sa agrarian reform, kasama na rito ang relasyon ng lupa
sa tao at sa lipunan, sa pangkalahatan. Subalit nakita kong nawala ang una.
Iminungkahi rin ng Ginoo ang mga salitang MAY OWN subalit parang
nahihinaan ako rito, hindi potent. Dapat ay MUST OWN dahil hindi potent ang
MAY.
Inalis din ng Ginoo ang retention limits. Sa akin ay napakahalaga ng
retention limits. Kapag ang panginoon ng lupa ay hindi nagbubungkal ng
lupa, hindi
siya magkakaroon ng retention limit. Ang ibig nating sabihin ay subject to
such limitation, mayroong karapatan ang owner-cultivator na maiwan ang
pagsasaka.
MR. DAVIDE: May I respond now?
Madam President, the proposal would even strengthen the concept of reform.
I insisted on the addition of LAND because there is really a distinction
between
agrarian reform and land reform. Obviously, agrarian reform will relate only
to instances of lands where we have somebody working there who is not the
owner of the property. But in land reform, we allow the distribution even of
public lands to the landless, or to those who are qualified to acquire,
especially to farm workers and farmers who do not own their own land or
who are only working on anothers land. So, we broaden the effect of land
and
agrarian reforms because, I repeat, technically speaking, there is a
distinction a wide distinction between agrarian reform on the one hand,
and
ordinary land reform on the other hand.
Secondly, in this particular case, we did not delete the concept of the
primacy of the rights of farmers and farm workers. In other words, this only
confirms the existence of the right, as worded; it is confirmatory of that right.
There is no need to reemphasize that right because that right is
conceded, and it now becomes the duty of the State to undertake these
genuine and authentic land and agrarian reforms. We do not need to state
retention
limits because in the course of the interpellations, Commissioner Tadeo
always emphasized that it will be left to the Congress. So, we will leave it to
the Congress. I am sure that the matter of retention would be among those
to be taken up, especially taking into account the provisions on the national
patrimony with respect to public lands and privately owned lands.
Under my proposal, we do not even compel the payment of just and
progressive compensation if it would be for public lands. The State would
have the sole
authority, the discretion even, to distribute these lands freely. But under the
original proposal, the farmers and farm workers are required to pay just
and progressive compensation even for public lands. Under my proposal, we
leave it to the State; we leave it to the Congress to decide whether to require
payment for it or not. But with respect to private lands, we should not go
against the mandate of the Bill of Rights on just compensation. After all, it
would be the State that will expropriate; it is the State that will pay, and it is
now for the State to determine how reimbursement of such payments will
be made by the farmers or the farm workers to the government. So, it should
not be said that I am trying to delimit or diminish the impact of the original
proposal; I am even helping broaden its impact.
MR. TADEO: Nagpapasalamat ako kay Commissioner Davide.
Marahil ay mayroon tayong suliranin dito. Ang pag-uusapan natin dito ay
iyong natural resources o land. Palagay ko, ito ang magiging problema natin.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes. That should belong to the Article on National Economy and
Patrimony, a copy of which I brought with me. I believe that the proper area
for
this would really be the Article on National Economy and Patrimony. I have
here Committee Report No. 24 of the Committee on the National Economy
and
Patrimony. I believe that the objectives of the Committee on Social Justice
are all embodied in the proposed Article on National Economy and Patrimony
which is even broader in effect. So, we have to give due recognition also to
the proposed Article on National Economy and Patrimony. I understand that
Commissioner Villegas would support this particular view that the provisions
in the proposed Article on National Economy and Patrimony would even be
broader than what is recommended. So, we should delete natural resources
reform and transfer it to the Article on National Economy and Patrimony.
MR. TADEO: Iilan na lamang ang hindi natin napagkakasunduan dito. Para
akong nahihinaan sa salitang may kayat baka maaari itong gawing MUST.
MR. DAVIDE: It can be changed to SHALL. I agree.
MR. TADEO: Maliwanag na nandito iyong primacy of the rights.
MR. DAVIDE: Certainly, it is inherent, it is conceded, and that is why we give
a mandate. We make it a duty on the part of the State to respect that
particular right.
MR. TADEO: Pinasasalamatan ko si Commissioner Davide.
MR. BENGZON: Am I to understand that perhaps the underlying reason why
the Gentleman used the word may is that he is envisioning a situation
where there
may be some farmers who may not wish to have . . .
MR. DAVIDE: To enjoy the benefit.
MR. BENGZON: Yes.
MR. DAVIDE: That is really at the back of my mind but we can put it there as
SHALL.
MR. BENGZON: But that is the underlying reason why the Gentleman placed
the word.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, certainly, because we also cannot compel a farmer to avail
of the advantage or the right if he does not want to.
MR. BENGZON: Thank you.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, may I ask a few questions for clarification
in the record?
Iyon din ang pagkakaalam ko. Gusto ko lang maging maliwanag ito sa Record
upang hindi masawi ang pag-asa ng mga magsasaka na ang akala ay
magiging sa
kanila ang pag-aari ng lupa. Nais nating liwanagin na hindi ito complete
ownership, limited rights lamang.
MR. TADEO: Salamat din po.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Padilla is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: I heard Commissioner Tadeo state that this proposal of a fair
and progressive system of compensation is a deviation from or is not in
conformity with the basic concept of just compensation. He mentioned
preemption or redemption. The Civil Code has recognized the rights of
preemption
and/or redemption in the law on sales in favor of a co-owner or an adjacent
owner when a co-owner sells his share in the co-ownership or has a ready
buyer
for his undivided share. The right of preemption is for one of the co-owners
to exercise that right before actual sale by offering to pay the same price
offered by a prospective buyer to a co-owner. The right of redemption is
exercised when the sale is consummated by a third person covering the
portion of a
co-owner of the undivided property. So, the rights of preemption and
redemption are based on actual sale of property, and that is the meaning of
just
compensation, where a person who wants to sell and another who wants to
buy can agree on the value of the property.
So, I want to clarify that these rights of preemption or redemption are not an
infringement of the principle of just compensation. They are, in fact, a
clear application of that principle of just compensation because there is a
prospective sale or an actual sale which is voluntary and the parties have
agreed on the value or the price thereof.
When this committee report says that the farmers or workers will own the
lands they till, I suppose we have to make a distinction, as Commissioner
Davide
said, between public lands and privately owned lands. If they are public
lands, there will be no problem because they are part of the lands of the
public
domain which, if alienable, can and should be distributed for more cultivation
and production. But with regard to privately owned lands, will this not
violate the principle in the Bill of Rights regarding the exercise of eminent
domain?
The three powers of government are taxation, police power and eminent
domain. The Bill of Rights provides:
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of
law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
And Section 2 states: Private property shall not be taken for public use
without just compensation.
Article 435 of the Civil Code provides for the same principle that private
property may only be taken in the exercise of eminent domain by competent
authority for a public purpose and upon payment of just compensation. Some
people will say: If we pass this section on agrarian reform in the
Constitution, then it cannot be unconstitutional because it is in the
Constitution. But it violates the principle of private property and the proper
exercise of the right of eminent domain.
Should we not reconcile or harmonize both provisions? Otherwise, I am afraid
that a provision that private lands be owned by the farm workers will be
embodied erroneously in the 1986 Constitution, that provision will be
unconstitutional or, at least, an illegal exercise of the purported right of
eminent
domain or expropriation.
The 1935 Constitution permits the distribution of big landed estates. But that
provision, in many decisions of our courts, does not permit the distribution
or division of private property for disposition to or to be allocated in favor of
other persons because we will then be sacrificing the right of private
property which is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights. I would like the Committee
to consider.
MR. TADEO: Ibig ko lamang sagutin ang Ginoo na sa ilalim ng 1973
Constitution, nakalagay sa Declaration of Principles, Article II, Section 6, ang
equitably diffuse property ownership. Pahayag ito ng isang paninindigan ng
isang saligang batas.
Tingnan natin ang social justice ayon sa Calalang vs. Williams case. Ang
sumusunod ang naging desisyon sa nabanggit na kaso:
But the humanization of laws and the equalization of social and economic
forces by the State, the promotion of the welfare of all the people, the
adoption
by the government of measures calculated to insure economic stability of all
MR. PADILLA: I have not prepared an amendment because I feel that the
basic concepts on expropriating private property for even the deserving farm
workers
under a system of compulsory land expropriation, private land expropriation,
under a system of compulsory private land expropriation are, in my opinion,
illegal and unconstitutional.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: I think the concern of Commissioner Padilla is well taken care of
in my proposal. Under my proposal, with respect to private lands, payment of
just compensation is required
THE PRESIDENT: So, the Committee will study this particular proposed
amendment of Commissioner Davide.
MS. NIEVA: Yes, we shall. We have it in written form.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: It is now 12: 15 p.m. I move for a suspension of the session
until 2:30 p.m.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.
May we remind the Commissioners that we are having our caucus with our
luncheon at South Caucus Rooms A and B immediately after this session.
It was 12:16 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 2:50 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
hectares may cover lands that are not productive compared to two hectares
that are highly productive, because there are lands that are not productive in
the sense that they are stony and no matter how much fertilizer is used, the
produce of the land may not even support a family with four or five
members.
So, I think we should leave it to Congress to determine the extent of the
exemption that should be granted, instead of Congress determining the
intention
of the Commission from separate statements coming from the members of
the Committee.
I would like to quote the Supreme Court about these small landholders whose
lands might be subject to agrarian reform, thereby creating a new set of
impoverished people. By transferring one land from a group to another group
of landless people, we thereby create another group of landless citizens,
which
is a grave injustice. The Supreme Court referred to these small landholders in
the case of Nilo vs. Court of Appeals, speaking through Justice Gutierrez.
According to the Supreme Court, these small landowners are teachers,
clerks, nurses and other hardworking and frugal people who, in a lifetime of
sacrifice, gathered their pitiful little savings and purchased small farms to
supplement the inadequate pension from the Government Service Insurance
System or the Social Security System.
The Supreme Court went further by saying that these landowners constitute
part of the economic middle class which the government is trying to build.
They
deserve as much consideration as the tenants themselves in order not to
create economic dislocation, where the tenants are solely favored while this
particular group of land-owners is impoverished.
So, ladies and gentlemen, I think we should leave it to Congress to determine
priorities and exemptions with respect to the implementation of the land
reform program. I think this is a sane proposal. These landowners constitute
a great bulk of the Filipino population. They are alarmed by the statement of
Mr. Tadeo that their landholdings shall be subject to agrarian reform.
I am in favor of agrarian reform, a meaningful and genuine agrarian reform.
But I think the Members of Congress should be given some leeway. They are
not
less patriotic as the members of the Committee or the Members of this
Constitutional Commission. Besides, they can articulate more validly the
sentiments
of the people, they being elected by the people, and thereby enjoying the
mandate of the people.
Some people outside say that the Members of this Commission do not enjoy
a real mandate from the people, although I think that the people tacitly gave
us
that mandate. And so, I hope the Committee will seriously consider my
reasonable amendments.
I would like to mention here, Madam President, that in yesterdays Manila
Chronicle, quoting Minister Heherson Alvarez, of the 710,000 hectares of land
that should come under the operation of P.D. No. 27, only 11,000 hectares
are covered by land transfer certificates. That is the reason why I mentioned
the
word priorities in the amendment, in view of the statement of Minister
Mitra that we should still finish land reform covering rice or corn land before
we
go to land reform of coconuts or sugarland. I think the supporting structures
of the land reform program will entail a lot of expense, Madam President, and
we cannot raise the false hopes of our people, in the words of Commissioner
Rodrigo.
I want to be realistic on this aspect, although I am fully in favor of a genuine
land reform program because with respect to sugar or coconut lands, we
should leave much of the discretion to Congress because we may be bound
by certain international commitments on quota requirements. For example,
we cannot
apply the land reform program as understood with respect to rice or corn to
sugar or coconut land or even to saltbed or to fishponds. I think much leeway
should be given to Congress, because Congress has the facilities. Congress
may have the technological knowledge or the expertise but we are subject to
constraints of time and we are likewise subject to limitations of facilities. I
think we should have more confidence in the representatives of the people.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: May I inform the body that we have just approved a rule in
our caucus that we will limit the time for every speaker to ten minutes. Let
us
be guided, and I shall ask the Secretariat to put on the timer.
MS. NIEVA: Can we get the amendment of the Commissioner in writing? Is
this a new one?
MR. NOLLEDO: I submitted the amendment in writing to the Committee. I will
give the original to the Committee, and I hope this can be reproduced soon.
Commissioner Gascon has the amendment. Instead of using retention
limits, upon consultation with some of my colleagues, I changed it to
EXEMPTIONS for
wider coverage.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: May the Committee make a few remarks in response to the
remarks of the Commissioner?
THE PRESIDENT: Please proceed.
MR. MONSOD: We just want to make a clarification. In Section 7, the
Gentleman mentioned that he thought the intent of the Committee in
mentioning
principles of agrarian reform was merely to reiterate security of tenure. We
just want to clarify that the Committee means more than that. Commissioner
Tadeo answered the other day that natural resources may be of several
types. These may be forestry, mining, lands of the public domain, but which
are
subject to alienation, lease or concession.
So with respect to lands and the public domain suitable to agriculture, it is
the intention of the Committee that the principles of agrarian reform be
practiced by the State itself when it does dispose or alienate lands of the
public domain. The example is the Guthrie palm oil plantation of which 8,000
hectares were initially declared by decree to be alienable and disposable, but
were disposed of in favor of the NDC. The NDC then went into an agreement
with Guthrie on a 6040 basis. This is an example where, perhaps the State
should at first have thought of the people who were there, that they should
have
been given an opportunity to have the ownership of this land since it was
going to be alienated and disposed of anyway. The principal thing is that the
State should start with its own backyard, if it is serious about agrarian
reform.
In the case of other natural resources, let us say, forestry or mining, the
intent of this provision is merely to say that in applying the principle of
agrarian reform, the chief beneficiaries should be the people in the areas. So,
instead of having absentee logging concessions owned by people from
outside
the area, the people in the area and the communities themselves should be
considered, too, as the principal beneficiaries. The people may be entrusted
with
the land but need not be given to them by title. It can be the same kind of
concession or rights that are now given under the law. If they are the ones
given that right, we expect that they will take better care of the area
because their children and grandchildren will still be there and, therefore,
they
would undertake activities like reforestation.
On Section 7, Commissioner Davide proposed that the words natural
resources be amended and replaced with the word land. The intent of the
Committee is
more than just land; it means other natural resources and lands of the
public domain suitable to agriculture, regardless of whether it be disposable
or
alienable, or under lease or concession. That is the intent of the Committee.
MR. NOLLEDO: I got the point, Madam President. At any rate, I am
reproducing in my amendment almost the exact words of the Committee.
Thank you.
MR. MONSOD: May I also add another aspect to this. The Committee feels
that there are several instances where it might be termed an unjust
acquisition,
for example, if it is the product of political patronage or cronyism. If it is a
product of a real, honest and bona fide transaction, certainly in the
transition from a single beneficiary to the community as the principal
beneficiary, there would be scope for just compensation.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I would like to request all those who desire to
present amendments to present the text of the same to the Secretariat to be
immediately typed and distributed for more expeditious proceedings so that
the Commissioners, besides the Committee members, can study them
intelligently.
MR. NOLLEDO: For the information of the Floor Leader, Madam President, I
submitted the amendment to the Committee. That amendment was given by
the head of
the Committee to Commissioner Tadeo.
MR. RAMA: Please submit them to the Secretariat who will distribute the
same.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Who is our next speaker?
MR. RAMA: The next speaker, Madam President, is Commissioner Davide who
started amending this particular section this morning.
reasonable
capacity of the farmer to pay.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, since the use of the term just compensation
is also in the Nolledo proposal and I understand this is also the proposal of
Commissioner Padilla I would request for a deferment until the Committee
shall have taken into account and studied all the proposed amendments to
Section
5.
MR. TADEO: Salamat po.
MR. BENGZON: Would Commissioner Davide be willing to go back to the old
definition of just compensation?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes.
MR. BENGZON: Before that decree of President Marcos, did just
compensation mean the true market value?
MR. DAVIDE: That should be aligned with the meaning of just compensation
in the Bill of Rights.
MR. BENGZON: So that is the kind of meaning the Gentleman would impute
to these words just compensation under the proposal.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, that was the meaning indicated by the Chairman of the
Committee when we took up the Article on the Bill of Rights.
MR. BENGZON: Thank you.
MR. MONSOD: May we also suggest that in the case of just compensation,
we merely state the compensation to be paid to the former landowner?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes.
MR. MONSOD: However, as far as the source of the repayment is concerned,
it may be that the farmer is not able to afford the just compensation. This is
a
proper area where the State can come in, if it intends to give support or
subsidy. That may be called for in order that the farmer will get a chance to
own
a piece of land. Besides, there might not be a strict correspondence between
a just compensation for the landowner and the capacity of the farmer to pay.
own, and I understand that he used the word may advisably because no
individual should be compelled to own a parcel of land if he does not want to.
Then, I understand that he has changed it to shall own. Are we to
understand now that individuals may be compelled to own lands?
MR. DAVIDE: Of course, a right may be waived, but the sense of the proposal
is to clarify the mandate on the State. It is up to the farmer or the farm
worker to enjoy the benefit or the privilege or the right.
MR. JAMIR: Thank you for the clarification.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Maambong be
recognized for another amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you, Madam President.
In Section 5, the word genuine is used to qualify the agrarian reform
program, and this word has been carried over in the proposed amendment of
Commissioner Davide and that of Commissioner Nolledo. My only proposed
amendment is to change the word genuine to CONTINUING so that it would
read:
CONTINUING agrarian reform program. This agrarian reform program has
been with us for a long time. If my memory serves me right, in the prizewinning
oration of then Senator Raul Manglapus in the Ateneo while he was still a
student, he was already talking about agrarian reform in his piece entitled
Land
of Bondage. And because of that oration, I understand President Quezon
took notice of him. Yesterday, I mentioned the favorite Republic Act of
Commissioner Tadeo RA 3844, the Agricultural Land Reform Code. In 1971,
we had the Code of Agrarian Reforms, RA Nos. 6389 and 6390, and then we
had P.D.
Nos. 2 and 27. So, it would not really be in keeping with correctness if we use
the word genuine with the agrarian reform program. To my mind, we would
rather use the proper term continuing agrarian reform. If we say
genuine, it gives a sad commentary on the reform programs undertaken
not only by
President Marcos, but also by the previous Presidents of this Republic. I am
submitting this for consideration but the Committee does not have to rule on
it right now.
Thank you very much.
do not have the indirect right. So, we better eliminate this direct or
communal use because that is already conceded in the right itself in the
first opening sentence. That is already a right.
MR. RAMA: One clarificatory question from Commissioner Maambong.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, may I direct this question to
Commissioner Davide or to the Committee.
Does not the Committee think that the right granted in this particular section
is already covered by Fisheries Act No. 4003, as amended by Commonwealth
Act
No. 471, as amended by so many presidential decrees?
MR. DAVIDE: I agree that we have these laws but let us also consider what is
actually happening to the marginal fishermen and the local communities.
They
are deprived by those who can have the political clout, the protection of
politicians. There are also big fishermen who have the monopoly of certain
areas.
We direct it as a right. We mandate the State to respect it as a right and,
therefore, it cannot be removed by legislation. The Fisheries Act can be
amended at any time to deprive the marginal fishermen of the rights.
MR. MAAMBONG: In other words, Madam President, all these rights proposed
to be granted in this Constitution are already covered by the Fisheries Act, as
amended, and the administrative provisions of the Bureau of Fisheries but we
just want them constitutionalized.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, because this particular law and the regulations and rules
thereof have always been made in favor of not the marginal fishermen but
others
who I said can have some political clout or can have the patronage of
politicians.
MR. MAAMBONG: May I ask the Committee to comment on this?
MR. MONSOD: We agree with the position of Commissioner Davide that it
might be appropriate to expressly mention it in the Constitution. However,
we would
like to inform Commissioner Davide that two of the problems that we wanted
to address is a situation in Laguna de Bay where areas of the bay were
appropriated or allowed to be used by private fishpen owners to the
exclusion of the marginal fishermen. The other one is the question of the
offshore
fishermen where by reason of certain treaties with other countries, the offshore fishermen were really deprived of a livelihood because of the presence
of
large-scale trawlers within seven kilometers from the seashore. We sought to
address ourselves to the problem by emphasizing communal use of water
resources in inland waters, as well as offshore.
Would the amendment of the Gentleman still cove and emphasize the rights
of these fishermen to these areas, or can he suggest appropriate language
so that
we amply cover those problems?
MR. DAVIDE: The opening of this section reads The State shall protect the
rights of fishermen. So here we already recognize the existence of that right
whether that right is direct or indirect; but it is a definite, concrete, positive
right that is being recognized We also mandate the State to respect that
particular right. So, insofar as the problems addressed to earlier are
concerned, necessarily, any special grant over these areas will have to yield
to
this specific mandate now. So, all permits or concessions I do not know
how to call these benefits granted will have to be reconciled with this and,
therefore, if these would affect the rights of the marginal fishermen, those
grants must necessarily have to be repealed or revoked.
MR. MONSOD: In other words, the amendment actually is less limiting than
putting in the words direct or communal.
MR. DAVIDE: That is correct. It is precisely to emphasize the positive
character of the right.
MS. NIEVA: Would this also cover the problem of these big Japanese trawlers
which come in and take advantage of the fishing resources so that the small
fishermen can hardly finance?
MR. DAVIDE: Undoubtedly, because this is now a right of first impression.
Before, they did not have the right, it was only a privilege, especially for
offshore fishermen.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, would it also help in the interpretation if we
put PROTECT THE PREFERENTIAL RIGHTS OF MARGINAL FISHERMEN AND
LOCAL COMMUNITIES
TO THE USE OF FISHING RESOURCES?
MR. DAVIDE: That would be much better really. I agree to the use of SHALL
PROTECT THE PREFERENTIAL RIGHTS. That would remove all possible
doubts in the
interpretation of the right.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Rodrigo be
recognized for one clarificatory question?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: My question has reference to the words local communities
on line 8. The State shall protect the rights of local communities, not only
fishermen, to fishing resources, both inland and offshore. Does local
communities mean the communities bordering the fishing ground?
MR. DAVIDE: I would refer the matter to the Committee. It is not covered by
my proposal.
MR. RODRIGO: I want to give an example. In my own province of Bulacan, we
have municipalities bordering Manila Bay Hagonoy, Paombong, Malolos,
Bulacan
and Obando. These are good fishing grounds; we call them communal fishing
grounds. Fishermen from Bataan and Cavite go there to fish. Now, is it the
purpose of this Article to instruct Congress to reserve these communal
fishing grounds bordering the towns of Bulacan to Bulakeos only?
MS. NIEVA: Yes. I think that is precisely what the Committee thinks that it
is the local community who should be the first beneficiaries of the
resources.
MR. MONSOD: We also want to say that while the intent is that there should
be some preferential rights by shore communities, this is not to the exclusion
of everybody else. What we are trying to avoid is a situation where other
people come in and completely take over the communal grounds and the
people in
the shore communities which derive their livelihood from that communal
fishing ground, thereby losing all their livelihood opportunities. That is the
intent of the Committee, Madam President, and we would be very happy to
receive suggestions as to what may be properly reflected in the provision.
MR. RODRIGO: In other words, if Congress enacts a law, saying that only
those Bulakeos living in the municipalities by the shoreline may fish in that
communal fishing ground, that would not be valid.
MR. MONSOD: That would not be the intent, Madam President.
MR. OPLE: May I ask Commissioner Rodrigo and the Committee a question
concerning this?
Congress
days setting aside the 2,695 hectares of communal fishing grounds in
Bulacan referred to by Commissioner Rodrigo for the bay shore area of
Bulacan,
Bulacan. The idea was that the area was dedicated and was reserved for the
marginal fishermen, but anybody can fish with out him building a fishpond in
that place. I put in the law that anyone building or parcelling a lot there to
the prejudice of the marginal fishermen will have his obstruction removed as
nuisance per se. I placed that in the law as nuisance per se and in a
summary manner it a can be removed by the government, expenses for
which can be
charged against the one responsible for the obstruction. That is the reason
why we have a communal fishing ground in Bulacan.
Now the point is, I am also interested in emphasizing the right of the
fishermen to the reserved communal fishing grounds because these are
reserved for
marginal fishermen who cannot be expected to have the equipment to go
deeper into the sea. They are only marginal fishermen with small generators
and small
bancas and they actually need our help. May I inform the body about the
results of this law.
As soon as this 2,965 hectares rich in shrimps were declared as communal
fishing grounds, big fishpond owners from other provinces began to build
fishponds
there. Despite the law, which prescribes that the Constabulary will take
charge of the area and the Department of Agriculture will protect the area,
there
was no such protection. I am just giving the body our own experience.
And so, I agree that in the Constitution it is time that we devote our attention
to communal fishing grounds, but more importantly we should command the
legislature to protect these communal fishing grounds, for without this
protection we will just be giving the fisher men illusions because while they
will
have at the start communal fishing grounds, they will soon be deprived of
this privilege as proven from our past experience.
MS. NIEVA: Therefore, does Commissioner Natividad want the retention of
the phrase the communal use?
MR. NATIVIDAD: I am for the retention of communal fishing grounds and
that they should be protected by the State. I would like to say that any
obstruction should be dealt with summarily. As mentioned by Commissioner
Maambong, there is a plethora of laws, but all of these laws only give a
Laguna Bay, that is why from 1983 to 1985, the fishes in Laguna Bay got sick
and began to die.
Now, has the Committee taken into consideration what is to be done with the
Napindan Control Structure so that the communal fishermen whom we are
protecting here can be given their better livelihood?
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, during the hearings we received the
testimony from both the associations of fishpen operators and of the
fishermen around
Laguna e Bay. There have also been quite a number of studies made,
including an estimate of what would be an optimum area for fishpen
operators.
MR. DE CASTRO: I am not talking of the fishpens in Laguna de Bay. I am
talking of the Napindan Control Structure which prevents the entry of salt
water to
Laguna de Bay, thereby preventing water circulation and killing the very
source of livelihood for the marginal fishermen whom we are protecting here.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, we also received some technical
testimonies on the effect of the Napindan Dam because of the inability of salt
water to come
in and help generate the food for fish to grow in Laguna de Bay. That was
also presented to us in testimony although we ourselves are not the people
who
would say what should be done with the structures. We believe that this was
one of the considerations when we decided to draft the Article emphasizing
the
communal use which would also be a mandate to the government to make
sure that the fishing potential of the area is not hurt by artificial structures.
MR. DE CASTRO: May I inform the body that due to our continuous
representation in the Laguna Lake Development Authority, the gate to the
control structure
has been opened and after six months Laguna de Bay became alive again.
And so, we asked for the total dismantling of the Napindan Control Structure.
Has
the Committee taken that into consideration?
MS. NIEVA: I am afraid, Commissioner de Castro, that we were not really
concerned with such matters as with actually providing protection to the
marginal
fishermen. I think we were not really going into the technical aspects of our
studies.
MR. DE CASTRO: If we are concerned about the preferential rights and the
livelihood of 10,000 families around Laguna de Bay, then we should look into
the
reason why Laguna Bay is dying. And so, I will request the Committee to
make appropriate representation in order that the Napindan Control
Structure be
demolished so that the fishermen whom we are protecting be given their
proper livelihood.
Thank you.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, we are grateful for the manifestation of
Commissioner de Castro and the records of the Commission will be a very
good source
of information with regard to this matter.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you.
SR. TAN: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tan is recognized.
SR. TAN: I would like to express my appreciation to the Committee who
thought of the small fishermen and for the elucidation of Commissioners
Ople and
Rodrigo. When we were in the public hearing in Pagadian, we were told that
the small fishermen are being swallowed up by the big fishermen from the
Visayas
and Luzon.
Does communal mean that the big fishermen will have equal rights as the
marginal fishermen? What was the intent of the Committee?
MS. NIEVA: Precisely, our intent was to protect the preferential right of these
marginal fishermen.
SR. TAN: But if we say communal, does it mean protection?
MS. NIEVA: For the communities that live there.
SR. TAN: Preferential for the community?
MS. NIEVA: Yes.
SR. TAN: Is it enough to protect them from the sharks-from the big
fishermen?
MR. MONSOD: Yes, Madam President. I think this was part of the clarification
made by Commissioner Davide that the right being sought to be protected is
also the right to exclude the big fishermen from taking over completely the
areas to the detriment of those who rely on it for their livelihood. While we
are saying that it is not exclusive for such fishermen, the State has the duty
to exclude the big fishermen who deprive them of their livelihood.
SR. TAN: Thank you very much.
MR. TADEO: Madam President, palagay ko po, kasama ang laot, dahil ang
nakalagay dito ay both inland and offshore.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: May I just comment on the clarification earlier made by
Commissioner Natividad that we should retain the communal provision. I
fear that if
we have to put in said provision, there might be a possibility that Congress
will define a certain area in off-shore or inshore marine resource fishing
resources as noncommunal. So necessarily we might, in effect, diminish
the exercise of the right because it may be exercised only in areas which the
law
may declare as communal. Under the proposal, without the use of the word
communal, it simply means that this entire marine fishing resource
inland or
offshore will be open to the marginal fishermen for them to exercise
preferential rights. And so, if we now place communal, I am afraid that
Congress
will have a way of limiting the area within these resources as communal and
the rest may be open to big fishermen.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Nolledo be
recognized for his amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Nolledo is recognized.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you, Madam President.
I have a very short amendment on Section 13.
MS. QUESADA: Madam President.
MR. NOLLEDO: Have we reached Section 13 already?
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, the difference is with respect to the matter
of consultation and participation in the planning. Under the draft proposal
submitted by the Committee, a recognition on the part of the State to allow
the farmers, farm workers, cooperatives and other independent farmers
organizations to participate in the planning is demanded. As the
Commissioner proposes it, its target is the matter of consultation.
MR. DAVIDE: Under the proposal, is it the intention of the Committee to
require that representatives from the farmers, the farm workers, the farmers
organizations or associations will sit in these agencies or instrumentalities of
the government which would enforce or implement the agrarian reform
program?
MR. SUAREZ: That is the thrust of the proposal under Section 6, Madam
President.
MR. DAVIDE: So, is the State mandated now to provide a seat?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes.
MR. DAVIDE: Does this mean in any agency related to the formulation,
planning, organizing and implementation of the agrarian reform program?
MR. SUAREZ: Not necessarily a formal seat, but participation for some . . .
MR. DAVIDE: Would that participation be the matter of public hearings or
consultations?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, more in public hearings and consultations.
MR. DAVIDE: It is not necessarily then an allocation of a seat in policy-making
bodies.
MR. SUAREZ: Not a formal seat in the planning body, Madam President.
MR. DAVIDE: So, if that is the intention, I think the alternative proposal would
reflect the real intention. Under the original proposal, it does not
mandate that there should be seats allocated to them.
MR. BENGZON: That is not the idea. I think, as Commissioner Garcia will
explain, we will have to correlate Section 6 with the last section of the Article
on the role and rights of peoples organization.
MR. DAVIDE: Correct, because a broader interpretation is possible on the
present provision as proposed; that is, Section 6, together with the last
particular section possibly two interpretations: one, participation in the
MS. NIEVA: May we ask one question? There is a provision here that says in
order to meet the basic needs of the people. Would this be amply covered
by
that?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes, because the wording of this omnibus provision says that
all the goods produced in the Philippines should be produced for the benefit
of
the Filipino people with priority to the welfare of the poor. And then it goes
on by talking about all sectors being developed without priority to
anyone. In fact, the members of the Committee on the National Economy
and Patrimony will remember that some people objected to singling out
agriculture,
industry and services because there are so many sectors. We just made an
omnibus statement that all sectors, without any bias, will be developed,
whether
forward, backward or sideward. So, that is more than covered in this
provision.
MR. MONSOD: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I ask that the honorable
Commissioner Rosario Braid be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rosario Braid is recognized.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Madam President, may I comment on Section 8,
regarding fishermen, wherein Commissioner Davide has suggested the
adjective marginalized
to describe them. Several studies have shown that the small-scale traditional
fishermen are often classified as municipal fishermen. They are fishermen
using vessels three tons or less with gears that do not require beats and who
work in marine and inland waters. Forty percent of them own the boats they
use in fishing. The category of municipal fishermen is acceptable in some
studies.
I have earlier proposed also to transfer Sections 7 and 9 to the Article on
National Economy and Patrimony. But should we retain Section 9 in this
Article,
I would suggest that we include the concepts of alternative community
approaches in the development of agricultural small- and medium-scale
industries.
Some of the concepts that I would like to submit to the Committee include
approaches such as communal farms, cooperatives, nucleus states, etc.
The other comment that I would like to make is on Section 5 where I would
substitute the word genuine with COMPREHENSIVE. This concept is used to
describe land reform which seeks to expand areas beyond rice and corn.
In Section 1, on social justice, I hope the Committee would consider my
proposal which seeks to incorporate the concept of equitable sharing of the
fruits
and means of production and power, as well as the concept of achieving a
balanced social order. In the latter phrase, I would like to suggest the
concept
of placing primacy on need and then working towards the distribution of
resources in order that society becomes a habitat worthy of the dignity of
man.
MR. MONSOD: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, may I ask a question of the Committee now that
Section 9 is eliminated, or is it merely transposed?
MR. MONSOD: It would be transferred to the Article on National Economy and
Patrimony because they have a similar provision.
MR. OPLE: Thank you.
I hesitated to propose this amendment before for fear that this section, I
mean, the sections under Aquatic Resources Reform, might become
bloated. But
now that Section 9 is transposed, can we address more directly and
specifically these urgent concerns that were expressed by the fishermen in
the hearings
of some of our committees, both here and in the provinces, so that there will
be another section to replace Section 9 and it will simply read: THE STATE
SHALL PROTECT MUNICIPAL FISHING GROUNDS FROM INTRUSIONS EITHER BY
MAJOR TRAWLERS OR FOREIGN FISHING VESSELS?
Commissioner Monsod had earlier stressed the fears and grievances of the
small fishermen, especially from the Manila Bay area and the Laguna Lake. It
will
be remembered that even the commercial treaty between the Philippines
and Japan was frequently cited as a threat to the rights of the small
fishermen.
And when we speak of municipal fishing grounds, we really refer to what
otherwise would have been called communal fishing grounds. These are the
relatively
small coastal areas where poor fishermen and there are 600,000 of them
according to the census eke out their living day to day, when the weather
permits. And yet, we know that off Zambales I was there sometime ago
and in Iba, the fishermen were complaining about Japanese and Taiwanese
poachers
just two or three kilometers off the coast. And these fishing fleets are so
powerful, so unscrupulous and so insensitive to national feelings that they
are
said to ram the small fishing boats of the municipal fishermen off Zambales.
I think this is not confined to Zambales, meaning, that these poachers from
Japan, Taiwan and Korea routinely oppress our own small fishermen in their
own
municipal fishing grounds.
And so, if the Committee will be open to an amendment, specifically
addressing these concerns raised by the small fishermen, I would like to
formulate this
in a more precise form to be submitted to the Committee.
And before we leave the subject, may I call the attention of the Committee to
the fact that about 200,000 families along the Manila Bay coast and this
extends all the way from Zambales up to Cavite and portions of Batangas
may lose their livelihood entirely in just a matter of years because the Manila
Bay is being drained of marine life, mainly because of the activities of the big
trawlers that day to day bring up the catch from the seabed, including the
germs of life, the fry, the spawners and the offspring. That is the reason the
Bureau of Fisheries has proposed a sanctuary off Bulacan and Pampanga just
to make sure that marine life will not ultimately disappear in the Manila Bay
area.
And so, I also would like to address this problem of the depletion of the
means of livelihood of our people in areas, like the Manila Bay and Laguna
Lake,
through a more specific amendment. If the Committee cares, these
amendments will be precisely framed for its kind consideration.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, in the previous interpellations, I think it Was
made explicit that the situations and the concerns that the Gentleman has
expressed were covered by Section 8. However, we would still be happy to
look at some of the additions or modifications he may want to propose. For
example, when we talk about the use of marine and fishing resources, both
inland and offshore, maybe we can put the phrase PARTICULARLY MUNICIPAL
FISHING
GROUNDS or something like this.
But it is our interpretation that we are covering already the concerns which
the Gentleman has mentioned in this Article.
MR. OPLE: Thank you, Madam President.
I was referring to the elimination of one section from the subject Aquatic
Resources Reform. It is true that under Section 8, we are trying to
accommodate the protection of small fishermen, but it was in a manner that
they would fail to appreciate it unless a new section is added that will
address
the concerns that they urgently expressed in our public hearings, so that by
appreciating this concern of the Constitutional Commission there are
600,000
of them times five members of their household quite a load of votes may
be earned in favor of the ratification of this Constitution. I was wondering
whether the Committee will take that into account when I present the more
specific amendments.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. MONSOD: Thank you.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I ask that the honorable
Commissioner Romulo be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Romulo is recognized.
MR. ROMULO: Thank you, Madam President.
I have some minor amendments on Section 10, line 19. I would suggest that
we delete the word ensure and in lieu thereof insert the word MAKE. On
line 20,
between housing and at, insert the word AVAILABLE. And on line 21, put a
period (.) after areas and delete the rest of the sentence.
The amendments for lines 19 and 20 are obvious. I feel that to say ensure
is a very brave thing. One can never ensure but he can make available
decent
housing at an affordable cost. Probably, that is realizable.
The reason I suggest the deletion of the phrase together with
complementary infrastructure . . . is that this should be left to Congress,
otherwise, we
may have the unintended result that if Congress cannot provide anyone of
the enumerated qualifications, they will not go into basic housing at all. For
example, if they can provide for infrastructure but not employment-
generating economic activity, is it then the sense of the Committee that they
should not
go into decent housing available at affordable prices?
MS. NIEVA: In this specific provision, we took into consideration the sad
experiences brought about by relocation where they would transfer
thousands of
low-income urban poor dwellers to the different relocation centers only to get
them all back because there are no employment opportunities in the areas
where they were sent.
MR. ROMULO: I realize that problem and I do not deny it. But what I want the
Committee to consider is that we may be unintentionally limiting Congress.
MR. MONSOD: Would the Gentleman say that when we talk about urban land
reform and housing program, the term program would necessarily include
a mandate
that to the extent possible and the resources available, it must be an
integrated approach to the setting up of a decent housing? Would that be
encompassed
in the phrase Urban Land Reform and Housing Program?
MR. ROMULO: Yes, I think so. In fact, it is understood from even recent
developments in this field that when we say urban land reform and housing
program,
these are terms of art which include the business of infrastructure,
neighborhood services, etc. Anyway, I am presenting this for the
consideration of the
Committee.
On Section 11, line 24, I am now thinking of Commissioner Tans distinction
with regard to the urban poor dwellers which she described the other day.
And I
wonder if the following qualifying phrase may be helpful. Between dwellers
and shall, insert WITH LEGALLY VALID CLAIMS. I am not saying title; I am
saying CLAIMS. So, that distinguishes them from outright squatters.
Let me complete my suggested amendments. On line 21, put a period (.)
after relocated and delete the rest of the sentence. This is with the thought
that,
again, that could probably be worked out together with the Committees
program, rather than deciding at this point exactly how, when and where the
urban
dwellers are to participate in this kind of a program.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, when we talk of urban poor dwellers, let me
just tell the Gentleman what we are trying to address ourselves to and
maybe he
can help us with the wording.
MR. ROMULO: Yes, certainly.
MR. MONSOD: We realize that there are urban poor dwellers who may have a
valid claim, but as what Commissioner Tan has mentioned yesterday, for
some reason
or another, they encounter red tape and all kinds of impediment that they
cannot get titles to their land. In that case, it is quite clear that there is
already an existing valid claim and, therefore, they have a right to receive
title because they have been there for sometime. But there is another kind of
urban poor dweller whom people would call squatters, and under the law,
they may even be considered a nuisance per se. And we want to address
ourselves as
well to this problem, that even when there is no apparent legal claim or right,
these urban poor dwellers should be dealt with in a humane manner. In
effect, we have two types of urban poor dwellers here those who may
have a valid claim and those who may have no claim at all. One is subject to
due
process and the other, perhaps, to a just and humane manner of relocation.
MR. ROMULO: Yes, I think we have to separate the two concepts because
they are probably incompatible.
MS. NIEVA: Would the Gentleman consider some thing like this: EVICTION
AND RELOCATION OF URBAN POOR DWELLERS SHALL BE MADE IN A JUST
AND HUMANE MANNER, and
here we include rural communities. There are rural communities that have to
be evicted and relocated also. Can we provide for something like that?
MR. ROMULO: Yes, even violators and criminals are entitled to humane
treatment.
MS. NIEVA: Yes, but because of the many sad experiences that we had with
forced eviction and relocation where even the military was brought in . . .
MR. ROMULO: Yes, these are the outright squatters.
MS. NIEVA: Yes. I think even they would have to be evicted and relocated in a
just and humane manner.
MR. ROMULO: Let me then come back to the Committee with a possible
wording.
cost to
deserving low-income citizens . . . Will that be acceptable?
MR. ROMULO: Yes, I accept that.
MR. SARMIENTO: Thank you very much.
May I ask, Madam President, that Commissioner Padilla be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Padilla is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, I am referring to Section 10, particularly line
19, on the mention of Urban Land Reform and Housing Program. If the
intention
is to refer to the urban land reform decree issued by the past regime under
P.D. No. 1517, may I suggest that the words Land Reform and be
eliminated and
instead Urban Housing Program be substituted because we will be
constitutionalizing the decree issued by the past regime under Amendment
No. 6. I
mentioned the other day that even President Marcos did not implement his
own decree. There were subsequent PDs declaring Metro Manila an urban
land reform
area, but these were again modified to limit it to a hundred or so of the socalled depressed areas. If we retain this urban land reform, then we not only
assume the validity of P.D. No. 1517 which, in my opinion, is illegal and
unconstitutional, but we are even constitutionalizing it. Why should this 1986
Constitution make the presidential decrees of President Marcos during the
martial law regime a constitutional provision, or at least, giving it a
constitutional recognition which may even prevent the Congress to pass the
necessary legislation to modify or even repeal said P.D. No. 1517?
I hope that the members of the Committee will consider the deletion of the
line and if not, at least the words Land Reform and, so that it may remain
as
Urban Housing Program.
MR. BENGZON: We will consider it, Madam President.
MR. PADILLA: With regard to Section 11, I do not understand why we have to
distinguish between dwellers with a claim and dwellers without a claim.
There
was a question propounded by Commissioner Davide on whether there is no
intention to repeal or amend the provisions on lease so we will have a
contractual
lessee. But there are also circumstances where there is forcible entry,
cases, maybe in most cases, there might be a need for a subsidy. And to
assume that there is no need for a subsidy might foreclose a housing
program for
the urban poor.
MR. FOZ: May I add, Madam President, that another finding of the task force
is that about 75 percent of the squatters in Metro Manila are renting their
squatter huts from other people, in other words, from the professional
squatters; and only the 25 percent of the squatters are themselves the real
squatters; 75 percent are paying from P100 to P150 per month to
professional squatters.
MR. MONSOD: Thank you.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I ask the Commissioners to be brief
with their answers, interpellations, questions or amendments to give time to
the
Committee to deliberate on the proposed amendments. I think we have to
end early to give them more time.
THE PRESIDENT: Who is next?
MR. SARMIENTO: May I ask, Madam President, that Commissioner Maambong
be recognized for his brief amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: This is really very brief, Madam President. I was made to
understand in my interpellation a day or so ago that while the Committee is
adopting the principles of the urban land reform of the previous
administration, it has been properly explained that they are not equating this
with the
previous urban land reform decrees like P.D. Nos. 1517 and 1893. However, I
notice that in Section 10, line 11, when the Committee used the words
Urban
Land Reform and Housing, the Committee capitalized the first letters of the
words urban, land, reform and housing. This to me indicates a
specific urban land reform program. And the only land reform program that I
could think of is the urban land reform and housing program of the previous
administration.
And so, my very short amendment is not to capitalize these words because it
will indicate that these refer to the urban land reform and housing program
of
the previous administration.
is an urban area or a rural area. Right in the Metropolitan Manila area, there
are still many areas which are planted to rice and the same thing in the
provinces.
So, to be brief about it and possibly to help the Committee, I will furnish
them a copy of that decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Fabia vs.
Intermediate Appellate Court, November 21, 1984, so that in their
preparation of their report, they may take into account how the Supreme
Court considered
the distinction between urban and rural areas.
Thank you.
MR. MONSOD: Thank you.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Nolledo be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Nolledo is recognized.
MR. NOLLEDO: For a short amendment, Madam President. After the word
disabled on line 11, page 4, add the following: THE STATE SHALL PROVIDE
FREE MEDICAL
CARE TO PAUPERS.
I will explain for one minute only. Madam President. This is a provision that
implements the role of the State as parens patriae. I do not like to accept
the argument that the State has no funds. I think that where there is a will,
there is a way. If we have money for junkets, the government can create
funds
from various sources, like special levies, residence taxes and postage
stamps. Paupers have acquired an established meaning in jurisprudence,
Madam
President. They are basically those who have no source of livelihood, and
even if they have sources of livelihood, they are living on a hand-to-mouth
existence. Because of the economic turmoil which was brought about by the
repressive and corrupt Marcos regime, the number of paupers has increased
considerably. While many of them have developed resistance to disease
because of antibodies developed by poverty, when disease strikes, they
depend on the
charity of others, and when that charity is inadequate, they simply die.
So, I hope the members of the Committee will consider favorably my
recommended provision.
Thank you, Madam President.
MS. NIEVA: Yes, and we shall try to reconcile this with the Declaration of
Principles on family rights, the youth and children. There are two others.
MR. SARMIENTO: Thank you, Madam President.
May I ask, Madam President, that Commissioner Natividad be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Natividad is recognized.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Thank you, Madam President.
Even without being reminded, I will make it very brief. This is in connection
with Section 14, page 4. I have drawn a remark from Commissioner Quesada
that
she also considers it a concern of the State to take care of the problems on
drug abuse because this is not only a danger to physical health but to mental
health also, especially of the youth.
Therefore, after the end of the sentence in Section 14, I am proposing an
additional sentence to read: A PROGRAM FOR THE PREVENTION OF DRUG
ABUSE SHALL BE
UNDERTAKEN BY THE STATE.
Thank you, Madam President.
MS. QUESADA: Madam President, may I ask Commissioner Natividad a few
questions?
MR. NATIVIDAD: Gladly.
MS. QUESADA: Of course, the Gentleman is aware that there is an existing
drug abuse prevention program under the jurisdiction of the Dangerous
Drugs Board.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Yes, Madam President, I happened to be the author of the
Dangerous Drugs Act. But what I mean here is for the State to emphasize
this
campaign and not to let up in this campaign because the problem is not
being solved.
The treatment approach, as well as the approach being undertaken now,
seems not to reduce the incidence of drug addiction. In one instance alone,
on the
addiction to marijuana, it seems that the mental health of the youth is being
affected. The latest findings on marijuana show that the brain is the one
being affected. I am a witness to many young people who are now in Bicutan
and other treatment centers, whose brain damages are serious because of
drug
addiction. And, therefore, because of this unabated drug situation, it is
important to emphasize this area of public service and, if possible, expand
the
services against drug addiction. I think no student in this country would say
that the drug addiction problem in this country has been solved already.
MS. NIEVA: Thank you.
MS. QUESADA: Does the Gentleman not think that ordinary legislation would
be able to strengthen the existing drug abuse prevention program?
MR. NATIVIDAD: As a matter of fact, yes, I am the author of the law. What I
mean is a mandate from the Constitution, not only for the legislature to
update
our laws but also to inspire cooperation in a program of this nature because
this problem saps the vitality of the nation. A constitutional mandate would
help focus the States attention to a very serious malady in our society
affecting the old and the youth alike.
MR. BENGZON: Thank you very much.
MS. NIEVA: Thank you.
We will take it up in the Committee.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Thank you.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Romulo be
recognized.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Please proceed.
MR. ROMULO: I only have a few perfecting amendments, so I will take it up
with the Committee after we adjourn so as not to delay anyone.
MR. BENGZON: Thank you very much.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Rosario
Braid be recognized for her integrated amendments.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rosario Braid is recognized.
than of
hospital orientation and more service rather than profits which should be the
undergirding principle of health professions.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, with the brief answers and brief
amendments, I move that we adjourn until tomorrow at nine-thirty in the
morning.
MR. OPLE: Madam President.
MS. QUESADA: Madam President, before we adjourn, I would just like to put
on record that I would like to submit a more comprehensive presentation of
this
health provision so that it will be entered into the Journal, because we did not
have time to really explain just what are the concepts and underlying
principles of these health provisions.
MR. OPLE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: I can save my question which is a very brief one until tomorrow, if
it is the desire of the body to adjourn now, provided I will be allowed to
ask a question of the Committee, especially Commissioner Quesada.
THE PRESIDENT: Why do we not have the question now so that the
Committee can go over whatever the question is?
MR. OPLE: Thank you very much, with the indulgence of the Acting Floor
Leader.
We are talking about the promotion of health manpower. Is that correct?
MS. QUESADA: Yes, Madam President.
MR. OPLE: I have in mind some data that I have stored in my head as a
matter of professional duty until recently. It seems that, precisely, because of
the
rapid development of our health manpower, we now have about 12,000
unemployed nurses in the Philippines. Is that correct?
MS. QUESADA: I think there are more than 12,00t unemployed nurses.
MR. OPLE: Anyway, this is the officially recorded figure. And our nursing
schools every year graduate about 6,000 nurses, most of whom would
compete not
for jobs at home but for opportunities to work in the Middle East, the United
States and Europe. Would that be correct?
MS. QUESADA: Yes.
MR. OPLE: And at one time, this has impelled the Ministry of Health, the
Ministry of Labor and Employment and the Ministry of Education, Culture and
Sports
to consider closing some of these nursing schools because of the sheer glut
of graduates that they produce for jobs that do not exist in the Philippines.
Would that be correct?
MS. QUESADA: Yes.
MR. OPLE: And, therefore, when we speak of health manpower development,
the sponsor is not thinking of increasing the number of nursing schools and
aggravating the existing glut in the labor market for nurses.
MS. QUESADA: We are thinking of rationalizing health manpower
development.
MR. OPLE: I am glad to hear that.
Moreover, Commissioner Quesada is aware that there is an urgent demand
for nursing manpower in most of the rural health units of our country, and
most of
them do not want to go there. They want to congregate in the urban areas
waiting for opportunities to work here, but also, and this is more important,
to
scout for opportunities to go abroad. Is that not correct? 721
MS. QUESADA: Yes, that is so.
MR. OPLE: And so, the contemplation, of health manpower development is
really to rationalize this disturbing situation and to shift the emphasis from
quantity to quality.
MS. QUESADA: That is right. And this includes the reorientation of the
training or the education of our health professionals.
MR. OPLE. So that maybe the Committee will allow me in due time to present
a minor amendment that will reflect this concern for quality.
MS. QUESADA: We would welcome that, Madam President.
MR. OPLE: Thank you very much, Madam President.
MS. NIEVA: May we now ask the members of the Committee on Social Justice
to remain behind to put these amendments into shape. We will meet at the
South
Lounge.
Thank you.
ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I reiterate my motion for
adjournment?
THE PRESIDENT: The session is adjourned until tomorrow at nine-thirty in the
morning.
It was 5:57 p.m.
Footnotes:
* Appeared after the roll call.
R.C.C. NO. 49
Wednesday, August 6, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
At 9:41 a.m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia Muoz Palma, called the
session to order.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is called to order.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please rise to sing the National Anthem.
Everybody rose to sing the National Anthem.
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please remain standing for the Prayer to be
led by the Honorable Joaquin G. Bernas.
Everybody remained standing for the Prayer.
PRAYER
FR. BERNAS: Hesus na aking kapatid, sa lupa namiy bumalik:
Present*
Natividad
Present
Alonto
Present
Nieva
Present
Aquino
Present*
Nolledo
Present
Azcuna
Present
Ople
Present*
Bacani
Present
Padilla
Present
Bengzon
Present
Quesada
Present
Bennagen
Present
Rama
Present
Bernas
Present
Regalado
Present
Rosario Braid
Present
Reyes de los
Present
Brocka
Present*
Rigos
Present
Calderon
Present
Rodrigo
Present
Castro de
Present
Romulo
Present
Colayco
Present
Rosales
Present
Concepcion
Present
Sarmiento
Present*
Davide
Present
Suarez
Present
Foz
Present
Sumulong
Present
Garcia
Present*
Tadeo
Present
Gascon
Present
Tan
Present
Guingona
Absent
Tingson
Present
Jamir
Present
Treas
Present
Laurel
Present
Uka
Present
Lerum
Present*
Villacorta
Present
Maambong
Present
Villegas
Present
Monsod
Present
THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
MR. CALDERON: Madam President, I move to proceed to the Reference of
Business.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
The Secretary-General will read the Reference of Business.
REFERENCE OF BUSINESS
The Secretary-General read the following Communications, the President
making the corresponding references:
COMMUNICATIONS
Communication signed by Atty. Ramon Tagle, Executive Director, Family
Planning Organization of the Philippines, and nine others, proposing an
amendment to
Section 8 of Proposed Resolution No. 531, attaching thereto the registration
list of participants in the meeting of nongovernmental organizations involved
in the Philippine population program.
(Communication No. 452 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on General Provisions.
Communications from the Philippine Nurses Association; Adolescent Center,
Dagupan City; Philippine Association of the Deaf, Inc.; Kapatiran-Kaunlaran
Foundation, Inc.; Integrated Midwives Association of the Philippines, Inc.;
NORFIL Foundation, Inc.; and all Nations Womens Group signed by Ms.
Florida R.
Martinez and seven others, urging the Constitutional Commission to
incorporate in the Constitution provisions for the protection of Filipino
children,
youth and mothers.
(Communication No. 453 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of
Principles.
Letter from Atty. Leandro P. Garcia, 9th Floor, Strata 100 Building, Emerald
Avenue, Pasig, Metro Manila, submitting, for the consideration of the
Letter from Mr. Hector L. Bisnar of 3 Kalamansi St., Matina, Davao City,
transmitting his suggestions and proposals regarding a new Constitution of
the
Philippines.
(Communication No. 459 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Steering Committee.
Communication from Ms. Fe Samaniego of 1070 cor. Roxas-Bautista Streets,
Singalong Subd., Manila, submitting, for consideration of the Constitutional
Commission, proposed provisions under the Declaration of Principles and
State Policies, attaching thereto some printed materials related to the
attainment
of world peace.
(Communication No. 460 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of
Principles.
Letter from Mr. Elly Velez Pamatong, 131 Aurora Blvd., San Juan, Metro
Manila, transmitting a resolution adopted by the Ad Hoc Committee of
Filipino-Canadians for Dual Citizenship, requesting the Constitutional
Commission to include in the Constitution a provision allowing Filipino
emigrants to
retain their citizenship upon being naturalized as citizens of another country,
and restoring Filipino citizenship to former Filipino citizens who have
lost it by acquiring citizenship from another country.
(Communication No. 461 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Citizenship, Bill of Rights, Political Rights and
Obligations and Human Rights.
Communication from Mr. Jose Rojas and fifty-five others, urging the
Constitutional Commission to leave to the legislature regulation of foreign
investments
and to determine the areas where foreign investments will be welcome.
(Communication No. 462 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on the National Economy and Patrimony.
Communication from Ms. Norhata D.M. Alonto, submitting in behalf of Abdul
Khayr Alonto a position paper, entitled Autonomy of the People.
Letter from Mr. Norberto N. Caparas for the Bayanihan Homeowners and
Residents Association, No. 655 Kaunlaran Street, Barangay Commonwealth,
Quezon City,
proposing that government lands occupied by the squatters be donated to
actual occupants, subject to certain conditions.
(Communication No. 470 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Social Justice.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
DEFERMENT OF CONSIDERATION
OF PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 534
(Article on Social Justice)
MR. RAMA: For consideration this morning is the Article on Social Justice
which was amended yesterday. However, the clean copy of the Article, as
amended
or with the proposed amendments, has not yet been distributed.
So, the Members would like first to see the clean copy with the proposed
amendments before this Article on Social Justice be taken up during the
period of
amendments.
In the meantime, Madam President, I move that we defer the consideration
of the Article on Social Justice.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection that we defer for consideration the
Article on Social Justice?
The honorable Chairman, Commissioner Nieva, is recognized.
MS. NIEVA: Madam President, how long will the deferment take?
THE PRESIDENT: How long does the Committee need?
MS. NIEVA: We worked on and finalized this up until past eight last night and
copies are being distributed.
THE PRESIDENT: So, it is just a question of distributing the copies.
MS. NIEVA: Yes. I think we are more or less ready, and we shall give everyone
a chance to go over the amended report.
THE PRESIDENT: May we consider it an hour from now, about eleven oclock?
MS. NIEVA: Yes, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: There is a motion to defer consideration of the Article on
Social Justice.
Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is
approved.
MR. RAMA: In the meantime, Madam President, I ask that we take up for
Second Reading some Articles that are ready for Second Reading. For this
purpose, I
ask that the Steering Committee Chairman, Commissioner Bengzon, be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: Thank you very much.
Good morning, Madam President. We have finished our deliberations on the
Articles on the Executive and the Legislative. Except for the wording with
respect
to the staggering of the term of the Senators, the Article on the Legislative is
ready for approval on Second Reading.
Before I make my motion, Madam President, Commissioner Davide will make
an explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, the matter that is left is the staggering of the
term of the Senate which will be in Section 3. It is the proposal that the
first Senators elected will be divided into two groups: The first, consisting of
12, to serve for six years; and the second, consisting of 12, to serve for
three years.
However, there is a need to reconcile it with dates of the first and second
elections to accomplish synchronization. If the body will allow later an
amendment to accomplish the objective of synchronization and the
staggering of the term, we can proceed with the voting on Second Reading.
However, I invite the attention of the body that on page 2 of the amended
draft, there is a space between organizations and the party on line 13 as
a
result of the Committees deletion of the words as provided by law because
these are merely a repetition of the same words on line 11 of the same page.
On page 3, line 14, the original wording is except the sectoral and the party
list representatives. We failed to delete the sectoral to harmonize it
with what has been approved under the Monsod amendment. On lines 18 to
21, we seek for the deletion of the last phrase and every six or three years
respectively. That should not appear in the final draft for Second Reading.
So, we request the body to approve this motion to delete all the words on
line
21, page 3, and to put a period(.) after may on line 20. After that, the
Article on the Legislative would be ready for approval on Second Reading
with
the reservation made for Section 3 on page 1.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the deletion of the words
mentioned by the Chairman? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is
approved.
APPROVAL OF C.R. NO. 22
ON SECOND READING
(Article on the Legislative/National Assembly)
MR. BENGZON: On the basis of the reservation made by the Chairman of the
Committee on the Legislative, I move that this body vote on Second Reading
on the
Article on the Legislative.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the motion of the honorable
Chairman of the Steering Committee? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is
approved.
As many as are in favor of the proposed Article on the Legislative to be
incorporated in the new Constitution, please raise their hand. (Several
Members
raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their
hand.)
As many as are abstaining, please raise their hand. (Two Members raised
their hand.)
MR. GARCIA: I would like to register my abstention, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The results show 32 votes in favor, 3 against, and 2
abstentions.
The proposed Article on the Legislative is approved on Second Reading, with
the reservations made by the honorable Chairman.
CONSIDERATION OF
PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 517
(Article on the Executive)
Continuation
PERIOD OF AMENDMENTS
MR. BENGZON: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chairman of the Steering Committee is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: We are also finished with the deliberations on the Article on
the Executive. May I request, however, that the Vice-Chairman of the
Committee
on the Executive, the Honorable Florenz Regalado, be recognized for some
explanations before I make my motion.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Regalado is recognized.
MR. REGALADO: Thank you, Madam President.
The amended copy of Proposed Resolution No. 517, now in the possession of
the Commissioners, has some omissions on the resolutions which were
accepted by
the Committee but which we had to defer, and which, however, were
eventually ironed out in the executive caucus yesterday. I will ask the
Commissioners to
kindly look at their respective copies so that I can read the insertions or
additions.
On page 1, line 23, we will notice that there is a blank space. That should be
filled with the words JUNE NEXT so that the line will read: NOON ON THE
THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE NEXT FOLLOWING THE. That was an oversight.
With respect to page 2, between lines 7 and 8, a new paragraph will have to
be added. The additional paragraph, which is actually the amendment of
Commissioner Jamir accepted by the Committee and taken up in the caucus
yesterday, will read as follows: NO PERSON WHO HAS SERVED AS
PRESIDENT FOR MORE
THAN FOUR YEARS SHALL BE QUALIFIED FOR ELECTION TO THE SAME OFFICE
AT ANY OTHER TIME. This is to put it parallel with the elected President who,
after his
term expires, can no longer run for reelection. This contemplates also the
situation where the President dies, let us say, a year or less than two years in
office, and the Vice-President now becomes the President. This prohibition is
intended to bar the Vice-President, who thereby becomes President under
that
situation, from again running for the Office of the President.
THE PRESIDENT: Just to clarify, Commissioner Regalado, this particular Jamir
amendment has been approved.
MR. REGALADO: It was accepted by the Committee but not yet approved by
the body.
THE PRESIDENT: Then we will have to submit it to the body.
MR. REGALADO: Yes, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection?
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: Before we vote, I would like to ask a question. If I remember
right, the original proposal regarding this matter of a Vice-President acting as
President in case the President dies was that any person who had served as
President for more than three years would no longer run for election. And
three
years was the period stated in that original proposal because that is one-half
of the term of six years. I am not aware that the three years was changed to
four years, so I would like to know when this was accomplished.
MR. REGALADO: I asked Commissioner Jamir about that yesterday, and he
said he had amended his proposal. At any rate, Commissioner Jamir can
explain to us.
I know it was already three years. But later he said he wanted the term to be
four years. That is similar to the Twenty-First Amendment to the United
States Constitution. So, I think Commissioner Jamir can explain the change
from three to four years.
MR. JAMIR: Madam President, I really opted for three years, but upon the
suggestion of many Commissioners, among whom are Commissioners
Davide and Foz, and
several others, I agreed to increase the term to four years instead of three.
MR. RODRIGO: I have some questions for clarification.
So, if a President dies a day less than four years and the Vice-President
serves as President one day less than four years, that Vice-President can run
for
reelection; is that correct?
MR. REGALADO: That is correct.
MR. RODRIGO: So, if he is elected for another six years, he would serve for
ten consecutive years?
MR. REGALADO: That is correct.
MR. RODRIGO: Thank you.
MR. REGALADO: May we put that to a vote, Madam President?
THE PRESIDENT: Will the Gentleman please read once more the proposed
amendment of Commissioner Jamir?
MR. REGALADO: That would be a new paragraph between lines 7 and 8 of the
amended copies in the possession of the Commissioners, to read: NO
PERSON WHO HAS
SERVED AS PRESIDENT FOR MORE THAN FOUR YEARS SHALL BE QUALIFIED
FOR ELECTION TO THE SAME OFFICE AT ANY OTHER TIME.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of this particular amendment,
please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their
hand.)
As many as are abstaining, please raise their hand. (One Member raised his
hand.)
The results show 31 votes in favor, 5 against and 1 abstention; the proposed
amendment is approved.
MR. REGALADO: Madam President, on page 4, line 8, after the word source
there are words in parentheses because we still have to iron out the matter
of
salaries of the President and the Vice-President. But yesterday during the
executive caucus, it was agreed that there would also be a transitory
provision
with respect to their salaries. So, the proposed amendment by substitution in
lieu of the words in parentheses will read as follows: THE CONGRESS SHALL
PROVIDE BY LAW FOR THE ANNUAL SALARIES OF THE PRESIDENT AND THE
VICE-PRESIDENT. The salaries of the incumbent President and Vice-President
will be the
subject of the Transitory Provisions of which I request Commissioner Suarez
to please take note.
To repeat, Madam President, after the word source on line 8, page 4, we
add this sentence: THE CONGRESS SHALL PROVIDE BY LAW FOR THE ANNUAL
SALARIES OF
THE PRESIDENT AND THE VICE-PRESIDENT.
MR. GASCON: Madam President, may I ask a question?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Gascon is recognized.
MR. GASCON: Does this mean, therefore, that it is possible for Congress to
increase or decrease the salary of the President within the six-year term
every
year?
MR. REGALADO: No. The preceding sentence reads as follows:
No increase in said compensation shall take effect until after the expiration of
the term of the incumbent during which such increase was approved.
MR. GASCON: Thank you.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of this particular proposed
amendment, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (No Member raised his
hand.)
The results show 32 votes in favor and none against; the proposed
amendment is approved.
MR. REGALADO: Lastly, Madam President, on page 5, line 21, the phrase one
hundred eighty days is proposed to be changed to EIGHTEEN MONTHS, such
that the
entire last sentence of Section 10 will read as follows: No special election
shall be called if the vacancy occurs within EIGHTEEN MONTHS before the
date
of the next presidential election.
The reason for this is that, as reported to us by Commissioner Monsod, to
hold a presidential election would involve an outlay or appropriation of about
P270 million. So, it would entail P270 million to elect a President within 180
days before the date of the next presidential election, meaning six months.
So, in the interest of economy, it was felt that this provision will apply if the
vacancy occurs within 18 months before the date of the next presidential
election.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: Just a point of clarification. I am afraid I did not quote that
figure of P270 million for a presidential election. But it does not detract
from the argument because there would still be quite a bit of expense. I just
wanted to correct the figure.
THE PRESIDENT: Just to clarify, will the Gentleman restate the amendment?
MR. REGALADO: On page 5, line 21, instead of one hundred eighty days,
we change it to EIGHTEEN MONTHS.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
amendment is approved.
MR. REGALADO: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de Castro is recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you.
May I make some point of clarification from the Committee? On page 2, line
23, does the phrase vote of a majority of all the members of Congress
mean
voting separately or voting jointly?
MR. REGALADO: The Chairman is of the opinion that it is voting separately.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you.
On page 3, lines 16 to 19, it is provided:
The Congress shall provide by law for the case of death, permanent disability
or inability of the officials mentioned in the next preceding paragraph and
the manner in which one who is to act as President shall be selected until a
President or a Vice-President shall have qualified.
This is the same as the provision on page 4, lines 28 to 32 and on page 5 up
to line 3. Is this not a repetition of what we intend to have in the matter of
succession?
MR. REGALADO: No, Section 9, lines 28 et sequentia, refers to the case of an
Acting President.
MR. DE CASTRO: Yes, it is the same in the succession.
MR. REGALADO: Whereas, in the first situation that the Gentleman referred
to, it refers to an elected President and Vice-President. There are three
situations under this Article wherein there can be an Acting President.
MR. DE CASTRO: Section 5, page 3, lines 16 to 20, refers to the succession
where the President and the Vice-President shall have been disabled or shall
have been removed or died in office and the President of the Senate or the
Speaker of the House of Representatives shall take his place. In the event
that
the two are also disqualified, then Congress shall provide by law who should
act as President. Section 9, lines 28 to 32, still speaks of Congeals to
provide by law who shall act as President in the case that the Senate
President and the Speaker of the House of Representatives fail to qualify as
such. Is
this not a repetition?
MR. REGALADO: Section 5 refers to the situation where the President-elect
and the Vice-President-elect become incapacitated or die before they have
assumed
their office or before they have qualified thereto. Section 9, on the other
hand, refers to death, permanent incapacity or resignation from the office of
the President or the Vice-President during the tenure or after either of them
has assumed office.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you .
On page 8, lines 31 to 34, is this provision still necessary after we provide on
lines 28 to 30 that the President is vested to appoint minor officials as
called for in this Constitution?
MR. REGALADO: Yes, because while the Presidents power of appointment is
plenary, it is subject to limitations and classifications by the Congress. That is
why we provide here that the President shall appoint all other officers of the
government whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by law to
avoid
any hiatus or any lacuna in the matter of appointment, and those whom he
may be specifically authorized by law to appoint. Then on line 31, there is a
little classification there. The Congress may by law vest the appointment of
other officers lower in rank either in the President alone, or in the courts,
or in the heads of departments, or in the heads of agencies, commissions or
boards. That would be a matter already for Congress to classify and specify.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you.
MR. REGALADO: Incidentally, Madam President, I will inform the body in
advance that, for purposes of Third Reading, we are furnishing them with
copies of
the same Article, rearranged and renumbered to make them in more logical
sequence but containing exactly the same substantive provisions. As
prepared by
Commissioners Maambong, Davide and myself, the copy being distributed is
merely a realignment to make the presentation in more logical sequence.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Maambong be
recognized for a question of clarification.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Just a very minor clarification, Madam President, regarding
the approved amendment on page 5, line 21, changing 180 days to 18
months The
figure of P270 million cited as the cost of the presidential or vice-presidential
election was attributed to Commissioner Monsod. I am afraid I was the one
who cited that figure to Commissioner Regalado, considering the testimonies
of officials of the Commission on Elections and the officials of the Budget
Commission. I am sorry that it was attributed to Commissioner Monsod. It
actually came from me, Madam President.
Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Villacorta be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Villacorta is recognized.
MR. VILLACORTA: Madam President, this is just a matter of style and for the
purpose of clarity. On page 9, lines 11 to 12, it reads:
The Congress voting jointly by a vote of at least a majority of all its members
in regular or special session may revoke such proclamation of suspension
which revocation shall not be set aside by the President or upon the initiative
of the President extend the same for the period . . .
The way it is phrased, extend seems to be a verb related to revocation and
not to Congress. So, may I suggest to the Committee that we put a period (.)
after shall not be set aside by the President. Then start with another
sentence, Congress may, upon the initiative of the President, extend such
proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by Congress . . .
Will the Committee consider that, Madam President?
THE PRESIDENT: What page is this, please?
MR. VILLACORTA: This is on page 7 lines 29 to 32, Section 16.
MR. REGALADO: I think we are using different texts.
MR. VILLACORTA.: Am I using a different copy?
THE PRESIDENT: Maybe the Gentleman has the old one.
MR. REGALADO: The Gentleman should use the one with the words As
Amended on the upper right-hand corner.
MR. VILLACORTA: Yes, Madam President. I will just go to the Committee to
make my correction later on.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Padilla is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: With regard to the powers of the President as Commander-inChief of the Armed Forces and, in particular, the power to call out the Armed
Forces to suppress lawless violence, the President has two other powers
the power to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and the
power to
proclaim martial law. Madam President, when I interpellated the members of
the Committee as to the possible distinction between these three situations,
they particularly Commissioner Regalado said that it could be
entertained during the period of amendments. When I was then proposing
this distinction
between the suspension of the writ and the proclamation of martial law, I
was prevented from so doing on the observation of Commissioner Bernas
that in the
discussion of the Bill of Rights, the issue of the suspension of the privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus has already been decided. But I recall that
when we were discussing the Bill of Rights, particularly the suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, Commissioner Bernas stated, and I
quote from the July 17 session:
Perhaps the better place to discuss this is in the Article on the Executive
because the Gentleman placed this in the total context of the
Commander-in-Chief powers of the President.
When I was clarifying the distinction between the suspension of the writ and
proclamation of martial law which should be discussed more thoroughly in
our
deliberations on the executive department, Commissioner Bernas said that
could not be done unless the Rules is suspended and a motion for
reconsideration
is filed on the provision in the Bill of Rights or the suspension of the writ. I
disagreed with that position of Commissioner Bernas as inconsistent and
unfair because it was not possible at that time during the period of
amendments of the Article on the Executive to ask for a suspension of the
Rules and
for a rediscussion of the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus in the Bill of
Rights. But the Chair ruled without further arguments that I was out of
order because the decision had been made regarding the suspension of the
writ of habeas corpus in the Bill of Rights.
Madam President, I agree with the provisions of the Article on the Executive,
except this section on the powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief of
the Armed Forces, because through that technicality, we were not able to
discuss fully the distinction, which I was trying to make, between the two
situations the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and
the power to proclaim martial law.
Thank you, Madam President.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President.
May I
ask Commissioner Regalado to read lines 30 and 31.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Regalado is recognized.
MR. REGALADO: Yes, Madam President.
On page 7, starting on line 29, the provision will read: which revocation shall
not be set aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the President,
CONGRESS MAY extend SUCH PROCLAMATION OR SUSPENSION for a period
to be determined by Congress . . . It makes clearer the intention and does
not involve a
very long sentence and expresses the substance of what was accepted by
the Committee.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the Gentleman please repeat the provision?
MR. REGALADO: After dent of the word President on line 30, put a period
(.). Then insert CONGRESS MAY between President and extend and add
SUCH
PROCLAMATION OR SUSPENSION.
So, I will repeat from line 26: The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at
least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may
revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set
aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the President, CONGRESS MAY
extend
SUCH PROCLAMATION OR SUSPENSION for a period to be determined by
Congress . . .
MR. AZCUNA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Azcuna is recognized.
MR. AZCUNA: May I suggest the insertion of the words CONGRESS MAY IN
THE SAME MANNER, so as to emphasize that it will also be Congress voting
jointly and
there would also be a need of at least a majority vote of all its Members for
extension.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Committee accept the amendment to the
amendment?
MR. REGALADO: Yes, the amendment is accepted; it makes the provision
clearer.
MS. QUESADA: Madam President, last Wednesday, July 30. I voted no to this
amendment and I still vote no on Second Reading because then we would
hand on a
silver platter to any power-driven Filipino President in the future the
opportunity to reinstall a one-man rule in this country. So much has been
said
about the evil and corruption. the venality and utter disregard for human
values that the Filipino people suffered these last 14 years. We at the ConCom
have conscientiously worked out provisions to ensure that such arbitrary rule
and abuse of presidential power will never again be easily repeated.
This overriding concern was uppermost in the minds of the people who
participated in our public hearings here in Metro Manila as elsewhere in this
country.
They were happy to note that we at the Con-Com would articulate their
desire to eliminate every possibility that another dictator would ever rule
over them
again.
It was, therefore, with a heavy heart that I witnessed the 180-degree
turnabout of the Committee who worked so hard to incorporate in the charter
the
proper mechanisms that would eliminate such possibility.
Madam President, I wish to put on record that I have opted not to grant the
Office of the President such power, regardless of all the measures by
Congress
and the Supreme Court provided in the Article to rectify any such presidential
act.
Historical precedents within living memory have demonstrated the
ineffectiveness and impotency of such fiscalizing measures. A power-mad
dictator,
exemplified by countless historical examples from Hitler to Batista to Marcos,
would simply abolish the judiciary and padlock Congress and send all the
dissenters to the stockade. That is a reality that proponents of the
amendment seemed to have forgotten.
Madam President, a wise man from Spain, the philosopher George
Santayana, wrote once that Those who forget the past are doomed to
repeat it. In the same
vein the columnist of a popular daily titled his column, They Never Learn.
The attribution is to the Constitutional Commission three days after the
victorious passage of the amendment.
Unfortunately, those who learned their lessons and did not forget the past
were only in the minority. It is comforting to know, however, that a great
many
Filipinos outside this hall share the minority opinion. Regretfully, they are not
empowered to cast their vote on this issue.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. REGALADO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Regalado is recognized.
MR. REGALADO: The Committee has asked me to give a brief response
because we might be misunderstood. As the proceedings on the floor
showed and as it
appears in the minutes of that particular session, it was expressly made clear
that to meet a very serious danger of actual invasion or rebellion, the
President is now granted the power of immediate response by declaring
martial law or suspending the writ of habeas corpus. Yet, the following day, if
the
Congress finds that the act of the President was not correct and not factually
substantiated, the very same proclamation can immediately be revoked by
Congress even on the following day. That was the reason the members of the
Committee agreed to that immediate response, reflexive action of the
President
if the situation is really that serious because the Congress may not yet be in
a position to convene and concur in the act of the President. But if they
find out that the President was wrong right on the following day, the very
same proclamation or suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus
can be revoked by Congress.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, parliamentary inquiry.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Madam President.
We are now in the process of voting. I was wondering why a Member of the
Committee stood up for alleged justification of the Committees action. Is this
warranted under our Rules, Madam President?
THE PRESIDENT: We allowed Commissioner Quesada to explain her vote
which really should come in the case of nominal voting. So, we also
recognized
Commissioner Regalado to answer the same.
I was
principal author, regarding the right of the President to declare martial law
for a maximum period of 60 days which can be revoked by Congress at any
time
and which is subject to review by the judiciary at any time.
There have been suggestions that those who voted for that amendment are
victims of subjugated consciousness or cannot learn from the past, or even
suffer
from a lack of awareness of the peoples sentiments.
Madam President, to be free means having the confidence to fight a dictator.
It also means the capacity to allow freedom to defend itself against actual
invasion or rebellion. The delicate balance we seek is not clear-cut But we
cannot define it either in terms of black or white. Mr. Marcos relied on the
Constitution to keep power. The premise of a dictator who is ready to
disregard the Constitution would mean that no amount of safeguard can
prevent him to
make a naked assumption of power outside the Constitution. If one reads the
totality of the Article we approved, the color of constitutionality that Mr.
Marcos used to his advantage is no longer there. That is the difference
between the 1935 and the 1986 Constitutions.
Any insinuation of subjugated consciousness, lack of patriotism,
irresponsiveness of so-called people sentiment is an offensive generalization
to those
whose records will show that they did not allow themselves to be cowed
even at the height of Mr. Marcos power at the risk of their lives and
livelihood.
I find self-righteousness offensive particularly from those who want to make
sweeping conclusions on the basis of one issue and not on the totality of
ones conviction and ones record.
Patriotism is not the sudden and frenzied outburst of emotion but the
tranquil and steady dedication of a lifetime.
Thank you. Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
MR. OPLE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: I also wish to exercise the right of reply as one of those who voted
with the majority. May I take one minute to do this, Madam President?
THE PRESIDENT: The Gentleman may proceed.
MR. OPLE: Thank you.
I think it is important, in the interest of justice and equity, to put into the
Record of this Commission that in voting for the Article on the Executive,
as amended, those who did so did not infringe any standard of
independence, intelligence and righteousness, and that they had the right to
be accorded the
courtesy of a genuine belief in their convictions.
The amendment, first by the Committee and later on by the body, of the
original provision requiring the concurrence of Congress was subjected to
thoroughgoing debate and not a single aspect of it had been hidden or
concealed from the view of the entire Commission.
Madam President, there is a tendency to equate patriotism with rendering
the executive branch of the government impotent, as though by reducing
drastically
the powers of the executive, we are rendering a service to human welfare. I
think it is also important to understand that the extraordinary measures
contemplated in the Article on the Executive pertain to a practical state of
war existing in this country when national security will have become a
common
bond of patriotism of all Filipinos, especially if it is an actual invasion or an
actual rebellion, and the President may have to be given a minimum
flexibility to cope with such unprecedented threats to the survival of a
nation. I think the Commission has done so but at the same time has not, in
any
manner, shunned the task of putting these powers under a whole system of
checks and balances, including the possible revocation at any time of a
proclamation of martial law by the Congress, and in any case a definite
termination of these extraordinary powers, subject only to another extension
to be
determined by Congress in the event that it is necessary to do so because
the emergency persists.
So, I think this Article on the Executive for which I voted is completely
responsible; it is attuned to the freedom and the rights of the citizenry. It
does not render the presidency impotent and, at the same time, it allows for
a vigorous representation of the people through their Congress when an
emergency measure is in force and effect.
MR. GARCIA: I believe that we can retain the same sense and at the same
time underscore the urgency that Congress must take urgent action by,
perhaps,
paraphrasing it in this manner: THE STATE SHALL PROMOTE SOCIAL JUSTICE
AS AN IMPERATIVE IN ALL PHASES OF NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT. IN PURSUIT
THEREOF,
CONGRESS SHALL GIVE HIGHEST PRIORITY TO THE ENACTMENT OF
MEASURES. In other words, we retain the phrase on Congress giving highest
priority to the
enactment of social justice measures because I do not think the word
imperative needs an adjective.
MR. ROMULO: I have tried to save some words but I will leave it up to the
Committee.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, concerning this subject of the word
imperative, I want to take counsel with the Committee and other experts in
the English
language whether one can say imperative without the qualification of a
territorial imperative, a moral imperative or a political imperative. The word
imperative will have to be given a context before it can stand alone. Will
the proponent consider the qualification of MORAL IMPERATIVE?
MR. ROMULO: That is the phrase of Commissioner Azcuna, so I would rather
that he reply.
MR. OPLE: I suggest A MORAL or AN ETHICAL IMPERATIVE, because the basis
for this IMPERATIVE, if it is a MORAL IMPERATIVE or AN ETHICAL IMPERATIVE,
is also
political, according to the Aristotelian definition of politics. But I doubt if the
word imperative in good English usage can stand alone.
MS. NIEVA: The original read: social, economic, political and moral
imperative, but we said that was redundant.
MR. OPLE: Can we just settle with MORAL because moral in the Aristotelian
sense is also ethics and politics?
MR. BENNAGEN: May I answer that? In the deliberations of the Committee, I
pointed out specifically in this particular section that it is primarily a moral
imperative, in the sense that historically the national development has
worried itself with issues of growth and development and equity without
considering
the moral imperative of development in favor of the underprivileged. This is
why in the original statements we did include moral as the underscoring
adjective for imperative. I suggest that we retain that.
MR. OPLE: Yes, once again put the Bible and the Quran behind it.
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes, that is right. That one makes a decision in favor of the
poor moral.
MR. OPLE: Social justice is also advancing social morality.
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes, that is right.
MR. MONSOD: May we hear from Commissioner Azcuna.
MR. AZCUNA: Madam President, my only difficulty with that is we will be
delving into the grounds of legal enforcement of morals here and, offhand, I
would
like to emphasize that social justice is not merely a moral command or a
command of natural law unenforceable in the legal field. What is legally
enforceable is a requirement of the legal system, not merely of moral
theology.
If we say, shall promote social justice as a moral imperative, it might be
construed merely as a dictate addressed to the conscience rather than a
legally enforceable and demandable claim. It would be all right if we say,
social, political, economic and moral, but not moral alone.
I am searching for a word that would embrace all. Originally, I put national
imperative it was an imperative for the nation which is based on social,
economic, political and cultural ideals. It is moral as well, but not merely
moral, because it might be objected to as merely a moral ideal, and not
enforceable in the realm of law.
MR. OPLE: Is Commissioner Azcuna asking for a moment to reflect upon this
so that we will find the right word?
MR. AZCUNA: Yes.
MR. OPLE: My point is that imperative without being moral, territorial or
political would be a clumsy word in this all-important section, unless it is
modified in some way or given a context.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Romulo is recognized.
MR. ROMULO: With due respect, the dilemma can be removed if we delete
the phrase primary imperative and go back to Fr. Bernas amendment of
giving
highest priority. That was my original phrasing.
THE PRESIDENT: That also occurred to the Chair. So, the section shall read:
THE STATE SHALL PROMOTE SOCIAL JUSTICE IN ALL PHASES OF NATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT.
IN PURSUIT THEREOF, CONGRESS SHALL GIVE HIGHEST PRIORITY . . .
MR. OPLE: That will be acceptable to me, speaking for myself alone, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: What does the Committee say?
MS. NIEVA: Madam President, we are still discussing this among the
members.
MR. AZCUNA: Madam President, I would like to retain but I will leave it to the
Committee.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: While they are still discussing and reflecting on this words we
would like to Proceed. I ask that Commissioner Bernas, who has an
agreement to
Section 1, be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bernas is recognized.
FR. BERNAS: Before I give my amendment I would say that I support the
proposal of Commissioner Garcia by just removing primary and leaving
imperative
standing alone. I would disagree that imperative cannot stand alone in the
English language, but I leave that to other authorities to judge.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: The Committee is prepared to accept this wording: THE
STATE SHALL PROMOTE SOCIAL JUSTICE IN ALL PHASES OF NATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT. IN PURSUIT
THEREOF, CONGRESS SHALL GIVE HIGHEST PRIORITY TO THE ENACTMENT
OF MEASURES . . . The first statement would be a general statement, and
urgency is given in
the enactment of measures.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that all right, Commissioner Romulo?
MR. ROMULO: I would accept that.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the other proposed amendment of Commissioner
Bernas?
FR. BERNAS: My proposed amendment comes after line 5 of Section 1 which
says: reduce social, cultural, economic and political inequities. My
proposed
amendment involves both a transposition and an addition. First of all,
transpose cultural then add ERADICATE so that the phrase will read:
reduce
social, economic and political INEQUALITIES, ERADICATE cultural inequities,
and so on.
Let me explain why I prefer the use of the word inequality. When I use the
word inequality, there is no necessary moral judgment involved in that. It
is merely a description of what obtains in the national that there are gross
social, economic and political inequalities. Implicitly these inequalities,
although not morally wrong by themselves, can lead to various evils. Then I
say cultural inequities because the problem of culture is not so much of an
inequality in culture. We do not want to equalize all cultures. We do not want
to level all Filipinos to the same culture, but rather we want to protect
the various cultures against inequities. So, the phrase now will read: reduce
social, economic and political INEQUALITIES, ERADICATE cultural inequities,
and equitably diffuse wealth and political power for the common good.
MS. NIEVA: I think the Committee accepts.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de los Reyes is recognized.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Will Commissioner Bernas accept an amendment to his
amendment by substituting the word reduce with the word ERADICATE?
FR. BERNAS: I think the Commissioner is asking the State to try to attain the
unattainable goal.
MR. DE LOS REYES: No, no, that is not the point. We know that ERADICATE
may not be attainable in the immediate near future, but we are speaking
here of
goals. When we say, for example, that graft and corruption is unattainable,
do we say that we should reduce graft and corruption simply because we
know
that people being what they are will always remain grafters and corrupt? We
say we eradicate graft and corruption. We do not say reduce graft and
corruption because when we say reduce, we are practically admitting in
our subconscious that we shall tolerate inequities no matter how.
FR. BERNAS: That is why I have changed the word inequities to
INEQUALITIES. We eradicate graft and corruption because graft and
corruption is evil. But
inequality by itself is not evil. Perhaps the Commissioner could say: reduce
social, economic and political INEQUALITIES, ERADICATE cultural INEQUITIES
because inequities are evil.
MR. DE LOS REYES: I will accept that amendment inasmuch as the
Gentleman has changed the word inequities to INEQUALITIES.
MS. NIEVA: So, how will the amendment now read?
FR. BERNAS: Reduce social, economic and political INEQUALITIES,
ERADICATE cultural INEQUITIES and equitably diffuse wealth . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Is that accepted by the Committee?
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, we have a little problem with the word
eradicate because we are not trying to eradicate termites or rats. So, can
we use
another word?
MR. DE LOS REYES: I suggest ELIMINATE.
MR. MONSOD: It is acceptable.
THE PRESIDENT: Without prejudice to looking for a better word.
MR. ROMULO: I thought we had voted down capital punishment. Now we will
eliminate.
MR. MONSOD: We have a problem with the word eliminate or eradicate in
absolute terms. We prefer to use the word REDUCE. But if the proponent
insists,
we would like to present it to the body.
MR. DE LOS REYES: I would like to put it to a vote. MINIMIZE is also
REDUCE.
simply amplify, make more specific the rights given to the citizens, especially
the poor sectors of society.
MR. RODRIGO: The situation now is, my proposed amendment to use THE
PEOPLE is now sought to be amended by Commissioner Padilla by adding
ALL. My proposed
amendment has already been accepted. I have no objection to adding ALL,
if the Committee would accept it.
MS. NIEVA: The Committee accepts, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: Thank you.
MR. MAAMBONG. Madam President.
MR. PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Forgive me, but I am a little bit uneasy about the word
reduce, considering the statement of Commissioner de los Reyes.
THE PRESIDENT: May we first vote on the phrase ALL THE PEOPLE?
Is there any objection to use the phrase ALL THE PEOPLE instead of every
citizen, which has been accepted by the Committee? (Silence) The Chair
hears
none; the amendment is approved.
Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: As I was saying, Madam President, I am a little bit uneasy
about the word reduce, considering the statement of Commissioner de los
Reyes. I
think when we use the word reduce, we are actually saying that we are
only trying to minimize the social, economic and political inequalities. And
since
we are setting goals. it is a very sad commentary on the goals we are
setting. I was thinking if we could probably use the word PREVENT because if
we just
say reduce, we are just minimizing inequalities. What goal are we setting
anyway?
MS. NIEVA: I think the Committee does not accept the use of the word
PREVENT which refers to the future. We are referring to present existing
inequalities. So, may we put that to a vote if the Gentleman insists on such a
word.
MR. MAAMBONG: We do not have to, Madam President. I am just pointing out
that when we are trying to set goals, we should at least go all the way. But to
say reduce, we only minimize we are actually admitting that we cannot
do anything about it and we are up to that extent only.
But I leave that to the Committee; I will not press for a vote.
MR. VILLEGAS: Madam President, may I respond to that?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Villegas is recognized.
MR. VILLEGAS: Thank you, Madam President.
As already emphasized by Commissioner Bernas, there is nothing inherently
immoral or wrong in inequalities as has been repeated many times by
Commissioner
Padilla. In this world, there are inequalities because people have different
talents and different efforts; some people are more industrious than others;
some people are more interested in specific efforts. So, let us, for the record,
state that there is nothing inherently immoral about inequalities.
And for the sake of logical substance, I find the last phrase redundant if we
are going to adopt the following. Bernas amendment which I accept: reduce
social, economic and political INEQUALITIES. If we have that, I find the last
phrase equitably diffusing wealth AND POLITICAL POWER redundant
because
there is no way that we can reduce social, economic and political inequalities
without diffusing wealth and political power equitably. So, just for the
sake of brevity, although Commissioner Bernas has already said this, we can
be redundant when we want to emphasize, but I do not see how we can
reduce
economic, political and social inequalities without equitably diffusing wealth
and political power.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President, may I speak not as a member of the
Committee, but may I respond to that. Though it is true that there is nothing
morally
wrong about inequalities as such, there is something morally wrong about
great inequalities. That is why it is imperative to reduce inequalities. So, it
will not simply be correct to say that there is nothing wrong about
inequalities, if by that the Gentleman means even great economic
inequalities.
thereof and
retain the word fruits.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes.
MR. BENGZON: Is there any other amendment the Gentleman would like to
propose?
MR. DAVIDE: Of course, as a consequence, the word AND must be inserted
before promote.
MR. BENGZON: Yes. With respect to the Gentlemans desire to remove the
word increment, may I suggest that he get together with Commissioner
Sarmiento
because this is his amendment which we accepted yesterday.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I just make a brief comment.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I explain why I suggested the word increments. I
checked the meaning of increment and the word covers fruits, profit and
gains. So
to have a term that would cover fruits, gains and profits, I suggested the
word increments as an all-embracing term.
MR. DAVIDE: In other words, in effect we will be restoring the original concept
of social justice as provided in the 1973 Constitution which includes the
right of the State to regulate acquisition, ownership, use, enjoyment,
disposition of property, its fruits, as well as profits therefrom.
MS. NIEVA: That is the way we understand this.
MR. DAVIDE: If that is the understanding, then I would have no objection to
retaining the word increments. So, my proposals will be three: Delete
Section
2, make the provision as the second paragraph to Section 1; delete the word
thereof after increments; then add the word AND before promote.
MR. COLAYCO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Colayco is recognized.
MR. COLAYCO: Will Commissioner Davide accept an additional amendment? I
am not too comfortable with the phrase Towards these ends. I would
propose the
collective phrase TO THIS END.
MR. DAVIDE: It should be singular?
MR. COLAYCO: Yes, but I am leaving it to the Committee.
MR. DAVIDE: The ends are enumerated in the first paragraph. I think this is
the sense of the Committee.
MS. NIEVA: Perhaps we can leave this to the Committee on Style.
MR. ROMULO: Will Commissioner Davide consider another amendment?
MR. DAVIDE: I would like to hear it.
MR. ROMULO: The amendment is to delete the phrase promote the
establishment of independent and self-reliant socio-political and economic
structures,
because I think that is a redundant phrase. That is part of the States
program or measures to regulate ownership, and this should be left to
Congress to
decide.
MR. DAVIDE: I am willing to agree, with the understanding that Sections 19
and 20 be approved by the body because if we approve Sections 19 and 20, I
really would agree with the Commissioner that the phrase promote the
establishment of independent and self-reliant socio-political and economic
structures is a redundancy.
MR. ROMULO: I agree, subject to that reservation.
MR. DAVIDE: Then I would agree.
THE PRESIDENT: How then will this second paragraph read with the
amendment of Commissioner Davide?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, it will now read as follows: TOWARDS THESE
ENDS, THE STATE SHALL REGULATE THE ACQUISITION, OWNERSHIP, USE,
AND DISPOSITION OF
PROPERTY AND ITS INCREMENTS.
THE PRESIDENT: What does the Committee say?
MR. PADILLA: Madam President.
putting this
in the definition, it would look like we are giving singular attention and
privilege to that sector. We have discussed this in our Committee and we are
wondering if the Gentleman is agreeable to this phraseology as Section 2:
THE PROMOTION OF SOCIAL JUSTICE SHALL INCLUDE THE COMMITMENT TO
CREATE ECONOMIC
OPPORTUNITIES BASED ON THE FREEDOM OF INITIATIVE AND THE PRINCIPLE
OF SELF-RELIANCE. Could that be Section 2?
MR. ROMULO: May I just consult my cosponsor, Commissioner Villegas, if that
is acceptable.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, with due respect to Commissioner
Romulo, I have a prejudicial motion before we suspended the session this
morning. I moved
for the deletion of this section on the ground that the provisions of Section 1,
particularly the words give highest priority to the enactment of measures
that protect and enhance the right of every citizen to human dignity, would
cover that of Section 10. And secondly, my argument was that here we are
giving importance to one sector.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, that is why the amendment is to eliminate
the phrase especially through small- and medium-scale entrepreneurs.
Precisely, we
want to get away from the idea that they are a privileged sector when they
were mentioned in the general statement. But we want to focus on the need
for
freedom of initiative and principle of self-reliance to counterbalance the
mandate for State action.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I request the reformulation of Section 10, as amended
by the Committee itself.
MS. NIEVA: Yes. This was the way we formulated it: THE PROMOTION OF
SOCIAL JUSTICE SHALL INCLUDE THE COMMITMENT TO CREATE ECONOMIC
OPPORTUNITIES BASED ON
THE FREEDOM OF INITIATIVE AND THE PRINCIPLE OF SELF-RELIANCE.
Basically, the first part is entirely the Villegas amendment but we felt that it
was
important to include the principle of self-reliance because we wanted to
stress that social justice is not only the States responsibility but the
citizens also.
MR. SARMIENTO: Then, with that explanation and amendment by deletion, I
withdraw my amendment.
MR. FOZ: The amendment would consist of the following: Insert the words
INCLUDING THOSE IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR between the words workers and
to, so that
the clause will now read: Guarantee the rights of workers INCLUDING THOSE
IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR to self-organization.
That is only in consonance with the response of the Committee to a previous
interpellation on the scope of the term workers. The Committee said that it
would include those in the public, as well as private, sector. So, to clarify, to
put emphasis and to stress that these rights shall also pertain to those
in the public sector, the amendment would include that phrase INCLUDING
THOSE IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: This proposed Section 3 was taken from my proposed
amendment and I would like o state that the intention of Commissioner Foz is
already
included in the words of any class or kind.
MR. FOZ: But it has been removed.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: The Committee would like to react.
We deleted the phrase of any class or kind on lines 20 and 21 of the draft
because we would like to avoid any formulation that would constitutionalize
a
distinction. And if we put that in the insertion being proposed by
Commissioner Foz, it might unjustly and without proper basis lay the basis
for a
distinction, which precisely we want to avoid.
MR. DAVIDE: If this particular phrase has been deleted earlier, I would
conform to the deletion, but would object to the proposal of Commissioner
Foz.
MS. AQUINO: The Committee is of the same position, Madam President.
MR. FOZ: I cannot see why there should be any objection to the inclusion of
such phrase, since the Committee itself responded before to a question that
the
term workers would include both workers in the public, as well as private,
sector.
MS. AQUINO: Are we in agreement with Commissioner Foz that the term
workers contemplates all classes and kinds of employees and laborers? We
are confused
about his intention in inserting a particular reference, an expressed reference
to the public sector. In other words, we think it is an unnecessary
surplusage.
MR. FOZ: In the first place, why was the phrase of any class or kind
dropped from the provision, if it was ever proposed at all?
MS. AQUINO: Precisely because we do not want to distinguish anymore.
Essentially, our reference to workers here refers to any class or kind, and we
are of
the feeling that if we explicitly provide for that, we just might unnecessarily
open the interpretation to some unwanted distinction.
Madam President, we would like to submit this to the floor for decision.
MR. FOZ: In view of the explanation, Madam President, I am willing to
withdraw the amendment, but I have other amendments concerning the
same provision if
the Committee will just allow me to proceed.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it on the same section?
MR. FOZ: Yes, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President.
MR. ROMULO: May I propound some questions to the members of the
Committee?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: I was about to propound a question to Commissioner Foz
regarding the phrase that he wants to insert. The response by the members
of the
Committee seems to imply that that is not necessary because this paragraph
already includes those in the public sector. Do I get it right?
MS. NIEVA: Yes, that is right.
MR. ROMULO: These rights guaranteed by this paragraph include the right to
strike in accordance with law. So, even the policemen, the nurses in our
Department of Health or at the Philippine General Hospital, and maybe even
the members of the army, are included in that guarantee the right to
strike in
accordance with law.
MS. NIEVA: That is precisely why we placed that phrase in accordance with
law. We know that there are exceptions, and these include the armed forces
and
the civil defense workers that the Gentleman has mentioned. And so, these
would not have that right to strike if it is not in accordance with law.
MR. RODRIGO: So, Congress then has the power to enact a law stating that
there is that right to strike except for the members of the armed forces,
police
forces and civil service employees. Is that correct?
MS. NIEVA: That is right.
MR. RODRIGO: Before Congress enacts such a law, what would be the
situation?
MS. NIEVA: We understand there are existing laws that would govern that.
MR. RODRIGO: Existing laws?
MS. NIEVA: Yes.
MR. RODRIGO: Thank you very much.
MR. FOZ: Madam President, in connection with the same question of
Commissioner Rodrigo, I would like to ask a question. Does the phrase in
accordance with
law refer to all the rights enumerated in this provision, such as selforganization, collective bargaining and negotiations, peaceful concerted
activities
and also the right to strike? Does the phrase have reference to the listing of
the rights of workers?
MR. SUAREZ: No, Madam President, because one will notice that there is no
comma between the words strike and in, so the phrase in accordance
with law
is limited to the phrase including the right to strike.
MR. FOZ: But does not the Committee think or believe that these rights listed
here self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, peaceful
concerted activities are merely being guaranteed but the workers have
these rights? They exist even without being mentioned here in this provision.
MR. SUAREZ: That may be true, but the Gentleman was asking whether or
not the phrase in accordance with law qualifies the other antecedent
phrases.
MR. FOZ: That is right.
MR. SUAREZ: It does not. In this particular regard, it only qualifies the phrase
right to strike.
MR. FOZ: Does that mean that the law that may be passed on this matter will
have to deal only with the right to strike but not with the rights to
self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations and peaceful and
concerted activities?
MR. SUAREZ: That is the thrust of this particular provision, Madam President.
MR. FOZ: Does that also mean that while Congress may regulate the right to
strike, it may not regulate activities as far as self-organization, collective
bargaining and negotiations and peaceful and concerted activities are
concerned?
MR. SUAREZ: I think Congress can, in an implied way. But in the case of the
right to strike, we made it quite clear that this should be done strictly in
accordance with what Congress may provide in the future. But it does not
certainly preclude Congress from enacting laws that will guarantee the rights
of
workers to, say, self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations and
peaceful and concerted activities.
MR. FOZ: But we can say that these rights exist, that the workers have these
rights. And by mentioning these in this provision, we are only saying that the
State is under a mandate to guarantee these rights.
MR. SUAREZ: The Gentleman is right.
MR. FOZ: I would like to proceed to the amendment, Madam President. Still
on the same section, between the words humane and conditions, insert
the
words TERMS AND. So that the phrase will now read: just and humane
TERMS AND conditions of work.
The right of the people including those employed in the public and private
sectors to form associations, unions, or societies for purposes not contrary to
law shall not be abridged.
And we find the same statement in this Article.
I am suggesting that the Committee be more parsimonious in the use of
words. Frankly, this has been repeatedly mentioned during our public
hearings, and as
I said, even in private communications. Probably, some of us must have
received similar letters. I think we should take note of these suggestions.
MS. NIEVA: We appreciate those observations, Madam President, and we are
very conscious really that we should not usurp the role of the legislature
here.
MR. FOZ: Madam President.
MR. MONSOD: Does Commissioner Colayco have any suggestion on how we
can be less enumerative? We would be happy to receive his suggestions
because his point
is well taken.
MR. COLAYCO: Yes. This occurred to me because I notice that during the
period of amendments, the provisions are getting longer. We will never end
with
this. It took us more than one hour and a half just to approve one section,
and already we are eight days behind. So, this suggestion is made not only
to
the Committee but to my colleagues. And I do not want to contribute to what
I am trying to avoid.
Thank you.
MR. FOZ: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Foz is recognized.
MR. FOZ: I have one last amendment in response to previous statements, but
I would like to ask the question first. Is the concept of a decent living wage
not subsumed in the concept of just and humane terms and conditions of
work?
MS. NIEVA: Yes, the Gentleman may be right. So, is he suggesting that that
be deleted?
MR. FOZ: In that case, I so move that the phrase and to a decent living
wage be deleted on the ground that it is already covered by the phrase just
and
humane TERMS AND conditions of work.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, for a parliamentary inquiry. Before going
into that next amendment by Commissioner Foz, I would like to ask: Have we
voted
already on his first amendment inserting the words TERMS AND between
humane and conditions which was accepted by the Committee?
THE PRESIDENT: Not yet.
MR. RODRIGO: So, I think we should vote on that first.
THE PRESIDENT: We have not yet voted on that; that is why we would like to
get the other amendments which may be accepted by the Committee on this
particular line. If there are more amendments then we will proceed to vote.
What is the suggestion of Commissioner Foz?
MR. FOZ: I suggest, Madam President, that we vote first on my first
amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: This has been accepted by the Committee.
Is there any objection to this particular amendment?
SR. TAN: Madam President, I object.
THE PRESIDENT: Is this correct? Has this been accepted by the Committee?
SR. TAN: Has it been accepted by the Committee?
MS. NIEVA: Yes, we have accepted that.
MR. MONSOD: Yes, that has been accepted.
SR. TAN: But I would still like to object because we have been fighting for a
living wage.
MS. NIEVA: No, we are not there yet.
THE PRESIDENT: We are still on the phrase TERMS AND conditions of work.
MS. NIEVA: We are just talking about the phrase just and humane TERMS
AND conditions.
MR. FOZ: Madam President, with the understanding that the term wage
would refer not only to basic wage but to all other monetary emoluments to
be given
to the workers, I am willing to withdraw my amendment.
MS. NIEVA: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President.
MR. OPLE: Madam President.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I ask that Commissioner Regalado be recognized?
MR. OPLE: I do recall, Madam President, that I yielded voluntarily and
graciously to Commissioners Foz and Colayco. I said I would resume my seat
so that I
would not stand in the way of the resolution of the Foz amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: So, Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: Thank you very much.
I am looking at a vital clarification of Section 3(b). The intent of the
Committee, I think, is critical and, as to whether or not I would propose an
amendment later on, I would like it to conform with the contour of their own
wish and intent. There is in this paragraph the guarantee of the right of
workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, peaceful
concerted activities, including the right to strike as may be provided by
law, for their mutual benefit, welfare or aid, security of tenure, just and
humane conditions of work, a decent living wage, and to participate in
policyand decision-making processes affecting their interests. And, of course, I
consider this a commendable paragraph, even if it may fall short of the
expectations of Commissioner Colayco as to his standards of constitutional
brevity.
But the vital question to ask and I hope the Committee will respond to this
is whether or not in the contemplation of this paragraph, mutual benefit,
welfare or aid, security of tenure, just and humane conditions of work,
decent living wage and also participation at the level of the undertaking by
the
workers constitute new grounds for declaring a strike in addition to what the
existing law provides; namely, unfair labor practice or economic deadlocks.
Is it the intention of the Committee to expand the strikeable grounds in
economic disputes by adding this new series of situations in the place of
work?
MR. FOZ: Yes. But I heard the answer of the Committee that strikes will only
be declared on the ground of collective bargaining deadlocks on economic
grounds.
MR. OPLE: That is under the existing law, Madam President, but there is
nothing in this provision that will curtail the ability of Congress to expand the
grounds for declaring a strike.
MR. FOZ: But I heard the Committee say that that is not the intention. The
intention is not to expand the grounds for strikeable issues.
THE PRESIDENT: Will Commissioner Aquino enlighten Commissioner Foz?
MS. AQUINO: Yes. There was no intention. The Committee may have been
misinterpreted by Commissioner Foz. In fact, if he will read the provision as
proposed, it grants plenary rights pertaining to the right to strike in
accordance with law. We were just referring to the action in labor law and the
jurisprudence in labor and management relations that recognize that the
right to strike pertains to deadlocks in collective bargaining agreements and
unfair labor practices. If there is anything more encompassing than that, I
could not fathom it at the moment.
MR. FOZ: Yes. But Congress, under this provision, may provide for any
strikeable issues.
MS. AQUINO: Yes.
MR. FOZ: Thank you.
MR. REGALADO: Madam President, may I proceed with the proposed
amendment for which I was recognized?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Was the amendment not accepted by Commissioner
Ople?
MR. REGALADO: It was amended, Madam President. But I still have a few
minor amendments.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it on the same topic, because we will have to put the
other amendment to a vote?
MR. REGALADO: Then, I can defer in the meantime.
MR. DAVIDE.: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: In fact, we have not yet voted on Section 5 (a).
and
defined by law, it was just a matter of balancing interests and concerns both
for the workers and the employers.
MR. BENGZON: Can we vote now, Madam President?
MS. NIEVA: On Section 3 (a)?
MR. BENGZON: We can vote on Section 3(a) Madam President, and then after
that we can vote on Section 3 (b).
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, before we vote On Section 3 (a), I have a
minor amendment that I have discussed with some members of the
Committee.
THE PRESIDENT: On Section 3 (a)?
MR. SARMIENTO: Yes, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Please proceed.
MR. SARMIENTO: My amendment is just to replace the word domestic with
the word LOCAL because the word domestic to me, Madam President, is
associated
with household help. So, some of the members of the Committee have
agreed to replace the word domestic with LOCAL.
MS. NIEVA: Madam President, we accept.
THE PRESIDENT: The Committee has accepted the amendment.
MR. SARMIENTO: Thank you, Madam President.
So, may I move, Madam President, that we vote on Section 3(a) before we
vote on Section 3(b), as amended?
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to Section 3 (a), as amended?
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, I suppose it should be without prejudice to
the reservation made by Commissioner Colayco.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is
approved.
policies that redound to the mutual benefit and to the common good of the
enterprise.
That is how I view this particular phrase concerning workers participation,
Madam President.
MS. QUESADA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Quesada is recognized.
MS. QUESADA: Could I just add to what Commissioner Ople already explained
about workers participation in the light of the questions of Commissioner
Regalado? Perhaps, it would be good for him to know that there are three
levels in which employees could influence management in their decisionmaking, and
one would be at the corporate level. This would refer to strategic policies
pertaining to the mergers, acquisitions, pricing and marketing policies,
disposition of profits and the like. The second level would be the plan on
department level. It is here where administrative decisions are made.
Decisions
made in this level may refer to hiring, firing and promotion of employees,
cost and quality control, resource allocations, achievement of target quotas,
et
cetera. And the third will be the shop-floor level. It is here where the socalled operating decisions are made. Decisions made in this level usually
refer
to scheduling of work, safety regulations, work methods, training of new
employees. So, these are the different levels in which we hope there would
be this
democratic participation of workers in vital issues that affect both
management and the workers.
MR. VILLEGAS: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Villegas is recognized.
MR. VILLEGAS: Just some supplementary remarks to the example cited by
Commissioner Ople.
In the local scene, there are two outstanding although admittedly
exceptional, examples of corporations that do not have labor unions but
precisely have
created over the years what they call employer employee councils where a
lot of issues affecting the welfare of the workers are discussed regularly by
workers and employers in a completely nonconfrontational manner. I am
referring to the United Laboratories and Timex, a multinational corporation.
These
have managed not to have labor unions, although I am saying that they are
exceptional cases. They are models of corporations that can work and
protect in a
very exemplary way the welfare of the workers without the need for
confrontation.
MR. REGALADO: Madam President, with those explanations. . .
THE PRESIDENT: I thought Commissioner Romulo has something to say.
MR. ROMULO: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Is Commissioner Regalado satisfied?
MR. REGALADO: Madam President, just one more amendment by
transposition because of those explanations which reveal the deliberative
intendment of this
phrase. It will be noted that under Section 3 (b), the State does not only
recognize but it guarantees the seven rights mentioned herein: namely,
self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, peaceful concerted
activities, including the right to strike, security of tenure, humane
conditions of work, living wage and participation in policy- and decisionmaking processes as has been explained here. Since the State has to
guarantee, of
course, it can guarantee only through law. And Commissioner Suarez has
stated that while the phrase in accordance with law here refers to the right
to
strike, but since all these other rights mentioned can only be guaranteed by
the State through provisions of law that will be enacted for that purpose,
aside from other rights supplementary to those that may already be existing,
then I would like to propose a transposition of the phrase in accordance with
law, which comes after the phrase the right to strike to the first sentence,
such that it will read: Guarantee, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, the rights of
workers to self-organization, collective bargaining and negotiations, peaceful
concerted activities including THE RIGHT TO STRIKE. They shall be entitled
to security . . .
In other words, all these are in accordance with law and the enumeration of
rights there is in a consecutive process, since we have already eliminated the
phrase for their mutual benefit, welfare or aid, which in the first place was
not necessary because of the necessity referred to them.
MR. FOZ: Madam President.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, before we vote on that proposal, I would like
to ask the Committee exactly what it means by that phrase. The very cogent
explanation of Commissioner Aquino is now out of context because the
linkages provided before no longer exist.
So, first, I would like to ask: What is exactly the intention of the Committee
with regard to the phrase AND TO PARTICIPATE IN POLICY AND DECISIONMAKING
PROCESSES AFFECTING THEIR INTERESTS? In other words, how does the
Committee envision this to take place? What Commissioners Villegas and
Ople are talking
about is voluntary, if it exists in the Philippines. If that is the interpretation
given to this phrase here, that it is guaranteed by the State,
therefore, it will become compulsory
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MR. ROMULO: So, may I ask Commissioner Aquino who is speaking on behalf
of the Committee.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, let me define and reiterate the parameters
covered by the phrase TO PARTICIPATE IN POLICY AND DECISION-MAKING
PROCESSES
AFFECTING THEIR INTERESTS.
We begin from the basic premise that at the barest basic minimum, the
workers are consulted on matters pertaining to their interests, and the
parameters
would be references to the negotiations in the collective bargaining
agreement and its terms. These would cover the processes of grievance
machineries;
likewise, these would pertain to the voluntary modes of settling labor
disputes and the conciliation proceedings which can be initiated and
mediated by the
Ministry of Labor.
MR. ROMULO: Thank you.
MS. AQUINO: Does that satisfy the Commissioner?
MR. ROMULO: Yes, because that is the same answer which the Commissioner
gave me the first time.
Thank you.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President.
would now be the rights and benefits of workers. In other words, the focus of
participation is now introverted to the rights and benefits of the workers.
What it is not refers to the practice in the industrialized nations in Europe
and in Japan referring to codetermination which pertains to charting of
corporate programs and policies.
However, the other matters mentioned by Commissioner Quesada which she
just read for purposes of informing the Commission are already rightfully
covered in
the negotiations of the collective bargaining agreement. So just to eliminate
the confusion, these are the parameters contemplated by participation in
policy and decision-making processes.
The Committee is proposing an amendment to delete the word interest on
the first page and substitute the words RIGHTS AND BENEFITS if only to
clarify the
intention of the Committee on this matter.
MR. FOZ: Madam President, may we ask a question in connection with what
was said by Commissioner Aquino?
MS. AQUINO: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner may proceed.
MR. FOZ: Is the Commissioner saying that codetermination is covered by this
provision?
MS. AQUINO: Precisely we were saying it is not.
MR. FOZ: Then what is the use of this provision? It does not advance any
labors position. It is just a statement of what is already provided for under
existing structures or practices.
MS. AQUINO: That was the reason why we defined codetermination in the
context of the practice in Japan and the industrialized nations in Europe. The
term
codetermination pertains to participation of the workers in corporate
planning, the charting of corporate business, modes and procedures of
corporate
management and acquisition of property.
MR. FOZ: The Commissioner does not foresee the passage of a law under this
provision which would allow workers to be represented in the board insofar
as
certain matters are involved?
MS. AQUINO: We envision that as the evolution of a process but not arising
from a compulsory mandate from the Constitution.
MR. FOZ: But a law may be passed?
MS. AQUINO: Congress has the inherent right to pass legislation.
MR. FOZ: Thank you.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, on behalf of the Committee, may we be
allowed to read the paragraph.
Section 3(b) reads: guarantee the rights of workers to self-organization,
collective bargaining and negotiations and peaceful and concerted activities
including the right to strike as may be provided by law. They shall be entitled
to security of tenure, just and humane conditions of work and to a living
wage, and to participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting
their rights and benefits.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I request that we defer our voting
on this section because of the reservation made by Commissioner Colayco. I
talked to
him and he told me that he will submit his proposal integrating paragraphs
(a), (b), (c) and (d) of Section 3 tomorrow morning.
MR. REGALADO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Regalado is recognized.
MR. REGALADO: I was on the floor just before the Chair suspended the
session. I share the same view that considering the reservations made by
Commissioners
Colayco and Padilla, I will also defer any further proposals on this point so
that they could all be integrated instead of being repeated.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, I propose a vote on this issue because there are
some Members here, including myself, who feel that the very exhaustive and
strenuous debates that have already taken place could end up as a highly
futile undertaking unless we now take a vote on these amendments.
Although I would
like to agree with the others, without prejudice to the amendment that
Commissioner Colayco may bring up tomorrow in accordance with the
original
agreement, I suggest .
THE PRESIDENT: In other words, Commissioner Ople is suggesting that the
body proceed to vote on principle on this point?
MR. OPLE: Yes, without prejudice to any amendments that Commissioner
Colayco will bring up tomorrow in accordance with the original agreement to
which all
of us subscribed.
MR. COLAYCO: I disagree with the thinking of Commissioner Ople. The
discussion of the various rights, programs and principles which are embodied
in Section
3 and the very illuminating comments given by Commissioner Ople himself,
Commissioners Aquino, Quesada and will not go to waste because these are
of record
and whether these provisions which we have now discussed will be approved
or not by tomorrow, or whether my own ideas are approved, surely they will
constitute a point of reference for future Congress when it tackles the
improvements which we are proposing in this Article. So it is not correct to
say
that they will go to waste; definitely not because Congress will surely consult
the beautiful and very elaborate discussions that took place this afternoon
when Congress tackles this section.
So, I move that further discussions be postponed until tomorrow morning.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: Before the session was suspended, the body had earlier
agreed that we would proceed on discussing and amending Section 3 and all
the other
sections.
With respect to Section 3, we have approved paragraph (a) without prejudice
to incoming amendments. However, after its approval, there were
amendments that
were attempted to be introduced. This was also true in Section 3 (b).
So, we can proceed and approve Section 3 (a), (b), (c) and (d), together with
all the amendments thereto without prejudice to Commissioner Colaycos
amendment tomorrow. He will either rise or fall with his amendment.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, I shall now resume my seat. But before I do so, I
just want to say that I am addressing myself to a question of proportion, and
I am talking about debates that have taken place the whole day on these
highly controverted sections. I just want to point out that in accordance with
the
original agreement, we could act on these amendments now without
prejudice to Commissioner Colaycos proposals to be given tomorrow
morning.
Thank you.
MR. BENGZON: The Committee agrees with the points raised by
Commissioner Ople, Madam President. If the Floor Leader, together with
Commissioner Colayco,
would insist on the motion to defer, the Committee would request a vote on
it.
MR. COLAYCO: I will not insist; I leave it to the Committee.
MR. BROCKA: Madam President, may I be recognized, just for a moment.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Brocka is recognized.
MR. BROCKA: When Commissioner Colayco stood up and mentioned about
letters that he had received questioning the way we are making the
Constitution, making
allusions to the fact that what we are doing is legislating by including all
these details, I cannot help but wonder how the past Articles were approved
without this particular question being brought up. Some of those Articles that
we approved on Second Reading and Third Reading are full of details also.
I felt that since this particular Article on Social Justice is a new one, it is only
the consensus of the members of the Committee that some of these
things be spelled out. Precisely, we have been very careful in the meetings
because we are very conscious about the problems of legislation. It is always
cropping up. If the body is going to insist on that and vote on this part, then I
would suggest that we be consistent from beginning to end in order to be
fair to others because there will be other Articles that will still be submitted. I
just cannot understand why this is being brought up now. Labor is such
a delicate and a very important item in the Article on Social Justice. This is
why it is necessary to come up with these details. If they are going to
insist on that and if the body is going to vote on it, then I would suggest that,
for the remaining articles, by all means, let us stick to that and come
up with a noncontroversial article. I just find it a bit unfair.
THE PRESIDENT: Are we ready to vote now?
issued by the ministry. It has been the complaint of many in the private
sector that
there are impositions on wages, COLA, benefits and so forth which are not
made applicable even to the employees of government. We should realize
that
sometimes in our efforts to grant more rights and benefits to labor, they may
result in discouragement to capital and management; and instead of
protecting
labor by giving more opportunities for work, they may result in detriment to
labor. Some private firms, especially those on the marginal level and which
barely make sufficient profits, have sometimes been induced, if not
compelled, to close. So instead of having more industries and more
opportunities for
work, we might be reducing these same opportunities for work which will
benefit labor.
MR. OPLE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: I do not know whether I should address this question to
Commissioner Padilla or to the Committee. But certainly, the Committee is
silent; it
would be acquiescing to a strange theory that minimum wage fixing is by
nature abhorrent to the State or to this Commission.
Earlier, I had the privilege to put a question to the Committee and
Commissioner Aquino graciously obliged with an answer to the effect that
when we speak
of modalities, referring to voluntary modes of dispute settlement and
strengthening collective bargaining and negotiations, there is no implication
that
the government is thereby abandoning minimum wage fixing as a national
policy. The Minimum Wage Law was started in 1951 with the Minimum Wage
Act of
Congress of 1951. It was reasserted in 1965 when the minimum wage went
up from P4 to P6. Then it was reasserted again in 1970, when the minimum
wage became
P8 and, of course, it was continued later on because of intermittent
economic crisis beginning with the first energy crisis. Whenever the OPEC
decided to
raise the prices of oil by quantum leaps, then it became necessary to
mitigate the plight of the workers here by enacting minimum wage orders. I
think
those wage orders benefited most of the workers, especially the unorganized
workers without unions and without collective bargaining agreement. I just
want
to make sure that Commissioner Padillas views on minimum wage fixing do
not go unchallenged and that the Committee, by its acquiescence, gives its
own
imprimatur to these views for purposes of determining the intent of the
Committee and of the Constitutional Commission in paragraph (b) of Section
3.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. LERUM: Madam President, may I be recognized?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Lerum is recognized.
MR. LERUM: The statement of Commissioner Padilla that the Ministry of Labor
and Employment issued these minimum wage orders is not correct. These
minimum
wage orders and cost of living allowances were issued by then President
Marcos in accordance with Amendment No. 6 and with the concurrence of
the Batasang
Pambansa.
I remember that during a caucus wherein the labor sector was invited, it was
agreed that as far as wage fixing and cost of living allowances were
concerned, these would be done through decrees on the ground that the
Batasang Pambansa would find it very difficult to enact such measures. So, it
is not
correct to say that these issuances were made by the MOLE; these were
done by the President. Of course, it was possible that under Amendment No.
6 itself,
the Batasang Pambansa could overrule the President. I think that is
something that may have been forgotten by others. Under that decree, the
President
could be overruled by the Batasang Pambansa through a bill filed and
approved by it.
We are very insistent that this provision on the living wage should be
included here to emphasize to the legislature that wage fixing should not be
forgotten and that whenever necessary, Congress should exercise its power
so that the workers will not suffer.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, if these Wage Order Nos. 1 to 6 were not
issued by the Ministry of Labor and Employment but by President Marcos in
the
exercise of Amendment No. 6, then I stand corrected.
But the fact is that there were so many wage orders, like Wage Order Nos. 1
to 6, which were only made applicable to the private sector. The government
employees did not receive some of the benefits in those wage orders. I
should not be misunderstood as against living or even decent, reasonable
wage, but I
believe that wages should be more the agreement between labor and
management, as what we say, through self-organization, collective
bargaining and
negotiations, and peaceful concerted activities. Wages must be living wages;
they must be decent wages, and if possible, profitable wages. What I am
saying
is that under the martial law regime Wage Order Nos. 1 to 6 were
successively imposed by the government on the private sector which was
not in full
conformity with them because they were imposed regardless of the financial
condition of the private firms. And so some private firms who barely made
marginal profits and could not comply with these wage orders were forced to
close. That is a fact that cannot be denied. So, Madam President, when wage
orders lead to the closure of some business enterprises, it affects the
economy. It is not only bad for the employers in the exercise of the
controversial
right to lock out but it is also bad for labor.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Is Commissioner Padilla proposing an amendment on the
last sentence?
MR. PADILLA: I propose to add to the last sentence the phrase AS MAY BE
PROVIDED BY LAW.
THE PRESIDENT: Is this accepted by the Committee?
MR. SUAREZ: That has already been accepted by the Committee.
MR. BENGZON: It has been accepted by the Committee, Madam President.
MR. LERUM: Madam President, may I reply?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Lerum is recognized.
MR. LERUM: In reply to the wrong statement made by the distinguished
Commissioner Padilla, may I say that in every decree issued regarding
minimum wage and
cost of living allowance, there is always a provision that those who cannot
afford can apply for exemptions. In other words, there is a saving clause so
Is there a comma between the word benefits and the phrase AS MAY BE
PROVIDED BY LAW?
MS. AQUINO: Yes.
MR. FOZ: Therefore, the phrase AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW would refer
not only to participation in policy- and decision-making processes, but also to
security of tenure and humane conditions of work and living wage, is that
correct?
MS. AQUINO: Yes.
MR. FOZ: This is different now from the phrase in accordance with law in
the provision containing the phrase including the right to strike. Is there no
difference?
MS. AQUINO: Yes, there is a difference.
MR. FOZ: What is the difference?
MS. AQUINO: As the Commissioner may have noticed, the qualifier as may
be provided by law in the first part of Section 3(b) pertains only to the right
to
strike but it does not have any reference to the right to self-organization,
collective bargaining and so on and so forth.
MR. FOZ: There is a degree of difference then between the right to selforganization and the right to security of tenure?
MS. AQUINO: Yes, there is.
MR. FOZ: In the case of security of tenure, Congress, through enactment of a
law, may deprive certain groups of workers from enjoying the right to
security
of tenure?
MS. AQUINO: Congress can only legislate to the extent that it is not
inconsistent with the constitutional mandate.
MR. FOZ: So Congress can do anything?
MS. AQUINO: Therefore, when the constitutional mandate says that the
security of tenure is guaranteed, that cannot be withdrawn by a statute from
Congress.
MR. FOZ: Is the Commissioner saying that with regard to security of tenure,
Congress can withdraw it but in the case of self-organization, it cannot?
MS. AQUINO: Precisely, that is what I am saying.
I said previously that Congress can legislate only to the extent that it is
consistent with the constitutional mandate. Therefore, when the Constitution
says that workers shall be entitled to security of tenure, Congress cannot
withdraw that right.
MR. FOZ: Then what other things can Congress do with regard to security of
tenure?
MS. AQUINO: It can amplify. It can reenforce.
MR. FOZ: It can also restrict?
MS. AQUINO: It can regulate; but it cannot withdraw and deny.
MR. FOZ: It cannot restrict?
MS. AQUINO: It can regulate and, therefore, necessarily this contemplates
that Congress can restrict according to the tenor and mandate of the
Constitution.
MR. FOZ: Thank you.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
MR. MONSOD: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: May we suspend the session for two minutes?
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.
It was 5:33 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 5:51 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed. The Acting Floor Leader is
recognized.
I think I speak for the rest of the members when I say that we plead to our
fellow Commissioners not to emasculate the section on labor which we had
all
worked for so long and so painfully for.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, the body is now ready to vote on the
motion.
THE PRESIDENT: In other words the Committee is objecting to the motion of
Commissioner Colayco for deferment of the voting on Section 3(b). Is that
correct?
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: I propose a compromise. We have already voted on Section
3(a), have we not?
We are now ready to vote on Section 3(b) which has been discussed
thoroughly.
My compromise is: Let us vote on Section 3(b), and then defer discussion of
Section 3 (c) and (d). Would that not be acceptable?
MR. COLAYCO: Madam President, it is acceptable. Also, I would like to erase
from the minds of some of our Members here that I have been unfair to the
Committee. I think the President knows that.
MR. RODRIGO: Is my proposal acceptable to the Committee?
MS. NIEVA: Yes, the Committee accepts that proposal.
MR. RODRIGO: Thank you.
MR. FOZ: Madam President, we have a pending matter.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Foz is recognized.
MR. FOZ: I am objecting to the amendment of Commissioner Padilla adding
the words AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW after the word benefits at the
end of the
sentence.
MR. BENGZON: Point of order, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: I think the solution is very simple. The only issue here is about
the comma. So, if we are willing to remove that comma after benefits, I
think MR. FOZ. I am objecting to the amendment of Commissioner Foz would
be satisfied. I asked Commissioner Padilla, the proponent of the amendment,
of AS
MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW, and he said he did not place a comma there.
So, I would like to ask Commissioner Foz if he would be satisfied if that
comma were removed.
THE PRESIDENT: What does the Commissioner say?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
MR. FOZ: May I give way to Commissioner Davide? I think he has a proposal,
Madam President.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: If the intention is to limit the phrase AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY
LAW to the last part of the paragraph; that is, to participate in policy and
decision-making processes affecting the rights and benefits, as a happy
compromise I would propose the following: Between the words and and
to insert
a comma (,) and the following: AS PROVIDED BY LAW and another comma (,)
so it will read: and, AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW, to participate in policy
and
decision-making processes affecting the rights and benefits. I propose this
amendment if the intention really is to contain that particular proviso to
this last clause.
MS. QUESADA: Madam President, may I have some clarification from
Commissioner Davide?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Quesada is recognized.
MS. QUESADA: When the Commissioner says, AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY
LAW, is the intention for the law to implement this particular provision on
the
participation in policy- and decision-making processes?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes.
MS. QUESADA: Is it possible also that legislation may not provide for such
participation?
MR. DAVIDE: No, because the opening sentence of Section 3 is, IT SHALL BE
THE DUTY OF THE STATE TO:
MS. QUESADA: So, legislation may not.
MR. DAVIDE: This is just to avoid the misconstruction, if the words AS MAY
BE PROVIDED BY LAW will be after benefits.
MS. QUESADA: The reason why some of us object to putting this clause AS
MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW is the possibility that the law may not provide
such an
implementation.
MR. DAVIDE: What may be provided by law is the mechanics, but it is the
duty of the State to provide for it. That is my interpretation.
MS. QUESADA: Thank you.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, I made a suggestion but I think the
suggestion of Commissioner Davide is an improvement to my suggestion. So
I yield to his
suggestion if it is acceptable.
THE PRESIDENT: Is the Commissioner withdrawing?
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, as the proponent, I am sorry, I cannot accept
the amendment to the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Padilla is the original proponent.
MR. FOZ: Madam President, if the amendment of Commissioner Padilla has
been accepted by the Committee, it is for the Committee now to accept or to
reject.
MR. PADILLA: In fact, I believe that my proposal was already accepted by the
Committee.
MS. AQUINO: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: To clarify the position of the Committee, I think there may be a
difference in terms of appreciating whereof we come and whereof
Commissioner
Foz comes.
When we say AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW, it does not necessarily mean
that the law will restrict, delimit, withdraw, eliminate or subtract. In fact, this
phrase can be looked at in the context of the law defining, reenforcing, giving
specific mechanics, amplifying all in the positive aspect.
MR. FOZ: But it can also be in the negative aspect.
MS. AQUINO: In the same way that we recognize that Congress will always
have the inherent valid right to provide for the statutory implementation of
the
constitutional provision.
MR. FOZ: The impression being created by the addition of the words AS MAY
BE PROVIDED BY LAW is precisely to restrict the concept of security of
tenure
of the workers. We do not find the same provision or the addition of the
words AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW in the 1973 Constitution. Why should
we put it
here now?
FR BERNAS: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bernas is recognized.
FR. BERNAS: I think the problem is not just legal but also political. By
political, I refer to the effect this would have on the workers because it would
be read as a retrogression. Let me read the sentence in Section 9 of Article II
of the 1973 Constitution. It says:
The State shall assure the rights of workers to self-organization, collective
bargaining, security of tenure, and just and humane conditions of work
If we give now any impression that we are limiting these, it could be
demoralizing to workers, even if the reaction of workers is a result of a
misunderstanding by them of our intention. The only novel thing we have in
Section 3(b) is really the last clause and to participate in policy and
decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits. My
recommendation would be that we put a period (.) after the phrase after
living wage,
and treat this novel provision here as a separate sentence.
MR. MONSOD: So it reads: THEY SHALL PARTICIPATE . . .?
BY
LAW.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: Those in favor of the proposed amendment of Commissioner
Padilla will please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
Those against the amendment will please raise their hand. (Several Members
raised their hand.)
MR. COLAYCO: Madam President, I am abstaining from voting.
THE PRESIDENT: The results show 7 votes in favor, 27 against, and 1
abstention; the amendment is lost.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. What is the next amendment?
MR. SARMIENTO: I move that we vote on the amendment of Commissioner
Bernas.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the Chairman of the Committee please read it.
MS. NIEVA: The Bernas amendment reads like this: They shall be entitled to
security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and to a living wage. THEY
SHALL
ALSO participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting their
rights and benefits AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: Those in favor of this particular amendment will please raise
their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
Those against will please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
MR. COLAYCO: I abstain, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The results show 35 votes in favor, 2 against and 1
abstention; the amendment is approved.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Romulo be
recognized.
ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, Commissioner Rodrigo made a
compromise proposal which was adopted by the Committee and the body
that we defer discussions
on Section 3(c) and (d).
Madam President, in view thereof may I move for the adjournment of the
session until tomorrow at nine-thirty in the morning?
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
The session is adjourned until nine-thirty tomorrow morning.
It was 6:23 p.m.
Footnotes:
* Appeared after the roll call.
R.C.C. NO. 50
Thursday, August 7, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
At 9:46 a.m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia Muoz Palma, opened the
session.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is called to order.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please rise to sing the National Anthem.
Everybody rose to sing the National Anthem.
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please remain standing for the Prayer to be
led by the Honorable Florangel Rosario Braid.
Everybody remained standing for the Prayer.
PRAYER
Present*
Natividad
Present*
Alonto
Present
Nieva
Present*
Aquino
Present
Nolledo
Present
Azcuna
Present*
Ople
Present*
Bacani
Present
Padilla
Present*
Bengzon
Present*
Quesada
Present
Bennagen
Present
Rama
Present
Bernas
Present
Regalado
Present
Rosario Braid
Present
Reyes de los
Present
Brocka
Present*
Rigos
Present
Calderon
Present
Rodrigo
Present
Castro de
Present
Romulo
Present
Colayco
Present
Rosales
Present
Concepcion
Present
Sarmiento
Present
Davide
Present
Suarez
Present
Foz
Present
Sumulong
Present
Garcia
Present*
Tadeo
Present
Gascon
Present*
Tan
Present
Guingona
Absent
Tingson
Present
Jamir
Present
Treas
Present
Laurel
Present*
Uka
Present
Lerum
Present*
Villacorta
Present
Maambong
Present*
Villegas
Present
Monsod
Present
MR. CALDERON: Madam President, I move that we approve the Journal of the
previous session.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection that we approve the Journal of the
previous session? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
MR. CALDERON: Madam President, I move that we proceed to the Reference
of Business.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
The Secretary-General will read the Reference of Business.
REFERENCE OF BUSINESS
The Secretary-General read the following Proposed Resolution on First
Reading and Communications, the President making the corresponding
references:
PROPOSED RESOLUTION ON FIRST READING
Proposed Resolution No. 536, entitled:
RESOLUTION AMENDING SECTION TWENTY-EIGHT OF THE RULES OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION BY ALLOWING RECONSIDERATION OF
CONSTITUTIONAL PROPOSALS EMBODIED IN
THE FINAL DRAFT OF THE CONSTITUTION BEFORE ITS FINAL APPROVAL.
Introduced by Hon. Sarmiento.
To the Steering Committee.
COMMUNICATIONS
Letter from Mr. Crispin C. Maslog, President of the Philippine Association of
the Philippine Association of Communication Educators, College, Laguna,
recommending a broad-based ownership of mass media establishment of
more community-based newspapers and broadcast stations, Filipinization of
mass media
ownership, and prohibition of cross-ownership of mass media, among others.
(Communication No. 471 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on General Provisions.
Letter from the Daughters of Mary Immaculate, Our Lady of Remedios Circle,
Malate Catholic Church, M. H. del Pilar, Malate, Manila, recommending some
measures for the establishment of a moral regeneration of v throughout the
country.
(Communication No. 472 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Social Justice.
Letter from Mr. Jaime Hermida Ching, a con worker in Dammam, Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia, containing his suggestions in the framing of the new
Constitution.
(Communication No. 473 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Steering Committee.
Letter jointly signed by Messrs. Horacio M. Monteferio, Cesar P. Macasero,
Arturo P. Casuga, and Pedro L. Esteban, requesting inclusion in the Article on
Education, Science, Technology, Sports, Arts Culture of the Constitution the
following proposed provision: THE STATE, IN PARTNERSHIP, THE INDUSTRIAL
AND
BUSINESS SECTORS, SHALL ESTABLISH, MAINTAIN AND SUPPORT AN
INTEGRATED AND COORDINATED SYSTEM OF TECHNICAL AND VOCATIONAL
EDUCATION AND TRAINING FROM THE
SECONDARY TO TERTIARY LEVELS FOR MORE EFFECTIVE HUMAN SOURCE
DEVELOPMENT AND UTILIZATION.
(Communication No. 474 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Human Resources.
Letter from Mr. Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr., D Executive Secretary, Office of the
President, Malacaang, transmitting the letter of Sgt. Joven Giangan of
PAF, Mactan Air Base, Lapulapu City, seeking the abolition of the political
party system.
(Communication No. 475 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Constitutional Commission Agencies.
Letter from Mr. Rolando Cimafranca of Chugum cor. Abanao Street, Baguio
City, seeking a definite provision in the Constitution protecting the right to
life
of the unborn from the moment of conception.
the protection of the life of the mother and the unborn human life from the
moment of conception.
(Communication No. 489 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of
Principles.
Communication from Ms. Maribel C. Purisima of the Ministry of Trade and
Industry and one thousand five hundred and twelve other petitioners,
seeking to
include in the Constitution a provision obliging the State to protect the life of
the unborn from the moment of conception.
(Communication No. 490 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of
Principles.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
CONSIDERATION OF
PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 534
(Article on Social Justice)
Continuation
PERIOD OF AMENDMENTS
MR. RAMA: I move that we take up the unfinished consideration of the Article
on Social Justice which is now in the period of amendments.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
The honorable Chairman and members of the Committee on Social Justice
are requested to please occupy the front table in order that we may proceed
with the
continuation of the period of amendments.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, I think that should really be the thrust of land reform.
MR. MONSOD: Yes, but there is a division in the Committee. When we say
especially the landless, that suggests that even those who already have
land would
still be beneficiaries.
MR. DAVIDE: Let us just clarify this for the record. What really is the objective
of land reform? Is it to give priority to the landless and should not be
applied to farm workers and farmers who already have lands of their own?
MR. TADEO: I agree with Commissioner Davide.
MR. DAVIDE: So, I think the Commission will have to decide on this particular
issue-the scope of agrarian reform.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Madam President, may I offer an amendment to the
amendment of Commissioner Davide?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de los Reyes is recognized.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Will Commissioner Davide accept an amendment by
placing the word LAND LESS between regular and farmworkers so that
it will read:
on the basic right of farmers and regular LANDLESS farmworkers. . .
MR. DAVIDE: The amendment will not remedy the apparent conflict in the
interpretation, because under that particular interpretation, it would apply
only to
regular landless farm workers but not to farmers with out lands of their own.
So, I really would seek a definite stand of the Committee.
THE PRESIDENT: In other words, Commissioner Davide does not accept the
proposed amendment?
MR. DAVIDE: No, because it will remedy only partly, not the entire concept of
land reform.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.
It was 10:20 a.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
the basic
right of farmers and regular farmworkers, WHO ARE LANDLESS, to own
directly. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other pro amendment on this first sentence so
that we can on this?
Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President, for the sake of our being able to explain it
adequately to the people to whom we shall be explaining this, may I know
how
we justify the basic right of farmers and regular workers who are landless to
own directly or collectively the land they till? I do not see any difficulty
in saying that the farmers and farm workers have a right to some property
because that is needed for dignified living. That they should have a basic
right
precisely to the land they till is; however, something I do not see very clearly
and I would have to explain that to the people.
I see this distribution and redistribution as an exigency of the common good
and, hence, instead of affirming that this is founded on the basic right of
farmers and farm workers who are landless to own the land they till, I would
rather say that it is because the common good so requires it. That would
be
an amendment I would like to introduce in case I do not get a satisfactory
explanation.
In other words, I am not against their owning directly or collectively the land
they till. I think that is an imperative; I think that is necessary. What I
do not see so clearly is that that action of the government should be
premised on the basic right of the farmers or the farm workers who are
landless to
own precisely the land they till.
MS. NIEVA: So, would the Bishop suggest that the phrase founded on the
basic right of farmers be replaced by another phrase?
BISHOP BACANI: Yes, and instead I suggest: ON ACCOUNT OF THE EXIGENCY
OF THE COMMON GOOD, the State shall undertake an agrarian reform
program so that
farmers and regular farmworkers, WHO ARE LANDLESS, to own directly or
collectively the land they till.
MR. TADEO: Commissioner Bacani, dati itong primacy, ngunit pumayag na
rin kami sa inyong mungkahi sa isang pagpupulong ng Committee na gawin
natin itong
basic right.
BISHOP BACANI: Hindi po ako ang nagmungkahi noon. Present ako, pero
hindi ako ang nagmungkahi noon. Si Commissioner Monsod yata ang
nagmungkahi noon.
MR. TADEO: This is what basic right means it is a principle in agrarian
reform whereby those who actually till the land have the supremacy to own
the
same in a manner that is expeditious and/or in common with others. Ang
mismong nagtatrabaho sa bukid, ang magsasaka, ay mayroong pangunahing
karapatan or
first opportunity na magmay-ari at unang dapat makinabang sa bunga ng
kanilang pagod at pawis. Ito po kasi ang pangunahing principle at objective
ng
agrarian reform.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President, I do not deny that that is the principle.
What I would like to know is how we will justify that principle since it is not
self-evident? That is what I am trying to say. It is not a self-evident principle
that they should own precisely the land they till. That they should have
a primacy of right to the fruits is evident to me. That they should have also a
basic right to some property is evident to me. But that they should have a
basic right precisely to this land that they till is not as evident to me, and .
that is why I am not rejecting it as yet. I am asking for an explanation
of that not self-evident principle.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: I would yield to Commissioner Monsod, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, let me just give an example and see
whether that concretizes what the Commissioner is talking about.
Let us say that Juan is tilling the land of Jose. In the case of Jose, he may be
one of those small land-owners allowed to keep their land under the
retention limits as Commissioner de los Reyes said today. Now, Juan still has
a right to own land because he is a tiller and he is landless and, perhaps in
such an instance, he would have a priority to public land that can be
alienated. Is that what the Commissioner means?
BISHOP BACANI: Yes. In other words, that is it. When we say that farmers
have the basic right to own the land they till, it means that is true in each
and
every circumstance without any exception. So that when they till a certain
land and they fall within this category, then they can claim the right to own
that land and there is no possibility of denying that claim whatsoever.
MR. MONSOD: This is just a trial formulation to see if it reflects the Bishops
thinking. Suppose we amend the first part of this paragraph to read: The
State shall by law undertake an agrarian reform program founded on the
basic right of tillers and regular farmworkers, who are landless, to own land
directly or collectively or, in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just
share of the fruits thereof.
BISHOP BACANI: It does not seem to meet what I am trying to say. Can we
really, upon having put this in the Constitution, explain this? I think this is
one
of the instances in the Constitution where we affirm something theoretical.
MR. MONSOD: But that formulation took out precisely the phrase the lands
they till but recognizes that a tiller who is landless has a right to own land.
I am only trying to see if this is what the Bishop has in mind, but this is
certainly not the position of the Committee.
BISHOP BACANI: Yes, that would be what I mean when I say that they are
entitled to some land, and they are entitled even principally to the fruits of
that
land but not necessarily entitled to own the land they till.
MR. MONSOD: Yes, now we understand the point of the Commissioner, and
maybe that is something for the Committee as a whole to consider.
BISHOP BACANI: So, may I propose that as an amendment the
Commissioners own formulation which is a happy one for me and which, I
think, meets the
exigencies of land reform.
THE PRESIDENT: I think our difficulty is with the interpretation of
Commissioner Bacani that the phrase basic right means an unqualified and
plenary
right to claim.
BISHOP BACANI: Yes. In other words, when we speak of a basic right, then we
have a basic right to property or a basic right to life.
MS. AQUINO: Would it satisfy the Commissioner if we find an alternative to
the phrase basic right or to the word right, if only to approximate that
kind of a difficulty and address the problem of that interpretation?
This was premised on precisely the exigencies of the common good. The
social function of property which requires that in specific circumstances when
political and social stability is threatened, the government or the State has,
with just compensation, the right to expropriate land.
I completely share the fears of Commissioner Bacani about stating a basic
right, and I would be more comfortable of another reason were cited. I am
very
much in favor of giving lands to small farmers. I think that is a requirement
of political, social and economic stability. But I think we are treading on
dangerous grounds in articulating a certain basic right. Let us also keep in
mind that there are certain countries like Taiwan which in 20 years or so, in
one generation, has literally gone the full circle and is now implementing an
agrarian reform program which is exactly to consolidate their small farms
because the common good dictates that they should not have small farms
anymore.
A study of Taiwan in 1986 will show us their land reform program which is
completely the opposite of what they implemented in the 1950s because
they
realized that the common good requires that they do not grow sugar in onehectare properties, but should start to grow more and more in large-scale
farming. We cannot constitutionalize certain provisions which are
requirements of the common good today, but which 20 years from now may
be completely the
opposite
That is why I am very much in favor of this provision making sure that today,
in 1986, the millions of landless farmers should have land that they can till
which they can call their own, but let us be very careful about
constitutionalizing that kind of an exigency of the common good today which
may not be an
exigency of the common good in the year 2000.
MS. NIEVA: Is Commissioner Villegas proposing an amendment?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes, I propose an expression like because of the
requirements of the common good.
MR. TADEO: Madam President, gusto ko lang pong magpaliwanag.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tadeo is recognized.
MR. TADEO: Kung napapansin ninyo, nakalagay dito ang pariralang: to own
directly or collectively, at sinasabi ninyong nagsasaad ang collectively ng
common good. Ngunit mayroon pang mga lupain at batay iyan sa uri ng
which says, subject to such priorities, retention limits and other conditions
as Congress may prescribe. However. the Committee feels that it is
important to retain the words the lands they till because really in practice
that would be the preferential route as far as identification of the land is
concerned.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: The deletion of the term basic is best understood in the
context of the proposal of Commissioners Romulo and de los Reyes, which
will be an
insertion of a sentence after the word compensation. However,
preliminarily, it is the Committees position that the deletion of the term
basic and the
retention of the word right means that the polar star when we expound
the principle of land reform is that the farmer has a right to the land he
tills, but this is not an immutable right. In other words, his claim of ownership
does not automatically pertain or correspond to the same land that he is
actually and physically tilling. It would yield to the limitations and
adjustments provided for in the second sentence of the first paragraph,
specifically
the retention limits and the amendments of Commissioners Romulo and de
los Reyes, which the Committee is accepting.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President, I think that is the official sense and it
translates the meaning that was sought for in the amendment before, and
that is
why that is presented in this form now.
THE PRESIDENT: What does Commissioner Villegas say?
MR. VILLEGAS: I accept the formulation, Madam President.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, may we just point out two things here: In
the first sentence, the Committee has already accepted the term BY LAW
which was
introduced by Commissioner Jamir; in the second sentence, we have
formulated the phrase as Congress may prescribe. This sentence is really a
long
sentence and even includes the consideration of whatever law Congress shall
prescribe.
THE PRESIDENT: So, this is now accepted by the Committee.
THE PRESIDENT: What does the Committee say to the proposed amendment
of Commissioner Regalado?
MS. AQUINO: The Chairperson initially manifested the Committees
acceptance of the amendment to the amendment; however, we wish to
clarify that our
reference to small landowners does not necessarily mean that they should
be owner-cultivators, according to the definition that we have adopted. In
other
words; small landowners here who are entitled to State protection do not
necessarily refer only to owner-cultivators. However, there is one basic
principle
which should be respected and which we would accommodate that the
tenancy relationship be abolished. This is the basic principle of all land
reform codes
presently in effect.
MR. DE LOS REYES: It is in that spirit that this amendment is being offered.
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President, may Commissioner de los Reyes answer
just one question?
THE PRESIDENT: Please proceed.
MR. DE CASTRO: What does the Commissioner mean by small landowners?
How big is the land owned?
MR. DE LOS REYES: That will be as determined by law, although at present
the retention limit, I understand, is seven hectares.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, this section would now include or extend its
coverage to all agricultural lands. So, we feel that Congress will have a better
opportunity to define not only limits for land but for specific types of land or
crops, even perhaps suitable to different areas, because there are
different conditions for different crops in different areas. We do not want to
preempt Congress on this, although the intent is quite clear in the
provision where we are referring to small, and it is up to Congress to define
small in specific instances.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tingson is recognized.
MR. TINGSON: I do understand that there is a case entitled Nilo vs. Court of
Appeals, whereby the case states that small landowners are referred to as
having 24 hectares or less. Is that true to coconut?
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, the Committee would just like to clarify that
there may be cases defining small, but since the coverage of this Article is
wider than it was before, there would be need for additional congressional
clarification of that point.
MR BENNAGEN: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bennagen is recognized.
MR. BENNAGEN: The question of defining small in terms of absolute figures
is a tricky business because it depends on the number of variables, like soil,
climate, and all that. In any case, I think the provision, as formulated,
provides us some criteria, and these are subject to or shall take into account
ecological, developmental or equity considerations. We cannot be definite as
to sizes, with respect to rice, corn or whatever crops, because these are
variable, and this is proven by researches worldwide .
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. JAMIR: Parliamentary inquiry, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Jamir is recognized.
MR. JAMIR: May I know from the Committee the exact meaning of the words
agricultural lands. I ask this question because our Supreme Court considers
even
residential lands as part of the agricultural lands. Even our 1973 Constitution
divides lands into agricultural, mineral, and forest lands. So, I would
like an authoritative definition from the Committee, if that is possible.
MR. TADEO: Ayon sa aklat ni Commissioner Nolledo, ang Principles of
Agrarian Reforms, Cooperatives and Taxation, ang definition ng agricultural
land sa
ilalim ng Section 166, RA 3844, ay land devoted to any growth including, but
not limited to, crop lands, saltbeds, fishponds, idle land and abandoned land.
MR. JAMIR: So, the provision of RA 3844 cited by the Gentleman is a
definition of agricultural lands by the Committee.
Thank you.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President.
who have a right to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. We look at
this as a solution to the question on whether they really end up in a worse
situation by changing the system from tenancy relation to an employeerelation
because then the concept of an industrial employee will come in when that
employee receives a just share of the fruits thereof. If we notice, this is a
parallel clause in the subsection on Labor because in a way there is a parallel
situation in those two cases.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, there is a pending amendment which has been
accepted by the Committee and the proponent is insisting that it be voted
on. This
is the amendment of Commissioner de los Reyes.
THE PRESIDENT: We will first approve the amendment of Commissioner
Bacani with respect to the first sentence .
MR. DE LOS REYES: I am not insisting. There is no objection.
MS. NIEVA: The Bacani amendment reads this way: The State shall by law
undertake an agrarian reform program founded on the right of farmers and
regular
farmworkers WHO ARE LANDLESS to own directly or collectively the lands
they till or, in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of the
fruits thereof.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized .
MR. RODRIGO: Before we vote on that, may I ask the proponent some
questions?
THE PRESIDENT: Please proceed.
MR. RODRIGO: The ones who are covered by this sentence are farmers and
regular farm workers who are landless. What is the proponents concept of a
farmer
who does not own land? Is he somebody who farms another persons land? Is
that correct?
BISHOP BACANI: Yes, I believe that is what the Committee and I mean.
MR. RODRIGO: Regular farm workers, who are landless, are regular workers
in somebody elses farm?
tenancy relation. Hindi natin puwedeng sabihin ito dahil batay dito sa isang
thesis na ginawa ni Col. Virgilio David, sinasabi niya na mayroong 515,000 na
tenant farmer families ang nasasangkot na mayroong sharing. Ang hatian po
kasi sa niyugan, one-third, two-thirds two-thirds sa panig ng panginoong
may lupa at one-third sa panig ng tenant.
MR. RODRIGO: Samakatuwid, ang ibig bang sabihin ng tenancy ay crop
sharing? Kung mayroong crop sharing, iyan ba ang kahulugan ng
tenancy? Kapag ako
ang mayroong plantation ng coconut, at aalisin ko ang crop sharing . . .
susuwelduhan ko lang ang mga pipitas ng niyog at wala na bang tenancy?
MR. TADEO: Wala pong tenancy. Babagsak sila sa farm workers.
MR. RODRIGO: Ngayon, sapagkat walang tenancy, ang karapatan lamang ng
farm workers ay just share. Wala silang karapatang magmay-ari noong
lupa.
MR. TADEO: Ngunit kung regular ang participation ng farm workers, primary
sa production.
MR. RODRIGO: Kung regular. Ngunit kung bilang may-ari ng lupa, hindi ko
gagawing regular at uupa ako ngayon ng isang grupo. Sa isang taon, uupa
naman ako
ng ibang grupo. Hindi magiging regular. Samakatuwid, hindi babagsak sa
kategoriya ng tenancy, kayat hindi sila maaaring magmay-ari ng lupa.
Ganoon po ba?
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, we are instituting here a new provision
which will take effect upon ratification. In that instance, there is already a
history
to look at. When we say that a particular piece of land comes under the
agrarian reform provisions of the Constitution, then we can also look into the
history of the relationship between that owner and the farm worker as
defined over the years. In other words, Madam President, that landowner
may not, upon
ratification, change their relationship to get around the law because, after all,
there would be records on what the relationship was.
MR. BENNAGEN: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bennagen is recognized.
MR. BENNAGEN: Parang maganda yata ang tanong ni Commissioner Rodrigo.
Doon sa deliberations, lumabas ang punto na ang sacada ay hindi kasama sa
tinatawag
kaunting
kaparte sa ani. Samakatuwid, nagkakaroon ng crop sharing. Ang ibig bang
sabihin niyan ay iyong mga gumapas at iyong mga nagtanim ay mayroon ng
tenancy
relation?
MR. TADEO: Iyon pala ang ibig ninyong sabihin kangina.
MR. RODRIGO: Hindi. Isang halimbawa lang iyan, mayroon pang iba.
MR. TADEO: Tama po iyan. Hindi ko lang kasi nakikita kung ano iyong iniisip
ninyo tungkol sa crop sharing. Tama po iyong mga hunos at gapas at giik sa
atin. Kamukha sa atin sa Bulacan, sa isang daan at dalawampung anihin,
labing-apat ang ibinibigay sa manggagapas at anim na kaban sa gumigiik.
Hindi po
iyon ang ibig kong sabihing crop sharing. Ang ibig ko pong sabihin ng crop
sharing na tinugon ko po sa inyo kangina ay iyong binibigyan kita ng rental.
Hindi po iyon ang ibig kong sabihin kangina. Seasonal po iyon; iyon ang
tinatawag naming mga hired laborers.
MR. OPLE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: I wanted to put a question to Commissioner Rodrigo, and,
perhaps, also to the Committee, depending on his answers. There is no
necessary
correlation between tenancy and crop sharing, depending on how you define
crop sharing.
Dito po sa palayan at maisan ngayon, ang nakakaraming nabiyayaan ng
reporma sa lupa ay hindi iyong tumanggap ng CLT na titulo. Iyon siguro ay
mga
labinlimang porsiyento lamang. Iyong walumput limang porsiyento, iyon ang
mga dating tenants na ngayon ay nauwi sa leasehold. Mayroon ding
matatawag na
sharing iyan 75-25. Datapwat ang kaibahan, itong dating tenant, bagamat
hindi siyang may-ari, siya ngayon ang complete manager ng kaniyang
sinasaka.
Samakatuwid ay hindi na tenant pero nagbabayad pa rin ng katumbas ng
dalawamput limang porsiyento noong ani. Iyong leasehold, sa aming
paningin, mas
mataas ang naging antas ngayon kaysa doon sa magsasaka lamang.
MR. RODRIGO: Sang-ayon ako riyan, sapagkat ang inam noong leasehold
ay ang ibinabayad na buwis ng magsasaka ay eksaktong halaga. Kayat, pag
pinalaki niya
ang ani noong kaniyang bukid, lahat ng madadagdag na ani ay kanya na.
Hindi katulad ng crop sharing. Nadagdagan ang ani, nadagdagan din ang
kaparte ng
may-ari. Pero sa leasehold may tiyak na ibabayad.
Kapag nadagdagan ang ani, pag nagmasipag magsasaka, nagtanim ng
vegetables, nagtanim ng mga bagay sa lupa, ang lahat ay kanya.
MR. OPLE: Hindi lang iyon, kundi lahat ng management decision ay nasa
kamay ng nasa leasehold. Hindi katulad ng tenant na mayroong katiwalang
araw-araw ay
nag-uutos sa iyo kung ano ang gagawin mo. Samakatuwid, itatanong ko
lamang sa Komite, ito bang leasehold bilang isang uri ng land tenure ay
kabilang dito
sa agrarian reform na ating pinag-uusapan?
MR. TADEO: Magandang katanungan, Commissioner Ople. Gusto ko lang
liwanagin ang ibig sabihin ng tenancy iyong 50-50, 60-40, 55-45, 70-30.
Ito hong
leasehold ay kasama rito sa ating pinag-uusapan dahil sa sinasabi nating
retention limit, lalo na iyong hindi owner-cultivator, na nilinaw kanina ni
Commissioner Aquino. Halimbawa, sabihin natin na ang gamitin natin ay ang
P.D. No. 27, na ang seven hectares below ay maaaring iwan sa isang
panginoong may
lupa. Kaya iyong maiiwan sa kanya na seven hectares and below ay under
leasehold system, kaya kasama rito ang leasehold system, dahil doon sa
abolition ng
share tenancy.
MR. OPLE: Magandang balita iyan para sa maraming mga tenants ngayon na
ang unang hakbang sa kanilang liberasyon marahil ay hindi iyong tahasan o
tandisan
na siyang magiging may-ari ng lupa, kung hindi maaaring nandiyan sa
intermediate stage, sa kalagitnaan na leasehold muna; hindi siya ang mayari, datapwat
siya ang may poder, siya ang manager, siya ang nagdedesisyon tungkol sa
kanyang buhay.
Salamat po, Ginang Pangulo.
MR. RODRIGO: Thank you very much, Commissioner Ople. Now, just one
more question. I had already asked this cursorily in a past session. I refer to
the word
own which I consider a very important word. I would not want to raise false
hopes among our farmers. Ownership, as it is defined now in civil law, has
different rights attached to it: jus posidendi, the right to possess; jus utendi,
the right to a use; jus fruendi, the right to the fruits; and jus
disponendi, the right to dispose . . . I would discard jus abutendi or the right
to consume the thing by its use, because it is anti-social. But then since
we say that the farmers will own the land they till, can they dispose of it or
can they sell it?
MS. AQUINO: To the best of my knowledge, all of the laws pertaining to the
implementation of land reform as a policy of the government would program
and
limit the right of a beneficiary-farmer who has been given an Operation Land
Transfer or a certificate of land transfer and would have delimited options in
immediate disposition of the property. Even with the Homestead Act, one is
not allowed to dispose a homestead that has been granted to him within a
period
of 50 years from the period or from the time it was granted. It may be a
question of programming or regulating or delimiting prerogatives of
disposition.
It is provided by law.
MR. RODRIGO: In other words, may Congress limit the farmers right to sell,
to dispose, even to mortgage the land?
MS. AQUINO: Yes.
MR. RODRIGO: Another right is the right to bequeath. We know that we have
close family ties in the Philippines. Many people work and they try to have a
parcel of land for the security of their children. Let us say that a farmer
obtains under this land reform program a 2-hectare land. He has five
children.
The farmer dies. Will his five children inherit the land?
MR. TADEO: Maaaring manahin.
MR. RODRIGO: Ng lima niyang anak?
MR. TADEO: Hindi po. Ngunit ang batayan po kasi nitong land fragmentation
ay ang economic family-size farm; hindi mo ito napapasabog. Hatiin mo,
halimbawa,
sa lima mong anak ang matitira dito; sabihin nating .5 hectares o 5,000
square meters lamang. Hindi na iyan makasasapat sa kanyang pamilya. Ang
tunay na
intensyon ng agrarian reform program, kapanabay nito ang pagtutulak ng
national industrialization, ay ang sobrang lakas-paggawa na papasok sa
industriya
para mapanatili ang economic family-size farm.
MR. RODRIGO: So, this is another limitation on the ownership, should this
proposal be approved as a constitutional provision. Congress can then place
limits on the right of the heirs to inherit from the farmer who will be
benefited by this provision.
Now, just one last point. May he transform a portion of the land which is
agricultural to a residential lot?
MR. TADEO: Under RA 1199, ang isang ektaryang sinasaka ay nagkakaloob
ng 300 sq. m. na home lot.
MR. RODRIGO: So, does Congress also have the discretion on this matter?
MS. AQUINO: Yes.
MR. TADEO: Hindi maaaring subdivision, maaaring magkaroon siya ng home
lot o lupang tirahan.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, this first sentence in Section 5 has been
sufficiently discussed. May I ask that we take a vote on it.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there still need to read it again?
MR. RAMA: There is no more need to do so. We have read it several times.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: Those who are in favor of the proposed Bacani amendment
to the first sentence of Section 5, please raise their hand. (Several Members
raised
their hand.)
Those who are against, please raise their hand. (No Member raised his hand.)
The results show 30 votes in favor, none against; the amendment is
approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President. There are still proponents ahead of
Commissioner de los Reyes, but Commissioner de los Reyes is requesting
that his amendment
which has been accepted by the Committee be voted upon before we take
up the other amendments.
THE PRESIDENT: Will Commissioner de los Reyes please read his proposed
amendment.
MR. TREAS: From the explanation of the Committee itself, it seems that the
phrase JUST AND PROGRESSIVE SYSTEM is not necessary because it is
included in
just compensation, and this may just cause complications later on,
especially since we have been using the words just compensation. That my
purpose
here.
MR. MONSOD: Yes. Madam President, may we ask the bodys judgment on it.
I think the proponent has already explained, and so does the Committee.
MR. TREAS: Yes. The only amendment eliminate PROGRESSIVE SYSTEM
OF and make it JUST COMPENSATION to make it simpler.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bernas is recognized.
FR. BERNAS: We discussed earlier the idea of a progressive system of
compensation and I must admit, that it was before I discussed it with
Commissioner
Monsod. I think what is confusing the matter is the fact that when we speak
of progressive taxation, the bigger the tax base, the higher the rate of tax.
Here, what we are saying is that the bigger the land is, the lower the value
per square meter. So, it is really regressive, not progressive.
MR. MONSOD: Yes, Madam President, it is true. It is progressive with respect
to the beneficiary and regressive with respect to the landowner.
FR. BERNAS: But is it the intention of the Committee that the owner should
receive less than the market value?
MR. MONSOD: It is not the intention of the Committee that the owner should
receive less than the just compensation .
FR. BERNAS: In what way, therefore, is it beneficial to the buyer if the owner
will not get less?
MR. MONSOD: As we said earlier, it was only meant to reflect the market
reality that in bigger tracts of land, the cost per square meter goes down.
Since
the priority of the land reform really starts from bigger tracts of land, there
would be benefits to farmers, if the bigger tracts of land are first
covered by the land reform program.
realized upon execution, as the legislature must first appropriate the amount
over and above the provisional deposit.
So, my question here is: If we do not require prior payment, what happens to
the landowner now? Must he wait indefinitely? While in the meantime we
have
given priority to the landless, we have created another problem for the
erstwhile landed gentry since they cannot, in any way, use either the
property or
the supposed proceeds from the property of which they were dispossessed. If
the landless have rights, even the landed also have rights; or, as Clarence
Darrow says, Even the rich also have rights.
We are not talking about the rich here. He is already parting with his
property, and yet we go into an ephemeral, indefinite statement, subject to
the
payment of just compensation. And the question is: Where in point of time
will that compensation be made? That is why I ask that this amendment be
accepted subject to the prior payment of just compensation.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: There is no need to get excited, Madam President, because
the Committee is not insensitive to the needs of the landowners. When the
Committee
placed this paragraph or statement here, it was the sense that the landowner
would be immediately paid the just compensation. Otherwise, that
compensation
would not really be just at all.
And apropos of this, I would like to ask a question of Commissioner Ople in
the remarks that he just made that when he objected to the
constitutionalization of the State subsidy, I hope he did not mean that the
State would not in any case at all come to the rescue of the farmer where
necessary and pay the landowner in the event that the farmer is unable to
pay the just compensation.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, I think I made my meaning clear that subsidies
may be necessary to make up the difference in price so that the landowner
may be
justly compensated. But, at the same time, subsidy must always be a policy
of last resort. And I think the less that is said about it, the better so that
it does not become an open invitation in the future to potential
confabulators. We know all about some of these scandals in land pricing. It is
very easy
for a government bureaucrat and a landowner in Mindanao to fix a price so
that both of them will gain at the expense of the taxpayer.
So, I am not against subsidy from the State. What I am saying is that this
should be a last resort and it is amply covered by all the existing laws. May I
remind Commissioner Bengzon that just the other day P29 billion was
allocated as government subsidy to a few government banks which are
government
financing institutions like the PNB and DBP in particular. This P29 billion is
bigger than the budget of the Ministry of National Defense, the entire Armed
Forces, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Education, and I suspect
that we have to subsidize from pure taxpayers money these several
financial
institutions because we have been faced with a fait accompli. This has been
going on for some time because there is no curb on it.
And so, I agree that we subsidize the purchase of lands, but to raise it to the
level of a constitutional mandate, I would have serious scruples about
that.
Thank you, Madam President.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President.
MR. TADEO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bernas is recognized.
FR. BERNAS: Just one statement.
MR. TADEO: Sandali lang po, Madam President. Tungkol sa pagbabayad ng
lupa, gusto ko po lamang na malaman ninyo ang panig ng magbubukid.
Sa ilalim ng RA 3844, on the rights of preemption and redemption, ang
pinagbabatayan ditong naaprubahan noong August 8, 1963 kaya naman
monumental ang
araw na ito ay reasonable capacity of the farmer to pay. Sa ilalim ng P.D.
No. 27, ang naging halaga ng lupa per hectare ay P7,000 to P8,000 plus 6
percent interest for 15 years of equal annual amortization, inabot na ng
P15,000 at huhulugan pa iyan for 15 years. Nandiyan ang Minister of
Agrarian
Reform at ano ang sinasabi niya? Nine percent lamang ang nakabayad.
Sana ang inyong mga mungkahi ay hindi magpabigat sa aming mga
magbubukid kung hindi magpapagaan. Iyon lamang ang pakiusap ko sa
MR. DAVIDE: If the withdrawal is based on what was supposedly agreed with
the Committee, I will still object because we will have the concept of just
compensation for the farmers and the farm workers more difficult than those
others in cases of eminent domain. So, we should not make a distinction as
to
the manner of the exercise of eminent domain or expropriations and the
manner that just compensation shall be paid. It should be uniform in all
others
because if we now allow the interpretation of Commissioner Regalado to be
the concept of just compensation, then we are making it hard for the farmers
and
the farm workers to enjoy the benefits allowed them under the agrarian
reform policy.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, as we stated earlier, the term just
compensation is as it is defined by the Supreme Court in so many cases and
which we
have accepted. So, there is no difference between just compensation as
stated here in Section 5 and just compensation as stated elsewhere. There
are no
two different interpretations.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, may we also state that we have accepted
the opinion or interpretation of Commissioner Bernas, that the State may, in
some
cases, have to step in to make up the difference. So, it does not necessarily
follow that these will hurt the farmers.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President, I would like to pose what I consider an
important question for the Committee to answer, because we have
practically
approved the whole section already. When we speak of the right of farmers,
farm workers, the landless, etc., are they obliged to exercise that right? Shall
they be compelled to exercise that right or does it mean that they are free to
use or not to use the land?
MS. NIEVA: That is right. We feel that this is their right, but this is a right that
they may waive if they prefer to do so. They are not obliged to avail
of that right. It is there.
MR. OPLE: Madam President.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
dangerous borderline that may be self-defeating in the end. But I leave these
all to the Committee.
The other point I want to make is whether or not the Committee accepts the
fact that the reason why in most countries land reform programs have been
successful is because of newly liberated resources from land reform; that is,
the new capital made available to expropriated landowners have been
turned
into fuel for industrialization. This was what happened in Taiwan. Within five
years of the land reform program, $2 billion (Taiwan) was released for the
industrialization of Taiwan and, therefore, there was some synergy at work in
a land reform policy. It helped the farmer; the social purposes were met but,
at the same time, the need for economic development and accelerated
industrialization were also met with the same weapon.
And so, I would like to alert the Committee with my intention to propose a
brief amendment under the same section which would try to optimize these
resources locked up in the land but which will be released as a result of the
land reform policy for industrialization.
Thank you.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, for the Committee.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I think we should allow the Committee
members to eat first so they can be able to answer correctly the questions
from the
Members.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Aquino desires to reply. Can we listen first to
Commissioner Aquino?
MS. AQUINO: Yes, Madam President. The Committee would like to clarify and
eliminate the cobwebs that are presented so far.
For clarification, the concept and the mandate of social justice in the land
reform program do not amount to a compulsion to the farm workers to
assume
obligations which they are not prepared to assume. In other words, the
compulsory effect is to compel cooperation from the landowner. The element
of
compulsion works against the landowner, but not against the farmer or the
intended beneficiary of the program. The right to waive is not recognized
when it
amounts to a waiver in favor of another. Surely, we will recognize the
two of
them.
MR. TADEO: Madam President, pabor ako; kaisa ako sa mungkahi ni
Commissioner Sarmiento.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, may I suggest that we preserve the words
retention limits.
MR. SARMIENTO: That phrase is preserved, Madam President.
MR. OPLE: Yes, but I also would move for the deletion of other conditions.
May I visualize for the body the situation that will transpire in the future
Congress?
Most of those who will be elected by legislative districts will represent landed
interests, and they will focus on these other conditions to legitimize all
manner of circumventing the heart and the spirit of Section 5. I support
Commissioner Tadeo in his position that the words other conditions would
mean
providing in advance a weapon for future adversaries of Section 5 in the
Congress in order to circumvent the entire Section 5.
SR. TAN: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tan is recognized.
SR. TAN: Madam President, I am not referring to Mr. Marcos or to Congress; I
am referring to ourselves. Since we started this agrarian reform, I get the
impression that we are cutting more and more the rights of the farmers. First,
we removed basic, so it was only right; then, we added retention
rights; then, we removed just and progressive system; we just have just
with the understanding that there is prior payment; now we have and other
conditions as Congress may prescribe. So, I feel at this moment that this
land reform is for the benefit of the middlemen or the middle class or the
elite
class. So, I am pleading that at least that phrase other conditions be
deleted.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: I have a motion that they be taken and voted on separately
because that will not prejudice anybody.
from the text when one looks at the enumeration of all those limitations on
the power of Congress.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, will the Gentleman please yield to some
questions?
FR. BERNAS: Very willingly, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Nolledo is recognized.
MR. NOLLEDO: I would like to give emphasis to the words may prescribe.
Would the Gentleman agree with me that if I say subject to such priorities,
reasonable retention limits and other conditions as Congress may prescribe,
we are giving Congress a discretion to set forth priorities? The words may
prescribe would mean that Congress may not prescribe priorities after all?
FR. BERNAS: It is possible that in the judgment of Congress, what it considers
priority may be to set priorities.
MR. NOLLEDO: The Gentleman is aware that the Ministry of Agrarian Reform,
as announced in todays papers or yesterdays papers, is also observing
some sort
of priorities in the sense that they would like to complete the rice and corn
land reform program before going to coconut or sugar land because we do
not
have the necessary funding to finance the entire land reform program.
FR. BERNAS: The point is, I am not denying the right of Congress to set
priorities. All I am saying is that by enumerating all these, we give the
impression that we are trying to constrict the power of Congress.
MR. NOLLEDO: Based on the explanation of Commissioner Tadeo, we are not
constricting the power of Congress because Congress may begin first with
the big
landholdings and later on with medium-sized land holdings, and perhaps
later on with small landholdings unless they are exempt by Congress.
FR. BERNAS: But as I understand Commissioner Tadeo, he sees the difficulty
now and, as a matter of fact, he is willing to eliminate priorities.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, that was his first choice. But later he said that his second
choice, based on his interpretation is that the word priorities may exist
here after all. I think Commissioner Bernas would like to eliminate the word
priorities because of the words: taking into account ecological,
developmental or equity considerations which will take the place of
priorities.
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised
their hand.)
The results show 14 votes in favor and 20 against; the amendment is lost.
What is the other amendment?
MR. SARMIENTO: My second amendment, Madam President, is the deletion of
the words and other conditions.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of the deletion of the clause and
other conditions, also on the second sentence of Section 5, please raise
their
hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their
hand.)
The results show 20 votes in favor and 15 against; the amendment is
approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, there is still one proponent of an amendment
to Section 5.
May I ask that Commissioner Rosario Braid be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rosario Braid is recognized.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Madam President, I have an amendment by addition on
the second sentence of Section 5. Between encourage and and, insert
the phrase
VOLUNTARY LAND SHARING. May I please give the background of my
amendment?
I think we are all convinced that the government should take the prime
responsibility in agrarian reform and that we should put more teeth in the
implementation of the program so that we can redress present imbalances
and inequities. But 10 years from now, we would like the government to
assume a
lesser role. We would like to see more initiative from the people. We would
like to encourage efforts like what is happening in Negros in terms of
voluntary land sharing. We would like to be able to help reorient the middle
class, the landlords, the employers so that we can change adversary or
confrontational strategies to cooperative and harmonious relationships.
reason of
an exercise of a right? So, if we now allow land sharing among landowners, it
will remove the right to implement the land reform over these land areas
which are subject of the land sharing.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: I think the future legislature could come up with
provisions that would specify the size of land that could fall under voluntary
land
sharing and other specifics. The concept is to ensure that this is also taken
up as complementary program.
MR. DAVIDE: I would have no objection if the land sharing will be by the
farmers and the farm workers, because that would amount to collective
ownership.
But, if it would apply even to the landowners whose lands may be the subject
of land reform, then that might be dangerous. We give it as an option to the
farm workers and the farmers, but not to the landowners.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: I think it could be stated as an option, and we should
encourage it as long as it would not prejudice the existing land reform
program.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, as an option to the beneficiaries, but not to the original
landowners. I would agree with the proponent because it would really
encourage
the establishment of cooperatives or partnerships among the beneficiaries.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Yes.
MR. DAVIDE: But not in favor of the original land-owners.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Could we work on an amendment that would capture
the spirit of what Commissioner Davide said?
MR. DAVIDE: If it would be an option to be granted to the beneficiaries, I
think the word COLLECTIVELY would already embody the concept. They are
entitled
to own singly or directly, on the one hand, or collectively on the other. That
would already include land sharing. That is my own perception. I do not know
the position of the Committee on the matter.
MS. QUESADA: Madam President, could I just ask a few questions from the
proponent?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Quesada is recognized.
MS. QUESADA: The proponent said that the basis for this proposal was the
experiment that her organization tried out in Negros. Could she just
enlighten the
Committee on the background of such a proposal which has served as the
basis for this amendment on land sharing?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: It has emerged out of a dire need in the province of
Negros. As a matter of fact, it is perhaps the most imaginative and most
successful
program now. They have Ed Locsin of Chito Foundation and his colleagues
and these programs are supported by the Farmers Human Resource
Development
Programs of Mrs. Magsaysay and others. This experiment is spreading in the
region and has proven worthy of replication. It has been evaluated in many
reports. Among the benefits is the establishment of a more cooperative,
harmonious environment. Having the landlord and the worker together
reduces
confrontational and adversarial relations. It is a complementary strategy to
the traditional land reform program.
MS. QUESADA: Does the proponent envision the government to come in to
this kind of an arrangement?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Yes, by creating the climate. They have a number of
programs, primarily, training and research programs. Some of the resources
could
support the replication of these projects throughout the country. So, instead
of using the resources in just supporting the traditional land reform
programs, they can develop the pilot communities throughout the country.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, the amendment has been clearly explained by
the proponent and I think it is time to vote on that amendment.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: We will give the Committee a few minutes to deliberate on
this.
The session is suspended for a few minutes.
It was 3:33 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 3:35 p.m., the session was resumed.
And so, Commissioner Rosario Braid may read the proposed amendment as
amended.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rosario Braid is recognized.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: If the Committee will allow me to read the amendment,
it will be: THE GOVERNMENT SHALL PROVIDE INCENTIVES TO THOSE WHO
ADOPT VOLUNTARY
LAND SHARING. So, this will be the last sentence.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: This has been sufficiently discussed during the session and
also during the suspension of the session. So, they are ready to vote.
As many as are in favor of the proposed amendment of Commissioner
Rosario Braid to add a sentence to Section 5 which she has just stated,
please raise
their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their
hand.)
The results show 16 votes in favor and 14 against; the amendment is
approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, for a one-word amendment, I ask that
Commissioner Jamir be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Jamir is recognized.
MR. JAMIR: Madam President, my amendment is with respect to the second
sentence; insert the word ARABLE between all and agricultural.
THE PRESIDENT: Will Commissioner Jamir please explain?
MR. JAMIR: Yes, Madam President. I propose to insert the word ARABLE to
distinguish this kind of agricultural land from such lands as commercial and
industrial lands and residential properties because all of them fall under the
general classification of agricultural. And since the intention of the
Committee, apparently, is to limit the application of the word agricultural
here to land subject to cultivation I am adding the word ARABLE.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
mineral lands. All other lands are agricultural but definitely not all
agricultural lands are arable.
MR. SUAREZ: The problem is, if we define it with the word arable, it might
exclude the possibility of setting up, for example, a salt bed, a fishpond,
which may not, strictly speaking, be fit for cultivation or may not be arable.
That is the fear of the Committee, so we would rather that this be broadened
by just saying all agricultural lands, which would necessarily include even
salt beds and fishponds.
MR. PADILLA: In that case, if the Commissioner feels that arable does not
cover everything that should be covered by agricultural lands, except those
mentioned as residential, commercial and industrial, then we just say
agricultural lands without using the word all.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, my concern is about the more or less 600,000
kaingineros all over the country. We all know there is a program of the
Ministry of
Natural Resources granting stewardship contracts to these kaingineros that
later on can mature into ownership, so that they stop burning our forests,
destroying our watersheds and causing calamities on the lowlands,
especially through floods. Will this definition of arable lands exclude from
the
purview of agrarian reform these slash-and-burn farmers of whom we have,
according to the NEDA, no fewer than 600,000 right now?
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, some of these kaingineros burn trees within
timberlands or forest lands, and these are illegal acts. It is worse if they cut
the trees because that has given rise to many adverse consequences
erosion of soil, floods and others. So if these are timberlands and not
classified as
agricultural lands available to private grants like homestead, lease, or other
methods recognized by the Public Land Law, I believe that such lands are
still, or should remain as, forests or timberlands. The trouble is that when the
trees are cut, as we have rich soil, the lands within the forest can also
be used for planting agricultural crops. But I believe that if portions of the
forests or timberlands are no longer timberlands or forest lands, then by
public authority, the Bureau of Forest Development on the one hand, and the
Bureau of Lands, on the other, should agree to declare that such portions
thereof are already available for disposition to private parties for purposes of
agriculture. But before that, I believe we have to maintain the basic
difference between mineral lands, timberlands and agricultural lands.
MR. OPLE: May I ask the Committee, therefore, what its position is-whether
under this definition of arable lands and all agricultural lands proposed to
be distributed under Section 5, that the right of the kaingineros to their own
piece of land already released by the Bureau of Forest Development will not
be prejudiced in the light of this agrarian reform program that is before the
Commission?
MR. BENNAGEN: Ang mga kaingineros ay dapat kasali sa mga beneficiaries of
agrarian reform, pero iyong bahagi ng gubat na kanilang tinatamnan, dahil
sa
kawalan ng patag na kanilang matatamnan, ay hindi kasali sa agrarian
reform. Ito ay sa dahilang by definition, according to existing laws, pag
lampas na sa
18 percent degrees slope, hindi na kasama sa agricultural land kundi sa
forest. Kaya mahalagang may distinction iyong kainginero mismo at ang
kanilang
lupang tinatamnan.
MR. OPLE: Does the Commissioner mean that above an 18 percent degrees
slope, this is no longer covered by agrarian reform?
MR. BENNAGEN: No, kasi hindi pa iyon A and D. It is not classified as
alienable and disposable. It belongs to the classification of forest land.
MR. OPLE: I hope that the Commissioners interpretation is correct. But I can
assure him right now that there are millions of hectares in the Philippines
above an 18 percent degrees slope and are considered eminently cultivable.
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes, that is right. As a matter of fact, there was a big debate
on the issue of 18 percent, because 18 percent considers only the slope and
not the other variables that have to do with productivity.
MR. OPLE: The Committee on the Executive, therefore, should keep are open
mind about this limit, because I think it might just succeed in excluding
hundreds of thousands of hectares from agrarian reform.
MR. BENNAGEN: No. I am merely referring to the 18 percent in relation to this
concept which is being subjected to debate, partly in relation to ancestral
lands and partly in relation to the other variable, such factors of productivity
that have to be taken in consideration, not only the slope.
MR. OPLE: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Concepcion be
recognized.
because
there are a lot of relevant data on the specific classification of natural
resources:
If we will remember, in the 1973 Constitution, lands were classified into too
many categories and this gave the Marcos regime tremendous elbow room in
actually reclassifying lands, especially for the benefit of the Ministry of
Human Settlements. If we will remember also, that regime reclassified lands
into agricultural, industrial or commercial, residential, resettlement, mineral,
timber or forest, and grazing lands.
Now, in the committee report on the Article on the National Economy and
Patrimony, we recommended that we go back to the 1935 classification, as
suggested
by Commissioner Concepcion, so that we just have three mineral, timber
and agricultural and then we add a fourth one, national parks, which is the
innovation of this Constitution after a lot of public hearings where we got this
recommendation. We will discuss this at the opportune time. So we are
suggesting four classifications now, the three that appeared in the 1935
Constitution plus national parks.
I agree that it may not be necessary to add the word ARABLE because I
think there is already a jurisprudential definition of agricultural. And since
this is something that is subject more to further determination of the
legislature because, as already mentioned by Commissioner Bennagen, there
are all
sorts of technological changes that may render certain types of steep
mountains arable in the future. And as this body probably knows, there are a
lot of
industrial tree plantations that are much more agricultural really than
timberland. There are a lot of fast-growing trees that are being grown in the
same
way as we grow sugar cane so the distinction between timberland and
agricultural land is becoming thinner and thinner. That is why in the
committee report
on the Article on the National Economy and Patrimony, we are
recommending a new provision that the legislature or Congress should fix
the definition of
forest lands which should not be diminished there after, but the fixing
would be subject to a lot of studies because Congress would have to get
experts
to determine exactly what is timberland and what is agricultural land.
Thank you, Madam President.
farm workers; who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they
till or, in the case of other farm workers, receive a just share of the
fruits thereof. To this end, the State shall encourage and undertake the just
distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to such priorities and
reasonable retention limits as Congress may prescribe, taking into account
ecological, developmental or equity considerations and subject to the
payment of
just compensations. The State shall respect the rights of small landowners in
determining retention limits. The State shall further provide incentives for
voluntary land-sharing.
MR. REGALADO: Madam President, just a clarification. Was there a comma
after farm workers so that the phrase who are landless will refer to both
regular farm workers and farmers?
MS. NIEVA: Yes. I am sorry I did not mention the comma.
MR. REGALADO: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the Chairman of the Committee please read again the
last two sentences.
MS. NIEVA: The State shall respect the rights of small landowners in
determining retention limits. The State shall further provide incentives for
voluntary land-sharing.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: Those in favor of this proposed amendment to Section 5, as
read by the honorable Chairman, will please raise their hand. (Several
Members
raised their hand.)
Those against will please raise their hand. (No Member raised his hand.)
The results show 36 votes in favor and none against; the amendment to
Section 5 is approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Davide be recognized
to amend Section 6.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: Thank you, Madam President.
farmers and the farm workers without the necessary training for said
technology? So it is inherent in technology.
THE PRESIDENT: Is the Commissioner satisfied?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: I withdraw then with that explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other comment?
MS. NIEVA: We accept the amendment of Commissioner Davide deleting the
words and development, so the phrase reads: appropriate technology and
research.
THE PRESIDENT: Are we ready to vote now on the proposed amendment of
Commissioner Davide which has been accepted by the Committee?
Is there any objection to this proposed amendment? (Silence) The Chair
hears none; the amendment is approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, for another amendment to the same section, I
ask that Commissioner Rosario Braid be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rosario Braid is recognized.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Madam President, on the same section, I propose to
delete and marketing assistance and to substitute it with the words
SUPPORT
SERVICES, so that it will read: and adequate financial, production SUPPORT
SERVICES. The reason is that there are other important services; namely,
post
harvest technology and extension services. If we include marketing, then we
might as well include all the other support services. Post harvest technology,
if I may explain, includes storage, abattoirs and processing systems. And
these are different from marketing systems, so I propose to delete and
marketing
assistance and in lieu thereof, insert SUPPORT SERVICES after the word
production.
MS. NIEVA: Madam President, we accept the amendment.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: I would like to introduce an amendment to the amendment by
retaining and marketing assistance and adding what have been stated,
AND OTHER
SUPPORT SERVICES. So, after production, delete- the word and and after
assistance, add the following: AND OTHER SUPPORT SERVICES.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that acceptable to Commissioner Rosario Braid?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: It is accepted.
THE PRESIDENT: How about the Committee?
MS. NIEVA: If it is acceptable to Commissioner Rosario Braid, the Committee
accepts.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this proposed amendment of
Commissioners Rosario Braid and Davide which has been accepted by the
Committee?
(Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is approved.
MR. RAMA: On the same section, Madam President, I ask that Commissioner
Rigos be recognized.
REV. RIGOS: Madam President, I propose a minor amendment in the first
portion of the sentence which says:
The State shall recognize the right of farmers and farm workers, of
cooperatives and other independent farmers organization and land
owners . . .
by placing the word landowners immediately after farm workers so that
we refer to people first farmers, farm workers and landowners then
followed
by cooperatives and organizations which are associations. So we just put
them together.
MS. NIEVA: The Committee accepts, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
amendment is approved.
MR. RAMA: For the last amendment to Section 6, I ask that Commissioner
Davide be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: This is a very minor amendment, Madam President. After the
word organization on the third line, add S and transpose the apostrophe,
farmers to after s, so it should be farmers ORGANIZATIONS.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Committee accept?
MS. NIEVA: Yes, it is just a small spelling error, a perfecting amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
amendment is approved.
MR. RAMA: There are no more proponents to amend Section 6, Madam
President, so I ask that we take a vote on the whole Section 6.
MS. NIEVA: Section 6 reads: The State shall recognize the right of farmers,
farmworkers and landowners, of cooperatives and other independent
farmers
organizations to participate in the planning, organizing, and management of
the program and shall provide support to agriculture through appropriate
technology and research, and adequate financial, production, marketing, and
other support services.
MR. DAVIDE: It should be marketing assistance.
MS. NIEVA: Yes, I am sorry. It is marketing assistance, and other support
services.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de los Reyes is recognized.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Can we not substitute organizing with ORGANIZATION?
I think the phrase should be the planning, ORGANIZATION. . .
MR. BENGZON: We accept, yes.
MS. NIEVA: We accept.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to Section 6? (Silence) The Chair
hears none; the amendment is approved.
MR. RAMA: On Section 7, Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Ople be
recognized.
the regular farm workers, for ever acquiring land is nil and whose prospect
for
finding jobs outside of agriculture is also probably nil. And that is the reason
why this is just an additional permissive mandate to the State to
undertake its own agricultural estates where the landless workers may be
given the opportunity to engage in productive work and ultimately own the
lands
that compromise the governments own agricultural estates.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Madam President.
We just would like to clear up the definition of the word WORKERS from
Commissioner Ople because it might give the impression that it refers to
industrial or commercial workers. But I understand from his statement that
he is limiting the word workers to farmers and regular farm workers.
MR. OPLE: Yes, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: Maybe we can change the word WORKERS to FARMERS AND
REGULAR FARMWORKERS.
MR. OPLE: I would have no objection to that, although that is a longer term.
MR. SUAREZ: And then after the word DISTRIBUTED, would the
Commissioner have any objection to inserting the phrase TO THEM IN THE
MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW?
MR. OPLE: I want to thank Commissioner Suarez for a major improvement on
the language of the proposed amendment.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
As the proposal would stand, it reads: THE STATE MAY RESETTLE THE
LANDLESS FARMERS AND REGULAR FARM-WORKERS IN ITS OWN
AGRICULTURAL ESTATES WHICH SHALL BE
DISTRIBUTED TO THEM IN THE MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW.
MR. OPLE: Yes, Madam President, I accept.
MR. SUAREZ: I thank you.
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes, Madam President, may I clarify this phrase: disposition
of other natural resources. I think only agricultural lands are alienable in
the Article on the National Economy and Patrimony. Timberlands and mineral
lands are not alienable. What is really the objective of applying agrarian
reform to disposition of other natural resources?
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, the word disposition there does not mean
transfer of title. It may mean, for example, in the case of forest areas, that in
the giving of concessions, the people in the community around the forest
should be given some preferential attention or treatment. So, that does not
necessarily mean transfer of title, and the addition of the words OR
STEWARDSHIP probably clarifies it even more.
MR. VILLEGAS: And so, even in mineral lands the Committee is also thinking
of small-scale mining?
MR. MONSOD: Yes, because as the Commissioner knows, that is also included
in the Article on the National Economy and Patrimony where we talk about
small-scale utilization of natural resources.
MR. VILLEGAS: As long as the word disposition is legally understood not to
be synonymous with alienation, then I think it is clear.
MR. MONSOD: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Azcuna be recognized for an amendment
to the same section.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Azcuna is recognized.
MR. AZCUNA: Madam President, I just would like to add the words OR
UTILIZATION after disposition to make it clear that it really refers more to
the use
of other natural resources since only public lands are alienable.
MR. MONSOD: We accept the amendment.
THE-PRESIDENT: The Committee accepts.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, may we just explain something. While the
word disposition does not necessarily mean transferring legal title, we do
envisage
situations where land which is of the public domain because we say
including lands of the public domain suitable to agriculture becomes
available for
disposition when the State changes the classification. So, we accept the
amendment OR UTILIZATION.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: So that I may vote intelligently, may I just ask
Commissioner Romulo to explain what he means by the principle of
stewardship, because from
the philosophical and theological point of view I find that very laudable;
however, I do not know whether there is a legal meaning to it which may be
different from that.
MR. ROMULO: Yes, Madam President, I propose it in the legal sense actually;
that is, that the individual would have free use or free occupancy but he
would
not be given a legal title to the land. That is what we call in law as
usufructuary.
MR. BENNAGEN: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bennagen is recognized.
MR. BENNAGEN: Nais ko lang idagdag dito iyong nabanggit na ni
Commissioner Ople kangina tungkol sa kaso ng mga kainginero. Mahalaga
kasi sa mga lugar na
classified as forests pero puwedeng agricultural kasama dito iyong tree
plantations na nabanggit ni Commissioner Villegas na maaari nilang
gamitin ang
lupa kasama ang principles of agrarian reform; meaning, mayroong
complementary structures and services that would support the use of forest
lands for
agricultural purposes. Ito iyong agro-foresty na tinatawag. Kaya ang punto
dito, bagaman hindi ibibigay sa kanila ang titulo ng lupa, magagamit naman
nila
ang lupa for a certain period of time subject to renewal. In practice, umaabot
ito ng 25 years o 50 years pero the title is never given to them; ito ay
kanilang kontrata sa pamahalaan but subject to the principles of agrarian
reform. Ang ibig nitong sabihin, susuportahan ito ng pamahalaan sapagkat
sa
karanasan ng integrated social forestry program, kung walang suporta iyan
batay dito sa principles of agrarian reform, lalong nasisira ang gubat at hindi
rin umaasenso ang kabuhayan ng kainginero.
MR. RAMA: Since there are no more amendments. . .
THE PRESIDENT: Shall we proceed first to vote on the Romulo and Azcuna
amendments as incorporated by the Committee? Will the Committee please
read the
first three lines?
MS. NIEVA: The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform OR
STEWARDSHIP whenever applicable in accordance with law IN the disposition
OR
UTILIZATION of other natural resources . . .
THE PRESIDENT: Let us vote on those amendments first.
Is there any objection?
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: Before we vote, in Section 5, the State shall undertake an
agrarian reform program to enable the farmers and regular farm workers to
own the
land. As a matter of fact, this was the subject of my interpellation-ownership
of the land.
Now, in this Section 7, we use STEWARDSHIP but we also say we apply the
principles of agrarian reform. Does this mean that the words to own also
apply
to Section 7?
MS. NIEVA: I think that was explained, that in many instances where the
lands belong to the government and may not be alienated, they will not
receive the
title. As it was stated here as an example, the 600,000 kaingineros of
whom Commissioner Ople was very concerned can take advantage of the
utilization
of these natural resources, receiving the support of the State. And this is
what we mean by the principles of agrarian reform that the State shall
give
them all the support and the assistance that they would need to be
successful in their utilization of these natural resources, but they will not
receive
the titles.
MR. RODRIGO: Not to own?
MS. NIEVA: Not to own.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: Those in favor the proposed amendments of Commissioners
Romulo and Azcuna as incorporated by the Committee will please raise their
hand.
(Several Members raised their hand.)
Those against will please raise their hand. (No Member raised his hand.)
The results show 31 votes in favor and none against; the two amendments
are approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, may I ask the Chairman of the committee to
read the entire section as amended.
MS. NIEVA: Section 7 shall now read as follows: The State shall apply the
principles of agrarian reform or stewardship whenever applicable in
accordance
with law in the disposition or utilization of other natural resources, including
lands of the public domain suitable to agriculture under lease or
concession, subject to prior rights, homestead rights of small settlers and the
rights of indigenous communities to their ancestral lands.
The State may resettle landless farmers and farm-workers in its own
agricultural estates which shall be distributed to them in the manner
provided by law.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection?
MR. TADEO: Madam President, for clarification. Prior rights refer to previous
rights of indigenous cultural communities and settlers over the land on which
they live and cultivate or use for livelihood.
MR. BENGZON: That is among others, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: So are we ready now to vote?
Is there any objection to Section 7, as amended? (Silence) The Chair hears
none; Section 7, as amended, is approved.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair calls for a suspension of the session for a few
minutes.
It was 4:57 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 5:29 p.m., the session was resumed with the Honorable Florenz D.
Regalado presiding.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): The session is resumed.
The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I ask that Commissioner de los Reyes be
recognized to present amendments to Section 8.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner de los Reyes is
recognized.
MR. DE LOS REYES: This amendment is a joint amendment of Commissioner
Teodulo Natividad, myself and the honorable Presiding Officer.
On Section 8, line 1, delete the word preferential between the words the
and rights; insert the word PREFERENTIAL between the words the and
use
on line 3; and insert the word COMMUNAL between the words of and
marine on the same line, so that the sentence will read: The State shall
protect the
rights of marginal fishermen and local communities to the PREFERENTIAL use
of COMMUNAL marine and fishing resources, both inland and offshore,
particularly
municipal fishing grounds
The other sentence will be amended correspondingly so that the section will
not be too long.
MS. NIEVA: The Committee accepts.
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner Natividad is
recognized.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Will the distinguished proponent please yield to some
questions?
MR. DE LOS REYES: Yes, willingly.
I also agree with the use of the word conservation because I believe that
the State should not only develop these areas but should also conserve or
protect them from foreign encroachment and from encroachment of rich
fishermen or fishpond owners. Sapagkat sa aktuwal na situwasyon,
maraming lalawigan
ang dapat nating tingnan. The borders of communal fishing grounds are
fishponds. And the fishpond owners, by operation of law, extend the
boundaries of
their fish ponds. Ang tawag namin dito sa Bulacan ay naglalabas ng
palaisdaan, naglalagay ng pilapil upang sakupin ang palaisdaang bayan.
That is why I
would like to inject into this debate that the conservation of these communal
fishponds should include their protection from encroachment of rich
fishermen
and fishpond owners which has been the root of many historic struggles
between the rich and the poor, in this case, between the rich fishermen and
the poor
fishermen. Kaya kung tayo man ay nagpapakita ngayon ng pagmamahal sa
mga magsasaka, nais nating sabihing kasama sa ating pagmamalasakit dito
ang mahihirap
na mangingisda.
Salamat po.
MR. SUAREZ: Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: I would like to inquire from the proponent certain matters.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Yes.
MR. DAVIDE: Would the use of the word COMMUNAL as proposed by the
Commissioner now qualify marine and fishing resources?
MR. DE LOS REYES: That is correct.
MR. DAVIDE: So, may Congress set aside certain areas as communal marine
and fishing areas?
MR. DE LOS REYES: No. Pursuant to Commissioner Davides explanation
yesterday, Congress may not do that because all these lakes are communal.
MR. DAVIDE: That was precisely the idea of my earlier proposal to delete the
words the direct or communal use. Now, under the Commissioners
proposal, he
would in effect allow Congress to define what area within the marine and
fishing resource area should be considered communal, not the entire area
itself.
MR. DE LOS REYES: On the contrary, it will prevent Congress from doing what
the Commissioner envisions.
MR. DAVIDE: In other words, under this proposal, the meaning would be that
all marine and fishing resources must be communal.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Yes.
MR. DAVIDE: If that is the meaning, I would have no objection to it. The
purpose of my inquiry was precisely to prohibit Congress from defining a
particular area as the only communal area.
MR. SUAREZ: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): What is the position of the
Committee?
MR. SUAREZ: Mr. Presiding Officer, may we just ask the proponent a
clarificatory question?
MR. DE LOS REYES: Yes.
MR. SUAREZ: Is our understanding correct that the communal character
would be applied to fishing grounds and resources and not to their use?
MR. DE LOS REYES: No, the use is preferential. In the light of the query
yesterday of Commissioner Ople whether, for example, fishermen from
Bulacan going
to Quezon will be denied the use of the communal fishing grounds, the
answer of the Committee was that that was not the intention, but with
preferential
right to marginal fishermen and local communities.
MR. SUAREZ: Because as originally proposed by the Committee, it would be
communal use rather than communal marine and fishing resources. But the
intention
is clear here that what the Commissioner wants to be owned by the
community are the fishing resources and grounds?
MR. MONSOD: What about Laguna de Bay? In specific terms, would this
Article now prohibit the granting of licenses to have fish pens in Laguna de
Bay?
MR. DE LOS REYES: That is the intent of the amendment, Mr. Presiding
Officer.
MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner de Castro is
recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: May I ask the proponent a questions?
MR. DE LOS REYES: Yes.
MR. DE CASTRO: What does the Commissioner mean by marginal?
MR. DE LOS REYES: Marginal is not my term; that is the definition of the
Committee and, therefore, the Committee should answer that question.
MR. DE CASTRO: May I know the meaning of marginal?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Let us hear from the Committee.
MS. NIEVA: By marginal I think we are referring to the small fishermen.
MR. DE CASTRO: What does the Committee mean by small fishermen?
MS. NIEVA: Those who do not operate large fishing fleets and so forth; those
who are barely eking out their living from fishing.
MR. SARMIENTO: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I just volunteer this information
or data on small fishermen.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Let us hear from Commissioner
Sarmiento.
MR. SARMIENTO: According to IBON facts and figures, the Bureau of Fisheries
and Aquatic Resources estimates that there are 550,731 municipal
fishermen.
They are distinguished by the fact that they operate in coastal waters less
than seven fathoms deep, using motorized or nonmotorized bancas weighing
less
than three gross tons. Because of the seasonality of fish, municipal
fishermen operate only on an average of five hours a day, twenty days a
percent own their boats and only 20 percent own any land. This is probably
what
would qualify them to become marginalized fishermen.
MR. DE CASTRO: I will give an example.
In our place, there is a man who is a fisherman since birth. In fact, he seldom
uses clothes on his back and his hair is already red because he is always
fishing in the sea. He was able to build a good house made of hollow blocks
and cement because of his fishing and is now considered one of the richest
fishermen there. He uses about three or four bancas powered by a Briggs
and Stratton 16 HP. He has about five or ten baklads connected with fish
pens and
catches a good amount of fish everyday. He earns a much better earning
than a regular employee, earning perhaps P1,500 a month. Is he a marginal
fisherman
under this term? If he is not a marginal fisherman, then he will not have the
right, the preferential right, to fish in Laguna de Bay.
I want to make this clear because he may say, I am a small fisherman and
yet he earns more than what a regular employee or a lawyer in our place
earns.
MR. BENGZON: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner Bengzon is
recognized.
MR. BENGZON: On the basis of all these observations and doubts of
Commissioner de Castro, may we, therefore, hear his amendment, if he has
formulated one.
MR. DE CASTRO: I have not formulated any amendment. I would like first to
understand what is meant by marginal and what is meant by small.
MR. BENGZON: I think when the Committee says marginal fisherman, it
refers to one who subsists marginally through fishing.
MR. DE CASTRO: So, the Gentleman means a fisherman who lives on a handto-mouth existence?
MR. BENGZON: That is the meaning that the committee contemplated when
it used that word marginal. If the honorable Commissioner has some
difficulties
with respect to its interpretation, we would be happy to consider his
amendment.
disagree with the suggestion that communal waters like Laguna de Bay be so
defined to prohibit fish pens. I think there is a provision in the Article on
National Economy that the State can limit the use of water rights for
irrigation, water supply, fisheries or industrial uses other than development
of
water power to beneficial use. It would prejudice eight million consumers of
fish, for example, in Metro Manila if we do not allow a highly productive
technology of fish farming that can be given to specific entrepreneurs who
can actually fish, have fishponds of bangus or other types of freshwater fish.
As long as we have the preferential rights given to these marginal fishermen,
I do not think we should completely prohibit the State from giving this type
of natural resources to individuals who can productively make use of these
waters for the benefit of eight million consumers of fish in Metro Manila. That
is why it is very much parallel to the concept of agrarian reform where we do
not prohibit the private cultivation of land by individuals. We have, for
example, the retention limit. So, I would object in saying categorically that
fish pens are prohibited in communal waters like Laguna de Bay.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Will Commissioner Villegas answer one question?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner de los Reyes is
recognized.
MR. DE LOS REYES: In his experience and studies, does the Gentleman know
of any other country that allows its lakes and rivers to be fenced in such a
manner that a few moneyed people are able to exclude the marginal
fishermen from fishing in the communal fishing grounds?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes, definitely. In fact, Nigeria has imported Philippine
technologists to teach her how to do inland fish farming.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Aside from Nigeria.
MR. VILLEGAS: There are not so many countries like the Philippines that have
developed the indigenous technology of fish farming. Actually, for the
information of the body, we are the pacesetters in the world in fish farming,
and I think it would be very much inimical to the very interest of the poor.
Remember that 50 percent of the diet of the poor depends on fish, and if we
start preventing technology from being used in the cultivation of water
resources I repeat, I am not against the application of the principles of
agrarian reform and stewardship to the marine resources; I am very much in
favor but I think we cannot be exclusivists and say that absolutely no use
of communal waters will be allowed for a technology that has been evolved
through the years in the Philippines . . . Just to allay the fears about the small
fishermen, we are also recommending in the Article on the National
Economy that priority be given to cooperative fish farming in rivers, lakes,
bays and lagoons. So, in the same way that in agrarian reform we say direct
use or collective use of land, we can also include in the provision for small
fishermen that they can get together and, in a cooperative way, take
advantage of the technology of fish farming. But it does not mean that we
cannot completely prohibit a private individual from doing the same thing.
MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner de los Reyes will first
reply to the clarification of Commissioner Villegas.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Ako ay walang tutol na magkaroon tayo ng teknolohiya
upang lalong maging masulong ang pangingisda. Subalit hindi ito dapat
gawin sa
Laguna Lake at sa iba pang communal fishing grounds. Dapat itong gawin sa
mga inland fishing grounds. Kaya ko ipinaglalaban ang sampung libong
mangingisda
na naninirahan sa paligid ng Laguna at Rizal ay madali silang mahihikayat ng
ating mga kapatid sa labas na lumaban sa kasalukuyang sistema ng ating
pamahalaan sapagkat sinasabi ng ating mga kapatid sa labas na ang ating
batas ay para sa mayayaman lamang. Kapag sinimulan nating bigyan ng
pagkakataon ang
mga fishpen operators, wika nga ni Ka Blas Ople, in the real world ay hindi
naman magiging preferential lamang. Unti-unting mawawala ang small
fishermen at
magiging katulad ng mga American-Indians na sinasabing hindi pipinsalain
subalit unti-unting napapapunta sa Indian reservations. Iyon po ang aking
ipinaglalaban dito. Sampung libong pamilya ang nahihikayat na ng ating mga
kapatid na sinasabi nating naliligaw ng landas. Gusto nating magkaroon ng
pagkakataong ipakita sa kanila na sila ay hindi nalilimutan ng pamahalaan.
MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): We will hear briefly from
Commissioner de Castro on a point of information.
MR. DE CASTRO: May I offer some information in the light of the fact that we
are talking about Laguna Bay. Laguna Bay has an area of 90,000 hectares.
The
Laguna Lake Development Authority has limited the fish pens to about
21,000 hectares and only in a certain area, the reason being that it really
supplies a
greater amount of fish in Metro Manila and these fish pens employ
approximately 5 to 10,000 employees in their fish pens. Also, with fish pens
given the
right to be built in Laguna de Bay, all the places beginning from Ilocos down
to the southernmost of Mindanao have a good way of living because of
catching
the fries yung kawag na tinatawag na nagiging bangus. Ngayong mga
panahong hindi pa dumarating ang bagyo, maraming kawag sa Ilocos Norte,
Zambales,
Bataan hanggang Aurora, then down to Zambales, to the whole Bicol region,
Palawan, Mindoro and the whole Visayas up to Zamboanga. Ang hanapbuhay
ng mga tao
sa tabi ng dagat ay manghuli ng kawag at sila ay kumikita ng malaki rito. At
ang mga kawag na ito ay kailangan sapagkat ginagamit ng ilang fish pens sa
Laguna de Bay.
Will the proponent answer one question?
MR. DE LOS REYES: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. DE CASTRO: Is the Gentleman aware that there are fish pens established
by the so-called small fishermen through the ADB-OPEC funding?
MR. DE LOS REYES: There is such a program and I also know that these
fishermen who claim to be fishermen are not really fishermen but dummies
of moneyed
people.
MR. DE CASTRO: So, the Gentleman wants to say that the LLDA has
manipulated this money for ADB-OPEC, which money was taken from the
Organization of
Petroleum Exporting Countries through a loan and then given to the LLDA for
the construction of fish pens of supposedly small fishermen who have
established themselves into cooperatives. Is the Gentleman now telling me
that the ADB-OPEC funds have been misused by the LLDA?
MR. DE LOS REYES: I am not saying that the LLDA is deliberately misusing
the OPEC funds. What I am saying is that even the LLDA people are being
misled by
these people who act as dummies of the moneyed class.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): With this information given to us
and the statistical data made available, what is the position of the
Committee?
MR. VILLEGAS: May I just say something, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, there has been no proposal for
amendment.
But perhaps Commissioner de los Reyes, and even Commissioners Natividad
and Davide, can summarize what we discussed regarding the proper
definition of
communal marine and aquatic resources.
MR. VILLEGAS: May I have one last word please; one final reaction.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner Villegas may
proceed.
MR. VILLEGAS: I think we are already treading in legislation because we are
talking about Laguna de Bay. I think I would completely agree with
Commissioner
de los Reyes regarding the general principle he mentioned that there are
other inland waters that ca be used for fishpens. I think he did admit already
that in principle he is not against having other inland waters.
The only bone of contention right now is whether or not Laguna de Bay is
going to be included among these bodies of water.
MR. MONSOD: May I just interrupt. The reason I wanted Commissioner de los
Reyes to speak is that earlier we had asked him if his amendment
automatically
means that the entire Laguna de Bay, as an example, is considered a
communal marine and fishing resource. We would want to seek a clarification
of his
answer because his initial answer was that the entire Laguna de Bay can be
considered communal. That is the reason we wanted a clarification. Perhaps,
that
could also help the Gentlemans concern.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): What does Commissioner de los
Reyes say?
MR. DE LOS REYES: After conferring with Commissioners Natividad and
Davide and explaining to me the situations obtaining in their respective
provinces, I
am beginning to believe that we should have senators so that they will have
parochial views. I think I might be having parochial views with regard to
Laguna de Bay.
But, according to Commissioner Natividad, the shallow portions should be
considered communal because that is where the marginal fishermen could
fish. But
the deep portions of bays, rivers or lakes are where marginal fishermen could
not fish. Therefore nonmarginal fishermen, those who have big banca can be
allowed to fish in deep portions, giving preferential right, however, to
marginal fishermen to fish in the shallow portions.
Therefore, hearing the different views submitted I this representation the
suggestion is to insert the word THE before communal to read: to the
preferential use of THE communal marine and fishing resources to convey
the idea that it refers only to that portion which is declared communal.
Considering that legislation the art of the possible, I am willing to accept the
suggestion.
MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Presiding Officers may I ask one question of the
proponent?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner de Castro is
recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: When the Gentleman says deep and he refers to Laguna
de Bay, may I know how many feet is the deepest portion of Laguna de Bay?
I know that Laguna de Bay is deepest during the rainy season, especially
from August to September, reaching about 15 feet; then during summer, it is
only
12 feet. What is now the communal portion since it is sometimes deep and
sometimes shallow? I know this because I live near Laguna de Bay and I may
even be
considered a marginal fisherman.
MR. DE LOS REYES: The problem in Laguna, as the Gentleman very well
knows, is that fish pens are being constructed in those portions where
traditionally
the small fishermen fish. Because of their big capital, the big fishermen could
move their fish pens somewhere in the middle of the lake.
Also, the problem in Laguna de Bay is that there is progressive and
uncontrollable siltation. The Gentleman knows what siltation is. Laguna de
Bay is
becoming a dead lake; it is getting shallower and shallower. And the reason
is the fish pens, the bamboos stuck in Laguna de Bay prevent the free flow
and
circulation of water and that is the cause of siltation.
MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Presiding Officer, that was the statement made by our
governor. He said that bamboos cause siltation and nets prevent water
circulation.
It is mere common sense, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. BENGZON: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Let us hear from the Committee
whether they are satisfied by the clarification given by Commissioner de los
Reyes.
MR. DE CASTRO: The holes of nets are big and the water can flow through.
MR. BENGZON: We are already zeroing in on a specific portion of the
Philippines . . .
MR. DE CASTRO: I only made these comments because I happen to know
Laguna Lake which we are talking about, and I am giving this information for
the benefit
of the Committee.
MR. BENGZON: May we hear from Commissioner Monsod in representation of
the Committee.
MR. MONSOD: The explanation of Commissioner de los Reyes of his proposed
amendment now clarifies the point we raised before, and we are accepting
his
amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner de los Reyes will
please read his proposed amendment.
MR. DE LOS REYES: The State shall protect the rights of marginal fishermen
and local communities to the PREFERENTIAL USE OF THE communal marine
and
fishing resources, both inland and offshore . . . The coauthors are
Commissioner Natividad, the Presiding Officer and Commissioner Davide.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): The amendment has been accepted
by the Committee. Is there any objection?
MR. RODRIGO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner Rodrigo is
recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: Now that the Committee has accepted that amendment, I
would like to propound a few questions to the Committee for clarification.
The provision now states that the State shall protect the rights of marginal
fishermen and local communities to the preferential use of the communal
marine
and fishing resources, both inland and offshore.
So, there are two conditions in order to get a preference: first, he must be a
marginal fisherman; second, he must live in the local community. Must these
two conditions both be present? In other words, does one have to be both a
marginal fisherman and live in the community?
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, those are not conjunctive. In other words,
one may be a marginal fisherman and be entitled to preferential use or it
may
be the entire local community.
MR. RODRIGO: So, a marginal fisherman, let us say, from Bataan, can fish in
Bulacan waters, in the communal fishing ground in Bulacan.
MR. MONSOD: We are referring to the fishermen in the area. And what the
Committee had in mind was really either individually or the entire community
because there are local communities that have formed fishing cooperatives.
MR. RODRIGO: I am not speaking of cooperatives but of marginal fishermen.
May any marginal fisherman from any part of the Philippines have
preferential
right to fish in the communal fishing ground by the shores of Bulacan
Province, or only the marginal fishermen in that area of Bulacan Province?
MR. MONSOD: I think we answered the question yesterday during the
interpellations of Commissioner Ople, that it is not the primary intention of
the
Committee to exclude. In other words, somebody from another place who is
a marginal fisherman may avail of the preferential use of these marginal
areas.
So, because it is not exclusive to the people in the area marginal fishermen
may avail of them. This was asked yesterday by Commissioner Ople.
MR. RODRIGO: So, provided one is a marginal fisherman, he is given
preferential right to fish in any communal fishing ground anywhere in the
Philippines;
is that right?
MR. MONSOD: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. RODRIGO: If one lives in the vicinity, even if he is a rich fisherman, he
can fish in the communal fishing ground of the vicinity.
the
Article on Local Governments whether we will leave to the local
governments or to Congress on how these things will be implemented. But
certainly, I
think our congressmen and our local officials will not be bereft of ideas on
how to implement this mandate.
MR. MONSOD: There are two aspects to this: the aspect of exclusion and the
aspect of inclusion. In the case of exclusion, it is easier. In other words, in
areas considered communal, the putting up of fish pens or allowing big
fishing enterprises to fish in that area may be prohibited. That is the
exclusion
aspect. In the case of inclusion, on who are considered marginal fishermen or
what are marginal local communities, I believe the answer of Commissioner
Bengzon would apply There might be a need for identifying them by a
system of licensing.
MR. RODRIGO: So, once one is licensed as a marginal fisherman, he can go
anywhere in the Philippines and fish in any fishing grounds.
MR. BENGZON: Subject to whatever rules and regulations and local laws that
may be passed, may be existing or will be passed.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Then Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I think the issue has been sufficiently debated. I move that we
take a vote.
MR. VILLEGAS: Presiding Officer, just a possible amendment to avoid
confusion on the phrase local communities. I think it is quite clear that
what the
Gentleman meant was directly or collectively, as he said in the provision on
agrarian reform.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner Villegas is offering an
amendment to the proposed amendment of Commissioner de los Reyes.
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes, that is right.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): The Gentleman may proceed.
MR. VILLEGAS: After the phrase rights of, add MARGINAL FISHERMEN
DIRECTLY OR COLLECTIVELY TO THE PREFERENTIAL so that the phrase local
communities is
not misunderstood. So, the provision will read: The State shall protect the
rights of MARGINAL FISHERMEN DIRECTLY OR COLLECTIVELY TO THE
PREFERENTIAL use
of THE COMMUNAL marine and fishing resources . . .
MR. MONSOD: What about INDIVIDUALLY OR COLLECTIVELY?
MR. VILLEGAS: INDIVIDUALLY OR COLLECTIVELY.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Does Commissioner de los Reyes
accept the proposed amendment to his amendment?
MR. DE LOS REYES: Will Commissioner Villegas repeat his amendment?
MR. VILLEGAS: The State shall protect the rights of MARGINAL FISHERMEN
INDIVIDUALLY OR COLLECTIVELY TO THE PREFERENTIAL use . . . and all the
rest will
be like the Gentlemans proposal.
MR. DE LOS REYES: What happened to local communities?
MR. VILLEGAS: COLLECTIVELY refers to local communities.
MR. DE LOS REYES: We accept the amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): What does the Committee say?
MR. BENGZON: We accept, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Is there any objection to the
proposed amendment, as amended by Commissioner de los Reyes?
MR. RODRIGO: Just one question. Are the words local communities deleted?
MR. BROCKA: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I be recognized?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner Brocka is recognized.
MR. BROCKA: I am a member of the Committee and when we were
discussing this local communities specifically this was in reference to
that particular
example given, the Laguna de Bay fishermen. So, the phrase marginal
fishermen INDIVIDUALLY AND COLLECTIVELY does not quite catch the
reference to a
particular community in that particular area. When we were discussing this
particular phrase local communities, it was in direct reference to a
particular fishing community like Laguna de Bay. The amendment does not
quite catch the meaning of the discussions on that.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, when we used local communities
earlier, it was appropriate because we were also using communal use.
Then we enlarged
the meaning so that we took out beneficial or communal and just left
use. We can change the wording to COLLECTIVE because it would have
the same
meaning in that context.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: Will the meaning be preserved if we say The State shall
protect the rights of marginal fishermen ESPECIALLY THOSE IN THE local
communities
to the PREFERENTIAL use of the COMMUNAL marine and fishing
resources . . .?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): What does the Committee say?
MR. BENGZON: The amendment does not capture our real intent.
BISHOP BACANI: The amendment includes marginal fishermen and the
preference for them in the local communities because obviously in the
Committee, we did
not intend to give preference even to the nonmarginal fishermen in the local
community. The real stress was for the marginal fishermen in the local
communities and I think the amendment will actually express what you are
trying to do in the community.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): So what is the position of the
Committee?
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, may we have a minute to consult with
the rest of the Committee on this?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): The session is suspended for a few
minutes.
It was 6:27 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): What does the Committee say?
MR. BENGZON: We request that we first vote on the amendment of
Commissioner Bacani and then we will decide on the proposal of
Commissioner de Castro.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Is there any objection to the
proposed amendment as proposed Commissioner Bacani?
MR. PADILLA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner Padilla is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: Yes, the preferential use communal marine and fishing
resources.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Will Commissioner Bacani please
read again his proposed amendment?
BISHOP BACANI: I will read it again although that was not the particular point
of the amendment I introduced.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Is this within the entire proposed
present text?
BISHOP BACANI: The State shall protect the of marginal fishermen
ESPECIALLY OF local communities to the PREFERENTIAL use of THE
COMMUNAL marine and
fishing resources both inland and offshore PARTICULARLY IN MUNICIPAL
FISHING GROUNDS.
MR. PADILLA: Will the proponent consider the rights of marginal fisherman in
his local community? I make it singular because when you say in their
respective local communities, while it is singular, the preferential right
applies to all marginal fishermen.
BISHOP BACANI: There are two senses that we wanted to preserve and that
is why that formulation was presented by myself first, that we should also
accord
preferential treatment to fishermen from other communities provided they
are marginalized. Second, we should especially accord the right of
preferential
use to fishermen who belong to the local community. We do not intend to
give the right of preferential use to rich fishermen in the local communities.
That
is the reason for the special formulation.
appropriate
technology, research and ADEQUATE FINANCIAL, PRODUCTION AND
MARKETING ASSISTANCE AND OTHER SUPPORT SERVICES.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Just a moment, Commissioner
Davide. After grounds, there is a period.
MR. DAVIDE: Was it placed already?
MS. NIEVA: Yes.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): So the first sentence ends after the
word grounds. What the Gentleman is now proposing will be the second
sentence.
MR. DAVIDE: So, the second sentence will read: THE STATE shall ALSO
provide SUPPORT THROUGH appropriate technology, research and
ADEQUATE FINANCIAL,
PRODUCTION AND MARKETING ASSISTANCE AND OTHER SUPPORT SERVICES,
TO SAID FISHERMEN for the . . .
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner Rosario Braid is
recognized.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Would Commissioner Davide accept an amendment to
his amendment? I was wondering if he can delete the first support so that it
will just
read: THE STATE shall ALSO provide appropriate technology . . . AND OTHER
SUPPORT SERVICES.
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer, we only want a symmetry of this proposal
with the earlier wordings on Section 6, and symmetry in the benefits and
advantages to be given to both the farmers, farm workers, cooperatives and
so on the one hand, and to the marginal fishermen on the other. I would like
to
consider Commissioner Rosario Braid as a coauthor in view of the use of the
words AND OTHER SUPPORT SERVICES, which was her amendment to Section
6.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Is Commissioner Rosario Braid
satisfied with the Gentlemans withdrawing her amendment to the
amendment?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: I am just concerned about the use of the words and I
would be willing to have the anterior amendment in Section 6 and just say
shall
provide appropriate technology. It is really just a matter of style and maybe
the Committee on Style can handle it.
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer, the intention here is just to provide
support. But if we remove the word support, it would be mandatory on the
part of
the State and the State may not be able to afford this. So, I think providing
support is the better compromise.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Is Commissioner Rosario Braid
satisfied with that explanation?
MR. SARMIENTO: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I propose an amendment to the
amendment?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: I yield to Commissioner Sarmiento.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner Sarmiento is
recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: Is Commissioner Davide willing to delete the word
SUPPORT in the phrase AND OTHER SUPPORT SERVICES because we
would be having two
supports. So, the amendment will read: provide SUPPORT THROUGH
appropriate technology, research and ADEQUATE FINANCIAL, PRODUCTION
AND MARKETING
ASSISTANCE AND OTHER SERVICES.
MR. DAVIDE: We are agreeable with the interpretation that these other
services would simply mean other support services. But just to avoid
repeating the
word support, we are agreeable.
MR. SUAREZ: Will the Honorable Davide agree to change the. beginning of
the sentence from THE STATE to IT because there is already a repetition?
MR. DAVIDE: Gladly, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): So, how will the proposed second
sentence now read?
MR. DAVIDE: It will now read as follows: IT shall also provide SUPPORT
THROUGH appropriate technology, research and ADEQUATE FINANCIAL,
PRODUCTION AND
MARKETING ASSISTANCE AND OTHER SERVICES, TO SAID FISHERMEN for
the . . .
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): May we hear from the Committee?
MR. BENGZON: We accept the amendment.
MS. NIEVA: The Committee accepts, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Is there any objection to the
proposed amendment constituting the second sentence of this section?
(Silence) The
Chair hears none; the amendment is approved.
MR. DAVIDE: I wonder if Commissioner Ople would have no amendment.
MR. RAMA: He has an amendment on the same section.
MR. OPLE: An additional sentence which, of course, would require dropping
the phrase about foreign intrusion.
MS. NIEVA: The phrase was dropped.
MR. OPLE: Was it already dropped?
MS. NIEVA: Yes, this was a mistake yesterday.
MR. OPLE: So, I do not think I would stand in the way of any further
amendment by Commissioner Davide.
MR. DAVIDE: The words and from intrusion of foreign investments . . .
MS. NIEVA: The phrase was dropped by the Committee. It was only typed in
by mistake of the staff. There is a corrected page but we are just using this
one.
MR. DAVIDE: So, this was dropped already because my proposal will be to
delete this phrase.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): So where will the sentence end?
MR. DAVIDE: However, I would like to insert the word PROTECTION and a
comma (,) before development on line 7 because this will give way to
another
proposal regarding foreign intrusion but worded differently. I understand that
Commissioner Ople will have an amendment to that effect. So, in anticipation
of his amendment which would relate to protection, we would now insert the
word PROTECTION and a comma (,) before development to read:
PROTECTION,
development and conservation of such resources.
MS. NIEVA: The Committee accepts the amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Then we delete and from intrusion
of foreign investments.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, that has already been deleted. So, it is just the insertion of
the word PROTECTION followed by a comma (,) before development on line
7,
to give way to the Ople proposal which I also am willing to support.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Is there any objection? (Silence) The
Chair hears none; the amendment is approved.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Ople be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
The proposed amendment which is a new sentence under Section 8 shall
read as follows: THE STATE SHALL ESTABLISH A POLICY TO PROTECT FROM
FOREIGN INTRUSION
THE NATIONAL TERRITORIAL WATERS WITH THEIR MARINE WEALTH WHICH
SHALL BE RESERVED TO EXCLUSIVE EXPLOITATION BY FILIPINO CITIZENS
ESPECIALLY SMALL FISHERMEN.
This amendment is proposed jointly by Commissioners Natividad, Rodrigo, de
los Reyes, de Castro, Davide and myself. I think I will spare the Commission
and
the Committee the reiteration of the basis for this amendment which I made
yesterday during the general debate. We all know that the intrusion of
foreign
fishing vessels in our fishing waters, among the richest in Southeast Asia and
the Pacific, has reached scandalous proportions. In a place just off Iba,
Zambales and this incident I had the occasion to report to this body
yesterday to add insult to injury, Japanese fishing vessels even have the
temerity
to ram the small boats of small Filipino fishermen. This was brought to my
attention and a report was sent by me to competent authorities concerning
this.
Therefore, I think this will round off the section immediately preceding in
terms of declaring a policy to protect our marine wealth in our own territorial
waters from the intrusion of foreign fishing vessels and from foreign capital.
There is an element in the last part where a policy of preserving the
exploitation of our marine wealth to Filipino citizens especially small
fishermen is set forth. So, I ask for the Committees kind consideration of this
proposed amendment.
MR. FOZ: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner Foz is recognized.
MR. FOZ: May I ask just one question of the proponent of the amendment?
MR. OPLE: Very gladly, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. FOZ: By national territorial waters, are we referring to the territorial sea
of the Philippines?
MR. OPLE: Yes, especially the coastal waters which are exploited but which
should be exploited by our own fishermen alone, by our own citizens alone.
MR. FOZ: Are we also referring to the so-called archipelagic waters?
MR. OPLE: I am not sure but I understand the specific meaning of
archipelagic waters. But if they belong to our territorial waters, then they are
comprised
by these.
MR. FOZ: What about the internal waters as mentioned and more or less
defined in our Article on the National Territory?
MR. OPLE: They are comprised undoubtedly; Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. FOZ: What about the waters in the so-called exclusive economic zone
over which, under the Convention of the Law of the Sea, the Philippines has
jurisdiction?
MR. OPLE: The construction of the 200-mile economic zone by most
authorities pertains to the wealth in the seabed. I think in the same degree
that Filipino
fishermen are allowed to fish in the 200-economic mile zone of our
neighboring countries, then this same privilege should not be denied to the
fishermen of
other countries.
MR. OPLE: Foreign intrusion in this respect refers above all to fishing vessels
which directly encroach on marine wealth that should be enjoyed exclusively
by our fishermen. Secondly, it refers to foreign capital because as we can see
in the last clause, the marine wealth in this territorial water shall be
reserved to exclusive exploitation by Filipino citizens and, therefore, foreign
capital is considered a form of intrusion once this is adopted.
MR. SUAREZ: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: Would the Gentleman have any objection to going for the
jugular by removing the phrase ALSO ESTABLISH A POLICY TO such that the
proposed
amendment would read: THE STATE SHALL PROTECT FROM FOREIGN
INTRUSION?
MR. OPLE: Yes, I welcome the amendment which improves the paragraph, as
a matter of fact, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: Just for the record, I would like to read the Article on National
Territory that the Commission had approved.
I think the intention of Commissioner Ople will only include the territorial
waters; it would not expand to the territorial sea over which the Philippines
would still have jurisdiction. The article reads:
The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the
islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territories over which the
Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial,
and aerial domains, including the territorial sea, the seabed, the
subsoil, the insular shelves, and other submarine areas thereof. The waters
around, between and connecting the islands of the archipelago, irrespective
of
their breadth and dimensions, form part of the internal waters of the
Philippines.
I would like to inquire from Commissioner Ople if by territorial waters he
would include the territorial sea over which the Philippines has jurisdiction?
Philippines as defined under the Article on National Territory which will not
include the territorial sea?
MR. OPLE: Yes, without prejudice to any other section of the Constitution,
raising its sights higher with respect to the protection of our territorial seas
for purposes of national security.
MR. DAVIDE: In other words, Congress may have, subsequently or later, the
authority to include in territorial waters the territorial sea itself?
MR. OPLE: Yes, I want to confirm that, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): So, may we have the proposed
amendment with the deletion and the transposition duly taken into account.
MR. OPLE: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer. The amendment reads: THE STATE
SHALL PROTECT FROM FOREIGN INTRUSION THE NATIONAL TERRITORIAL
WATERS WITH THEIR
MARINE WEALTH WHICH SHALL BE RESERVED TO EXCLUSIVE EXPLOITATION
BY FILIPINO CITIZENS ESPECIALLY SMALL FISHERMEN.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): What does the Committee say?
MR. BENGZON: We just want to ask some clarification, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner Bengzon is
recognized.
MR. BENGZON: The intent of this paragraph, I believe, is to protect the small
fisherman.
MR. OPLE: Yes, and the rights of the Filipino people, to whom the fishermen
belong as a major group, to the exclusive use of their own marine resources
that God has given them.
MR. BENGZON: Then this is not really a paragraph that pertains to this
particular Article. This should be a paragraph that pertains to the Article on
the
National Economy because it is wider in its scope.
MR. OPLE: It does pertain, Mr. Presiding Officer, to social justice. It pertains to
the rights of small fishermen, but within the context of a policy to
reserve the marine wealth of our own territorial waters, especially of our
internal waters, to exclusive exploitation by Filipino citizens; meaning, in the
majority of cases, Filipino fishermen.
MR. BENGZON: Would the Gentleman have any objections if we defer this
until we discuss the Article on the National Economy? Perhaps we could
include this
concept on the Article on the National Economy?
MR. OPLE: I think this is appropriately located as it is. I do not think a
nationalistic policy would be incompatible with the rights of small fishermen,
especially when we are thinking of conserving these easily depleted
resources for the use and enjoyment of our own fishermen and of our own
people. So, I
do not believe it must wait for another committee, dealing with national
patrimony, to send its report to this Committee before we act on this
provision
which has been under debate since yesterday.
MS. QUESADA: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I ask some clarificatory questions of
Commissioner Ople?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner Quesada is
recognized.
MS. QUESADA: As we said earlier, we are referring particularly to the interest
or to the protection of small fishermen. But with the statement to the
exclusive exploitation by Filipino citizens, is the Gentleman also not
disregarding the interest of big fishermen in this particular provision?
MR. OPLE: Yes, the emphasis is especially small fishermen. The position in
which I see the bigger Filipino fishermen is relative to Japanese, Taiwanese
and
Korean intruders into our shores; they are the victims of social injustice.
MS. NIEVA: Will the Gentleman give us one minute? We are trying to
formulate or reformulate this in such a way that the social justice aspect will
not be
lost, as the Commissioner said.
MR. OPLE: I am absolutely at the disposal of the Committee.
MS. NIEVA: I think we are more concerned here with the protection of the
rights of the small fishermen from foreign intrusion. We believe that the parts
about exclusive exploitation by Filipino citizens belong rightly to the Article
on the National Economy. However, for social justice, we agree that the
rights of the small fishermen should be protected from foreign intrusion. So,
we are trying to reformulate.
MR. MONSOD: In effect what we are saying is that the marginal fishermen
have certain traditional areas where they fish. These areas are not
necessarily the
areas that large-scale corporations can fish in. And, if we get the
Commissioners original intent, areas which are the traditional fishing
grounds of
marginal fishermen should be protected.
With respect to the general principle of exclusive use of marine and fishing
resources in territorial waters, that might be more appropriate in the Article
on the National Economy. So, if we can insert a phrase regarding marginal
fishermen in the same section, we may serve the Commissioners purpose
and then
transpose the bigger paragraph in the Article on the National Economy
section.
MR. OPLE: That is precisely my point, Mr. Presiding Officer, that there is a fullbodied context to the rights of the small fishermen in this paragraph.
Although we try to distinguish here between the small fishermen and the
bigger fishermen, we might lose sight of a community of interest between
them in
the sense that they have to share the same marine resources that should be
reserved to the exclusive enjoyment of Filipino citizens, especially fishermen,
and more especially, the small fishermen. What I am saying is that if we had
inserted in the previous section the objectives of protection and conservation
and development of our marine resources, I see no reason why we cannot
transpose the same principle in a more nationalistic context where there is a
unity
of interest between the small fishermen and the big fishermen and the
Filipino people as a whole.
May I call your attention to the fact that the deep-sea fishing fleets of the
Philippines are just about gone. They cannot compete with Taiwanese,
Korean
and Japanese fishing operators who routinely, habitually, and with total
impunity intrude into our waters, depleting the marine resources that should
be
reserved to the exclusive exploitation and enjoyment of the Filipino people.
So, why do we have to truncate this paragraph, separate the class context
from
the national context, just because we have to satisfy some needs or
standards of division between the Committee on the National Economy and
the Committee
on Social Justice? I believe that a great part of the contextual meaning
intended for this paragraph is lost.
small fishermen so that the provision will read: The State shall protect
FROM FOREIGN INTRUSION THE NATIONAL TERRITORIAL WATERS WITH THEIR
MARINE WEALTH WHICH SHALL BE RESERVED PRINCIPALLY TO THE USE AND
ENJOYMENT OF SMALL
FISHERMEN.
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. OPLE: If incidentally, this benefits the richer fishermen, then that is
completely incidental.
MR. DAVIDE: Would the proponent agree to son amendments without
prejudice to introducing in the proper Article on the National Economy and
Patrimony the
bigger concept? If the intention is just to harmonize this totally for social
justice, the proposed amendment would read as follows: after resources,
insert comma (,) and the following: INCLUDING PROTECTION AGAINST
INTRUSION BY FOREIGN INTERESTS IN THE USE AND ENJOYMENT THEREOF.
So, that would leave the matter completely to the marginal fishermen. But it
would also mean protection not only of the fishermen but also of the marine
and fishing resources against intrusion by foreign interests in the use and
enjoyment thereof.
I used the word interest so it will qualify all kinds of foreign intrusion,
whether it would be by a capitalist or whether it would be by a dummy. I
wonder if that would be acceptable to the Committee. But we leave the
matter of general principle on reserving these fishing and marine resources
to
Filipino citizens only in the Article on the National Economy and the
Patrimony of the nation.
MR. OPLE: Before I yield on this point, Mr. Presiding Officer, and I am so
concerned that the Commission should now take a well-earned rest at the
end of a
very tough and exhilarating day, may I know whether the Chairman of the
National Patrimony Committee who is here will agree to a clause or a
sentence when
the patrimony amendment reaches the floor that will embody this concept of
the exclusive exploitation by Filipino citizens of our own marine resources?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner Villegas is
recognized.
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer. In fact, it fits very well into one of
the articles.
MR. OPLE: On that basis then, I am receptive to the Davide amendment, Mr.
Presiding Officer, unless it clutters up unduly this well-sculptured preceding
sentence.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner Monsod is
recognized.
MR. MONSOD: We would like to sleep on this thing but we would like to
suggest that perhaps, we can draft something that might express the
concern of small
fishermen in the seashores that was referred to by Commissioner Sarmiento
if we say: THE STATE SHALL PROTECT THE TRADITIONAL FISHING GROUNDS
OF MUNICIPAL
FISHERMEN FROM THE INTRUSION OF FOREIGN FISHING VESSELS.
MR. DAVIDE: That would not convey the fullness of the idea. It is not just
shipping vessels but foreign corporations, partnerships or associations or
fishermen fishing in these areas. It is not intrusion by the use of vessels
passing through or over it.
MR. MONSOD: The intrusion of foreign interests.
MR. DAVIDE: That is it. So, it is just to continue the original wording. After
resources, add a comma (,) and the following: INCLUDING PROTECTION
AGAINST
INTRUSION BY FOREIGN INTERESTS IN THE USE AND ENJOYMENT THEREOF,
meaning, the marine and fishing resources.
MR. OPLE: Will Commissioner Davide consider an alternative amendment
which I would like to propose on behalf of Commissioner Romulo and myself,
as well as
Commissioner Davide, if he is willing to associate with a somewhat amended
version of his version?
MR. DAVIDE: Gladly, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. OPLE: The amendment will read: THE STATE SHALL PROTECT THE
SMALL FISHERMEN IN THE NATIONAL TERRITORIAL WATERS. THE STATE
SHALL PROTECT THE SMALL
FISHERMEN FROM FOREIGN INTRUSION.
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer, the idea of my proposal is to widen the
umbrella of the protection. It is not only protection of the interest of the
marginal fishermen but also of the resources themselves.
MR. BENGZON: Then that is not social justice anymore.
MR. MONSOD: That would be national economy.
MR. BENGZON: That is already national territory.
MR. DAVIDE: No, it is not, because these natural resources are reserved for
the marginal fishermen.
MR. BENGZON: Not only for marginal fishermen.
MR. DAVIDE: Not necessarily the marginal fishermen.
MR. OPLE: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I call the attention of Commissioner
Davide once again to this formulation: THE STATE SHALL PROTECT THE
SMALL
FISHERMEN IN THE NATIONAL TERRITORIAL WATERS FROM FOREIGN
INTRUSION. By construction, foreign intrusion refers to foreign fishing
vessels with their
superior equipment, and also to foreign capital or its agents.
MR. DAVIDE: I would propose an amendment: AGAINST FOREIGN INTERESTS.
MR. OPLE: The amendment is accepted, Mr. Presiding Officer. In its latest
permutation may I read the amendment, as amended: THE STATE SHALL
PROTECT THE
SMALL FISHERMEN FROM THE INTRUSION OF FOREIGN INTERESTS.
MR. DAVIDE: AGAINST FOREIGN INTERESTS.
MR. OPLE: AGAINST FOREIGN INTERESTS. But that sounds slightly
xenophobic. In a Constitution, one has to look for a buffer between intrusion
and
interests.
MR. LERUM: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I ask a question.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): Commissioner Monsod is
recognized.
ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION
MR. MONSOD: May we request an adjournment of the session so that each of
us can go back and draft a proposal along the same lines.
MR. OPLE: Yes, I endorse the proposal, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Regalado): The consideration is deferred and
the session is adjourned until 9:30 a.m. tomorrow.
It was 7:23 p.m.
Footnotes:
* Appeared after the roll call.
R.C.C. NO. 51
Friday, August 8, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
At 9:45 a.m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia Muoz Palma, opened the
session.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is called to order.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please rise to sing the National Anthem.
Everybody rose to sing the National Anthem.
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please remain standing for the Prayer to be
led by the Honorable Gregorio J. Tingson.
Everybody remained standing for the Prayer.
PRAYER
MR. TINGSON: Our dear loving Heavenly Father, we realize only too well that
unless the Lord builds the house, they labor in vain who build it.
We are mandated to build a charter for our country that will stand the test of
time and the changing tempers of men. We need wisdom, dear Lord, to do
this
task for we are but men with finite understanding and limited knowledge.
We confess that we do not have the wisdom of a Solomon, the wit and
brilliance of an Aristotle, the deep insight of Jose Rizal, nor the homespun
zing of a
Will Rogers. But with the ever-available aid of the Holy Spirit, we now humbly
beseech Thee not for tasks equal to our power but for power equal to our
heavy task.
Father in heaven, we are humbled by the words of our Sublime Paralytic:
No matter how the government tries to renew itself, all of its efforts would
amount to naught if there would be no corresponding change in the hearts of
the people.
Help us, dear Lord, to come up with a Constitution that will, in essence,
continually remind our people of the timely words of the Prophet:
If My people, who are called by My name, will humble themselves and pray
and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from
heaven and
will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
Help us to finish our new fundamental law in Thine own good time as we 48
Commissioners bear in mind that in things major we should have unity, in
things
minor, liberty; but in all things always to demonstrate charity.
We adore Your Holy Name; we praise You for what You have done in and
through us; and we petition Thee loving Heavenly Father, for a greater
measure of Your
instruction, inspiration and sanctification.
This is our individual and collective prayer in the wonderful and matchless
name of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Amen.
ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will call the roll.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Abubakar
Present*
Natividad
Present*
Alonto
Present
Nieva
Present
Aquino
Present*
Nolledo
Present*
Azcuna
Present*
Ople
Present*
Bacani
Present
Padilla
Present
Bengzon
Present*
Quesada
Present
Bennagen
Present
Rama
Present*
Bernas
Present
Regalado
Present
Rosario Braid
Present
Reyes de los
Present
Brocka
Present*
Rigos
Present
Calderon
Present
Rodrigo
Present
Castro de
Present
Romulo
Present
Colayco
Present
Rosales
Present
Concepcion
Present
Sarmiento
Present
Davide
Present
Suarez
Present
Foz
Present
Sumulong
Present
Garcia
Present*
Tadeo
Present
Gascon
Present*
Tan
Present
Guingona
Absent
Tingson
Present
Jamir
Present
Treas
Present*
Laurel
Present*
Uka
Present
Lerum
Present*
Villacorta
Present
Maambong
Present*
Villegas
Present
Monsod
Present
MR. CALDERON: Madam President, I move that we approve the Journal of the
previous session.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
MR. CALDERON: Madam President, I move that we proceed to the Reference
of Business.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
The Secretary-General will read the Reference of Business.
REFERENCE OF BUSINESS
The Secretary-General read the following Communications and Committee
Reports, the President making the corresponding references:
COMMUNICATIONS
Letter from Mr. Jovito A. Avancena of 25 Asteroid, Bel Air, Makati, Metro
Manila, and three hundred ninety others with their respective addresses,
seeking
the inclusion in the Constitution of a provision obliging the State to protect
the life of the unborn from the moment of conception.
(Communication No. 491 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of
Principles.
Letter from Mr. Tomas S. Tuazon of Motrico, La Paz, Tarlac, suggesting equal
protection of the law for the rich and the poor to promote national unity.
(Communication No. 492 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Social Justice.
Communication from Mr. Pelagio B. Estopia, proposing a parliamentary form
of government with a bicameral legislature, that declaration of martial law
and
suspension of the writ of habeas corpus shall need confirmation of the
legislature, and the nationalization of industries and the exploitation of
natural
resources.
Defense
Treaty, Military Assistance Agreement, R.P.-Japan Treaty of Amity, Commerce
and Navigation; (3) right to strike and collective bargaining, and (4) creation
of a human rights commission.
(Communication No. 497 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Steering Committee.
Letter from Mr. Cesar P. Nimez of Suba, Lilo-an, Cebu, transmitting a joint
resolution adopted by various civic associations and organizations of Lilo-an,
Cebu, containing among others the following proposals: (1) all title/lease
contract documents of foreshore lands issued during the Marcos regime be
revoked
or declared null and void; (2) all foreshore land must be turned over to the
municipal government where they are situated; and (3) all foreshore lands
cannot be leased/titled for business purposes.
(Communication No. 498 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on the National Economy and Patrimony.
Letter from Mr. Roberto Lazaro of Mandaluyong, Metro Manila, advocating
that the Philippines be one of the regular states of the United States.
(Communication No. 499 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of
Principles.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report No. 35 submitted by the Committee on the Legislative re
Proposed Resolution No. 411 and Proposed Resolution No. 428 informing the
Commission of their incorporation in Committee Report No. 22 on the Article
on the Legislative Department, as reported out on July 7, 1986.
To the Archives.
Committee Report No. 36 on Proposed Resolution No. 537, prepared by the
Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of Principles,
entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION AN ARTICLE ON
THE DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES,
account
the provisions of social justice.
MR. BENNAGEN: We have already dropped the word integrated partly
because of its unsavory history.
MR. DAVIDE: Even so, may I request that Commissioner Villegas, who is
Chairman of the Committee on National Economy and Patrimony, be
recognized for a
particular opinion on this matter?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Villegas is recognized.
MR. VILLEGAS: Madam President, thank you.
As I said during the period of interpellations, I think the section is really
misplaced in the Article on Social Justice because the very question of
balance among agriculture, industry and other sectors is a technical question
that has to be addressed by a planning body or the legislature at a very
specific moment of time. I do not think that it is a question of justice or
injustice being committed. That is why, as I mentioned, Section 1 of the
Article on the National Economy and Patrimony states the following:
The State shall develop a self-reliant and independent national economy. The
goals of the national economy are more equitable distribution of income and
wealth, full employment of humane, physical and technological resources
and sustained increase in the amount of goods and service produced by the
nation
for the benefit of the Filipino people.
So, that addresses already the issue of whether or not we will produce goods
for the basic needs of the people. It is stated very clearly that the goods,
whether they be agricultural or industrial, should be produced for the benefit
of the Filipino people, with priority to the welfare of the poor. In fact,
that is very explicitly stated here. In the attainment of these goals, all
economic sectors shall be given optimum opportunity to develop, and a
broader
ownership base of private enterprises shall be encouraged. So, the very
question of how to develop the various sectors is already addressed in this
Section
1 of the Article. That is why Section 9 is misplaced in the Article on Social
Justice.
MR. BENNAGEN: I do not think that the section just read refers to the idea of
linking the development of agriculture, fishing and marine resources,
specifically with the idea of the complementary process of industrialization.
of
earlier.
MS. NIEVA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MS. NIEVA: As long as the small fishermen are accorded protection, we would
abide by that word: subsistence.
THE PRESIDENT: So, that is accepted.
MS. NIEVA: Yes.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rosario Braid is recognized.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Would Commissioner Ople yield to a question on his
amendment on Section 8? Would this include protection from commercial
fishermen in
terms of complying with the seven-kilometer ban on commercial vessels?
There is an existing ban on commercial vessels within seven kilometers from
the
shoreline.
MR. OPLE: The seven-kilometer ban is an administrative law that more or less
fixed an arbitrary legal distance from the shoreline. Although my
understanding of the seven-kilometer ban from the shore is that this is
flexible because the coastlines of the country are not uniform in terms of the
appropriateness of a seven-kilometer distance, the assumption is that in
many cases, the fishing grounds within seven kilometers are most accessible
to the
small, municipal or marginal or subsistence fishermen and that, therefore, no
heavy trawlers, whether Filipino or foreign, should be allowed to fish in
those waters. In this respect, I am not sure that commercial fishing vessels of
Filipino citizens are banned.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: May I ask Commissioner Ople if his intent is really not to
protect small fishermen even though they may not be subsistence
fishermen? For
example, in the case he mentioned in Zambales, I have been acquainted
with them having worked there. There are fishermen who are not subsistence
fishermen
in the sense that they are not isang kahig, isang tuka. They can be rather
prosperous, and yet they would still need protection from foreign intrusion
which the Gentleman is speaking about. And if he simply spoke of the
subsistence fishermen, he would not be looking after the interest of a great
portion
of our Filipino population who would be reduced to the subsistence level if
foreign intrusion were allowed to continue. At present, because they are able
to fish, they are not in the subsistence level yet.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, the phrase subsistence fishermen should be
used liberally in the sense that it should not be restricted to the poorest
fishermen who are on the edge of existence day to day and who will perish if
they do not fish tomorrow. I think it is a mistake to impute to many of our
fishermen in places like Iba, Zambales the idea that they are rich fishermen.
We are talking about varying degrees of self-sufficiency. There are no
commercial or industrial nabobs in Iba, Zambales. Some fishermen may be a
little bit more affluent than the others, but by the standard of the really big
commercial fishing vessels, they are all subsistence fishermen. And so, the
intent of the proposal is almost all-encompassing with respect to real and
actual fishermen in the area who fish for a living.
THE PRESIDENT: Are we now ready to vote on the amendment?
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. MAAMBONG: I wonder if Commissioner Ople or the Committee will
accept the perfecting amendment by changing the word from to AGAINST. I
was thinking it
might be more emphatic. So, it would read AGAINST foreign intrusion.
MR. OPLE: I will have no objection, Madam President.
MS. NIEVA: The Committee accepts, Madam President.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Are we ready to vote on this particular amendment?
MS. NIEVA: We are ready now for the voting.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the proposed amendment of
Commissioner Ople and the others, which was accepted by the Committee?
MS. NIEVA: The sentence will read: THE PROTECTION SHALL EXTEND TO THE
OFFSHORE FISHING GROUNDS OF SUBSISTENCE FISHERMEN AGAINST
FOREIGN INTRUSION.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this proposed amendment?
(Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is approved.
Can we now proceed to vote on the entire Section 8?
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, there are still two registered speakers for
amendments on Section 8. I ask that Commissioner Rodrigo be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, relative to the statement of Commissioner
Ople that the word municipal which has a technical meaning cannot be
understood
or can be misunderstood by our common people, I propose the following
amendment on line 4, on the phrase particularly municipal fishing grounds:
delete
the word municipal and in lieu thereof insert COMMUNAL; after grounds,
delete the period (.) and add FOR SMALL FISHERMEN, so that that phrase
would
read: particularly COMMUNAL fishing grounds FOR SMALL FISHERMEN.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: We just want to ask Commissioner Rodrigo that if one were to
read the entire first part would there be a redundancy? We are talking about
the
protection of the rights of subsistence fishermen especially those from local
communities to the preferential use of the communal marine and fishing
resources, both inland and offshore, and now we will also sa
particularly . . . What is the word, Madam President?
MR. RODRIGO: COMMUNAL. I will have no objection.
MR. MONSOD: Would it be repetitive?
MR. RODRIGO: My only objection here is the use of the word municipal
because municipal fishing grounds can be misunderstood. As
Commissioner Ople has
said, in my home province of Bulacan, his hometown, the Municipality of
Hagonoy, owns fishponds. I know that the Municipality of Paombong also
owns
fishponds. I know that the Municipality of Paombong also owns fishponds
called Propios. And so, when fishermen or people in Bulacan read
municipal
fishing grounds, they will think that these refer to fishponds owned by the
municipality, which is not the case.
MR. MONSOD: That is true.
MR. RODRIGO: But if the Committee will agree to the deletion of the whole
phrase, I will have no objection.
MR. MONSOD: We think we see the problem there. May we ask Commissioner
Ople, from whom this came from in the first place the other day when he
wanted to
make particular mention of municipal fishing grounds whether the use of
the words the communal marine and fishing resources in the previous line
already covered the intention he had the other day?
MR. OPLE: Yes. I do not think there is any intention to refer to the municipal
Propios of the coastal towns of Bulacan, Madam President. On the point
raised by Commissioner Rodrigo, the concern is really about the popular
perception of what will mean in some parts of the country, including Bulacan,
although I would like to assure Commissioner Rodrigo that this phenomenon
known as the municipal Propios so far, according to my best knowledge, is
still
unique to the coastal towns of Bulacan, meaning, this is an innovative
municipal income scheme which is not yet shared in other parts of the
country. So,
if there is any danger of popular misunderstanding, it will be confined to
those towns in Bulacan that Commissioner Rodrigo has earlier enumerated.
Thank you.
MR. RODRIGO: Does the Committee intend to delete the whole phrase
particularly municipal fishing grounds?
MS. NIEVA: Yes, we are asking this clarificatory question. If the words
communal marine and fishing resources, both inland and offshore already
would
include the idea of municipal fishing grounds, then this particular phrase may
be deleted to avoid misunderstanding.
MR. OPLE: Yes, I think so, Madam President.
MS. QUESADA: I think this particular group would differ from the commercial
fish workers because these kasama ng maliliit na mangingisda are those who
hire
out their services to small boat owners, who may or may not own a boat and
whose remuneration comes in the form of a share in the catch after all the
expenses in the production are deducted. This particular group, who would
be the equivalent of tenants, are not covered by the Labor Code because
they are
not considered workers but are called kasama. Is that then a part of the
definition of fish workers?
MR. DE LOS REYES: It is not only a part but the bulk of the definition of fish
workers. But I did not state kasama anymore because kasama is usually
associated with agricultural tenancy operation.
MS. QUESADA: But they compose the majority of what we call municipal
fishermen.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Precisely, Madam President.
MS. QUESADA: Municipal fishermen in the Philippines, as of the 1982 data of
the Countryside Report, comprise 72 percent or 574,000 of those employed
in the
fishing industry alone.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: We support the sentiment behind the proposal of
Commissioner de los Reyes. Some members of the Committee, however, feel
that once we start
enumerating, we might be excluding. For example, how do we treat the
workers in poultry farms? What about the helpers in sari-sari stores who are
exploited
by the owners particularly foreign or Chinese store owners? We can go on
and on and we are afraid that we might then go into too much detail for a
Constitution.
However, I believe that the answer of Commissioner Lerum that they are
deemed included in the Article on Social Justice might be adequate for
Commissioner
de los Reyes.
THE PRESIDENT: How about Commissioner Maambong?
every day, especially the subsistence; and that is why I also share this
concern.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, may we request a vote?
MR. ROMULO: May we have the amendment, Madam President, and then the
vote?
THE PRESIDENT: The general concern seems to be that the matter proposed
by Commissioner de los Reyes can be the subject of legislation, rather than
being
placed in the Constitution. So then, will Commissioner de los Reyes read his
proposed amendment?
MR. DE LOS REYES: Yes, Madam President. Subject to style and relocation, it
will read: FISHWORKERS SHALL RECEIVE A JUST SHARE OF THEIR LABOR IN
THE
ENJOYMENT OF MARINE AND FISHING RESOURCES. That is very simple.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of the proposed amendment of
Commissioner de los Reyes, please raise their hand. (Several Members
raised their
hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their
hand.)
The results show 13 votes in favor and 11 votes against; the amendment is
approved.
MR ROMULO: Madam President, there are no further registered speakers. I
believe it is time to vote on Section 8 as a whole.
MS. NIEVA: Can we have the last sentence again, because there have been
so many changes?
MS. AQUINO: Is there any definite formulation here?
MS. NIEVA: Yes, he had an amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendment of Commissioner de los Reyes?
MS. NIEVA: We would like to have the amendment of Commissioner de los
Reyes again.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair will call for a suspension of the session for a few
minutes. And Commissioner de los Reyes will please approach the
Committee so
to clarify this matter.
It was 11:08 a.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 11:20 a.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
Before we suspended the session, the Chair already indicated its reaction to
the voting that there has been some confusion on the issues involved in
the
proposed amendment of Commissioner de los Reyes. So, shall we have
Commissioner de los Reyes read again his proposed amendments?
Commissioner Tan is recognized.
SR. TAN: Point of order, Madam President. I am all confused in this forest of
amendments. I thought we had already finished the interpellation, and were
supposed to be in the period of amendments. But then, we were questioning
each other and amending and debating. That is why we got confused. And
then, this
fish story came in. It did not pass the Committee; it was not in the
interpellation and we are supposed to vote. It is all confusing.
THE PRESIDENT: Where is Commissioner de los Reyes?
MR. ROMULO: Commissioner de los Reyes has sought refuge somewhere
else.
THE PRESIDENT: We will have his proposed amendment as reworded or
whatever, submitted.
Will Commissioner de los Reyes please state his proposed amendment
because the Chair has resolved to submit it to another voting in view of the
confusion
of some of the Members?
MR. DE LOS REYES: May I ask the Secretariat to read what has been
approved?
THE PRESIDENT: What we have here, the first version reads: Fishworkers
shall receive a just share from their labor in the enjoyment of marine and
fishing
resources. Then it was amended by Commissioner Ople, and it now reads:
Fishworkers shall receive a just share from THE FRUITS of their labor. Is this
last statement correct?
MR. DE LOS REYES: Madam President, I just agreed to the Ople suggestion
because I thought that this is just a matter of style. But if that amendment
will
cause confusion which will warrant another voting I will just stick by my
former amendment and reject the Ople amendment. And I respectfully object
to
another voting because we have already won by a slight margin and we have
worked hard for that amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: So then the provision reads: Fishworkers shall receive a just
share from their labor in the enjoyment of marine and fishing resources.
Were there some questions being propounded by members of the
Committee?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: I voted in favor of the amendment but on deeper reflection, I
realize that it is rather very confusing especially with the clarifications made
later. So I am seeking for a reconsideration of the approval of the proposed
amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the motion for reconsideration of
Commissioner Davide just to eliminate all forms of confusion over this
particular amendment? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is
approved and the matter is again submitted to the body.
Is there any further question from the Committee?
MR. MONSOD: May we request a vote, Madam President?
MR. DE LOS REYES: May I know from Commissioner Davide what particular
answer to the interpellation caused the confusion?
MR. DAVIDE: The confusion arose out of the admission by the Commissioner
that fish workers would even apply to the so-called employees of big
business
engaged in fishing.
arguments have
already been ventilated in this body?
MR. DE LOS REYES: It was discussed, and we already won by two or three
votes. The discussion has been prolonged because there was a motion for
reconsideration. I already explained that this refers to kasama ng maliliit na
mangingisda or simply kasama.
I yield to the Chair.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: The amendment reads: FISHWORKERS SHALL RECEIVE A
JUST SHARE FROM THEIR LABOR IN THE EMPLOYMENT OF MARINE AND
FISHING RESOURCES.
Those in favor of this particular proposed amendment will please raise their
hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
Those against will please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
The results show 19 votes in favor and 13 against; the amendment is
approved.
MR. DE LOS REYES: May I go out, Madam President. I was about to answer a
phone call when I was called.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. ROMULO: Perhaps we can now vote on Section 8 as a whole, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Will the Chairman read the entire section as drafted.
MS. NIEVA: Yes, Madam President.
The body will notice that since we had many enumerations in the second
part, we have changed some of the punctuation marks. Section 8 reads as
follows:
The State shall protect the rights of subsistence fishermen, especially of local
communities to the preferential use of the communal marine and fishing
resources, both inland and offshore. It shall provide support to such
fishermen through appropriate technology, research, financial, production
and
marketing assistance, and other services. The State shall also protect,
develop and conserve such resources. The protection shall extend to the
offshore
fishing grounds of subsistence fishermen against foreign intrusion Fish
workers shall receive a just share from their labor in the enjoyment of marine
and
fishing resources
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: I just would like to invite the attention of the Committee that
before provide in the second sentence, there is the word also; and before
financial, there should be and adequate, which were not read.
MS. NIEVA: The reason we removed the first also is that this was such a
long enumeration that we felt we could cut some of the sentences.
MR. DAVIDE: It is all right, but what about the words and adequate?
MS. NIEVA: Yes. It should read adequate financial.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the entire Section 8 as read by the
Chairman of the Committee? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the whole
section
is approved.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. ROMULO: There are no more sections under Agrarian Land Reform to
be amended. I ask the Committee if it would now like to take up the Colayco
amendment on the section on labor.
MS. NIEVA: May I just comment that the complete title is Agrarian and
Natural Resources Reform.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, apropos of this, may I reserve the right,
together with Commissioner Bennagen, immediately afterwards, to propose
an amendment,
consisting of a new section under the group of sections denominated as
Agrarian and Natural Resources Reform.
Thank you.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, I am asking the Committee if it would now
like to take up the Colayco amendment.
MS. NIEVA: Yes.
MR. ROMULO: Since the Committee agrees, Madam President, I ask that
Commissioner Colayco be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: That refers to Section 3 (a), (b), (c) and (d).
Commissioner Colayco is recognized.
MR. COLAYCO: Thank you, Madam President.
I realize that since my proposal I have become persona non grata to some
members of the Committee. I want to assure them that in pushing for this
amendment
I share their sentiment for the cause of labor and that I am acting from a firm
conviction that it will improve not only the form of our Constitution but,
at the same time, enhance the cause of labor. Surely, personally, I do not
think that in pushing for this reform, I am doing labor a disservice.
The body will notice that Section 3 starts like this: It shall be the duty of the
State to afford full protection to labor, and then it proceeds to
enumerate the different rights which have been granted to the workers
under current legislation. All these rights are enumerated in paragraphs (a),
(b) and
(c). When Commissioner Aquino interpellated me and asked me why this
enumeration was felt to be necessary, she explained that it was the intention
of the
Committee to elevate the laws that have provided for these benefits to labor
to a constitutional level. I have no quarrel with that, and I am sure that
everybody else would like to afford to labor every possible protection
available under our law. My reservation, as I expressed earlier, is that there
would
seem to be no need for this enumeration because these laws are a full
guarantee, as they stand, for the protection of these rights are already in our
law
books.
But, as I mentioned earlier, we cannot ignore the growing complaint, if not
attack, against the way we are formulating our Constitution, to the effect
that
we are unnecessarily using too many words, too many sentences, too many
This is a very nice statement, but I believe it can be trimmed down. At first
I do not mind telling this body that I burned the midnight oil just to
compress this, and at the same time, to retain the purpose of the Committee
I was tempted to use the phrase decent living wage appearing in
paragraph
(b) of this article. The phrase decent living wage was first used in, I think,
the encyclical of Pope Leo XIII entitled, Rerum Novarum; living wage
includes not only food and recreation; but social and religious opportunities
not only for the worker but also for his wife and his family. But I did not
think that this was enough and so I came with this expression: AND ENSURE
THEIR JUST SHARE OF ALL THE FRUITS OF THEIR LABOR. The term fruits of
labor
covers not only their just wages and profit sharing, but also sharing in
ownership because all these are fruits of their labor.
So I believe that in compressing the four paragraphs into the three sentences
which I am proposing, I was able to retain the substance and the intent of
the Committee.
I am, therefore, requesting the Committee to accept my proposal to trim
down the wording of Section 3, and, if I may paraphrase the inimitable
colleague of
ours, Commissioner Uka: What is one word less among friends?
Thank you.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: On behalf of the Committee, first, we deeply regret that we
cannot accept the proposal of Commissioner Colayco, although we view with
enthusiasm the introduction of a new concept of shared responsibility
which we could eventually want to incorporate in the draft. With due respect
to
Commissioner Colayco, we sincerely appreciate his concern; however, we are
deeply disturbed by this preoccupation with brevity. It is already some kind of
a short-lived atavism that is going a bit too far. The draft admittedly is too
long but it is long because it precisely reflects the gains that have been
made by the workers and the labor force in its thorough-going push-and-pull
struggle for the assertion of their rights. In fact, the gains have been
institutionalized in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions. The minute we scuttle
that, it amounts to no other interpretation but withdrawal. We could talk
ourselves blue in the face and insist for the record that there is no intention
to withdraw or diminish, but after they have been virtually
institutionalized in the two fundamental documents, it would amount to
We said that the Constitution we are drafting is going to be a new one that
would truly be reflective of the sentiments and aspirations of our people. We
would like this to be a Constitution which ordinary individuals nonlawyers,
farmers, workers, urban poor, fishermen, fish workers, women, and even
children can easily understand, so that when they read the Constitution
they do not have to dig up the Journal of the Commission to understand the
intentions.
For example, with the proposed amendment which says: THE STATE SHALL
PROTECT ALL THE RIGHTS GRANTED BY THE LAW TO WORKERS, I, an
ordinary worker, would
not know just what these rights are if I have not even gotten hold of the
Labor Code and if I do not know how to read as good as professionals. So, I
would
not really know just what the new Constitution has provided this time.
In our prayers, we often say, Let those who have less in life have more in
law. If a worker would not get hold of this provision, then he would very well
ask, What has the new Constitution granted me? We say that labor has
already enjoyed some of these rights and we would like to define and
constitutionalize these rights which, as Commissioner Aquino has said,
workers have won through their struggles.
So I feel that we should not only be concerned with brevity. It was the
Commissioner himself who told me one day that he had researched on the
different
Constitutions and found out that not only India but many other countries
have expressed the provisions of their Constitutions in the way that ordinary
individuals would be able to understand. When we say it should be
something that the public would be able to understand, still this amendment
is not
something an ordinary individual would be able to understand. One would
have to refer to law books, Labor Code and to the minutes of this
Constitution to
find out just what are these rights referred to. So, I believe we should not
really be concerned about making this section brief.
Romanias Constitution had 105 Articles; Portugals, 29 pages and 143
Articles; Spains, 58 pages and 169 Articles; Swedens, 37 pages and 13
Chapters,
Switzerlands, 26 pages and 123 Articles and so had many other countries
constitutions. As a matter of fact, our Article on Social Justice is quite short
compared to the Article on the Executive which has 11 pages and the Article
on the Judiciary which has more.
In the overriding concern about brevity and broadness, we may overlook the
sentiments that went into the production of our work. So, we hope the
Commissioner understands our feelings about cutting down to size this
important article for many workers.
MR. COLAYCO: It is a good thing the Commissioner brought up my comments
to her earlier because to be honest with her, on my own, I undertook a little
research since I heard outside comments that this particular article was
rather lengthy. While I am not saying that I do not share the Commissioners
personal views notwithstanding what I told her and Chairman Nieva here who
sounded that I had become almost a traitor to her, I find this particular
section like an overloaded small vehicle.
Anyway, now that I have heard the comments and accepted the attitude of
the Committee, may I make one very unusual and special request. Madam
President, I
hope that I will not be misunderstood here again. I understand that there are
17 members in this Committee alone, so that they alone will be sufficient to
throw me to Kingdom Come insofar as this amendment is concerned. And I
know, too, that like everyone else, they would not have any trouble about
showing
where their opinion lies. However, I feel that to afford a better assurance of
freedom of expression of their choice, I would like to propose that the
voting on my proposal be by secret balloting.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Acting Floor Leader have anything to say?
MR. ROMULO: Yes, Madam President.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: Before we vote, let me just also add these two notes: First,
post factum after what we have done in the provision on agrarian reform
which
is also lengthy, to cut down this section on labor would now make its place in
the Constitution so disproportionately small. Second, I am not a
constitutional lawyer myself, but it seems to me that the cardinal rule in the
making of a constitution should be its responsiveness to the people. I do
not know whether we should follow a hard-and-fast rule regarding brevity
and conciseness. I think the principle here should be rather the common
good or
the common welfare. And it does not seem that the common welfare is
better served by making this already brief section briefer still.
MR. ROMULO: As an observation during our caucus, if the body will recall, we
did agree and approve that where the Committee does not accept an
amendment,
one may ask for a secret balloting.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Believing that the request of Commissioner Colayco is meritorious, the Chair
declares that such request is granted and that the voting on this proposed
amendment will be done by ballot.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President.
MR. LERUM: Madam President, I am making a record that I am against secret
voting on this proposal.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: Before we vote, Madam President, may I briefly speak
against the Colayco amendment?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Sarmiento may proceed.
MR. SARMIENTO: This is from one who is not a member of the Committee on
Social Justice.
Madam President, the classic formula in constitution-making is that a
constitution should be clear, concise and comprehensive. But that classic
formula
should not be taken as a dogma. Constitution-making should respond to the
signs of the times, to the clamor of the people. The clamor is that rights
should
be enumerated for their information and satisfaction. For instance, Madam
President, I was with a group of workers and urban poor last night and they
were
very happy when they learned that they have these rights in our new
Constitution. To compress this Constitution, to eliminate all these rights
would, to
me, make our people unhappy. That, to them, would be a big letdown.
Dogmas and formulas should respond to the needs and the signs of the
times. So,
although I deeply appreciate the labors, the work of Justice Colayco, I appeal
to him also to consider the clamor, the wishes of our people.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. OPLE: May I ask the Secretariat to reproduce the text of the
amendment?
THE PRESIDENT: Shall we give the Committee time to deliberate on this
particular proposed amendment?
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, the Committee would like to ask some
questions, in addition to the observations made.
THE PRESIDENT: Please proceed.
MR. BENGZON: Is it also the intention to allow that these bonds, if bonds are
indeed paid, be used for payment of taxes or loans from government
corporations?
MR. OPLE: This is already an existing policy. However, I am sorry to report
that its implementation has been extremely erratic.
MR. BENGZON: So, that is the intention of the amendment, in addition to
what the Commissioner has already articulated.
MR. OPLE: Yes, that means that under this proposed section, bonds which
normally constitute 90 percent of the payment to a landowner covered by
land reform
(the remainder being cash) will be raised to a more serious level as a
negotiable instrument.
However, in the text of this proposed amendment what is given pride of
place is the role of this new capital that should be honored as equity or
shares of
stock in government investments of their own choice.
MR. JAMIR: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Jamir is recognized.
MR. JAMIR: May we request that we be furnished copies of the proposal
before any further interpellations, so we can follow intelligently?
THE PRESIDENT: We have already instructed the Secretariat to reproduce
copies.
MR. OPLE: If the Committee so desires, we can wait until the Secretariat
delivers copies of the text. May I point out that the Committee had been
furnished
Azcuna,
Florenz Regalado, Christian Monsod and Regalado Maambong.
The amendment reads as follows: SECTION 9. THE STATE SHALL PROVIDE
INCENTIVES TO LANDOWNERS TO INVEST THE PROCEEDS OF THE AGRARIAN
REFORM PROGRAM SO AS TO
PROMOTE INDUSTRIALIZATION, EMPLOYMENT CREATION AND PRIVATIZATION
OF PUBLIC SECTOR ENTERPRISES. FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS USED AS
PAYMENT FOR LANDS SHALL BE
HONORED AS EQUITY IN SUCH ENTERPRISES OF THEIR CHOICE.
This amendment may be denominated as the industrialization provision of
agrarian reform. I think it fills a need in the Article on Social Justice in the
sense that industrialization is really the other major goal of agrarian reform.
And earlier on we talked about the power of synergy inherent in agrarian
reform and, for that matter, social justice as a whole to liberate the tiller from
the bondage of the soil and also to release idle private capital now
locked in the antiquated land system, so that it becomes available for
industrialization and employment expansion. We all know, those who have
taken a
glance at the history of land reform in Japan, Taiwan and Korea, that the
economic miracles that have taken place in those countries and have
compelled the
admiration of the whole world, to a large extent, were rooted in the earlier
land reform program pursued by their governments.
And so that is the reason for this proposed new Section 9, Madam President. I
would like to seek the Committees approval of this amendment as now
reworded.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Committee may please proceed.
MR. BENGZON: The Committee accepts the amendment.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President, just a question for clarification. What is
the meaning of PROCEEDS on line 3?
MR. OPLE: Madam President, PROCEEDS really refer to the proceeds that
the landowners will recover through a just compensation program.
BISHOP BACANI: This is, therefore, the payment of the land?
MR. OPLE: Yes, Madam President.
MR. OPLE: Yes, by many thousands of landowners who feel that they were
gypped by the government. After having surrendered their lands for cash
bonds, they
later found out that the cash bonds did not have the utility which they were
made to believe they had. For example, although I knew that there were
circulars sent to the government banks saying, Please honor Land Bank
bonds as collaterals for loans; or Please honor Land Bank bonds as offset
payments
for taxes or for arrears that have been incurred in previous loans, most of
the boards of directors of government financial institutions did not honor
those bonds, pleading as a reason their financial straits in which they found
themselves at the time.
So, the last sentence here supporting the principles of the linkage between
land reform and industrialization in the first part seeks to mandate the State
or Congress, if we like, in the future to make sure that landowners who will
lose their lands to the tillers under this land reform program will be given
financial instruments in payment for their lands, including bonds that will
have real utility. One way of giving more strategic development values to
such
bonds is to insure right here that these bonds will be honored as equity in
public enterprises chosen by the landowners themselves.
May I give an example. There are not too many government corporations
here making money now. In Taiwan, it is the opposite situation because
almost all the
government corporations are highly profitable. And so, it is also profitable for
landowners that have been divested of their landholdings to put their
bonds in these profitable corporations. But in our country there are not too
many of these. There are, however, some attractive vehicles for investments.
One example is the Land Bank of the Philippines which in 1985, when most
banks did not make money, made more than P400 million in net earnings.
That is the
right vehicle immediately available for a bondholder, like Commissioner Soc
Rodrigo, who lost some of his lands in Bulacan under P.D. No. 27.
MR. RODRIGO: All of my lands which were not too big.
MR. OPLE: So this is one way of redressing that admittedly deplorable and
cavalier treatment given to Land Bank bonds in the past.
MR. RODRIGO: Under this provision, is it possible for Congress or the
implementing agency to repeat what the Marcos regime did, to pay the
landowners from
whom lands were taken . . . 10 percent in cash and 90 percent in bonds?
command
private sector enterprises to accept the bonds as exchanged. However, if the
value of the bonds is such that the present value reflects the real values,
then it is possible because then there would be no loss for private
enterprises to accept it in order to accelerate the broad participation of coownership
of their companies.
MR. RODRIGO: In short, if the bonds are invested in government
corporations, it can be compulsory for a government corporation to accept
these bonds if
that corporation is the choice of the landowner. Is that right? If it is a public
corporation?
MR. MONSOD: That is right.
MR. RODRIGO: But, if it is a private corporation?
MR. MONSOD: It cannot be compulsory. In that case, market forces will have
to operate and that is where the value of the bonds will be a consideration.
MR. RODRIGO: But, if the private enterprise opts to accept, can it accept?
MR. MONSOD: That would be the operation of the market.
MR. RODRIGO: In short, as regards to public corporation it is compulsory to
accept the bonds as equity; but in regard to private corporation, it is
optional. Is that correct?
MR. MONSOD: Yes.
MR. RODRIGO: But the problem is that I do not know of any public or
government corporation in the Philippines which is making money, except
perhaps the
Land Bank. But can the Land Bank accommodate all the land bonds that will
be issued for land reform?
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, it is not exactly correct to say that there are
no public sector enterprises other than the Land Bank. By the way, there are
six banks and the other five, if I recall it correctly, are all making money.
ComBank is making money; Union Bank is making money; then, of course,
National Steel Corporation is making money it is going to make, I think,
over P500 million this year. There are several companies that are profitable,
although we read only about the unprofitable ones.
MR. RODRIGO: Yes, I am not an economist but I read about the billions upon
billions of indebtedness of the PNB and the DBP.
Thank you very much.
MR. BENGZON: The Committee reiterates its acceptance.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: The issue has been amply debated, but Commissioners Colayco
and Davide have some questions before we take a vote.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Colayco is recognized.
MR. COLAYCO: Thank you, Madam President.
My question is addressed either to Commissioner Ople or to the Committee.
The proposal says, THE STATE SHALL PROVIDE INCENTIVES. Will the
payment be
mainly in the form of financial instruments?
MR. MONSOD: Yes.
MR. COLAYCO: Can the Committee spell out its idea of what these incentives
are going to be for the guidance of Congress?
MR. MONSOD: Let me just give one example but which is not exhaustive. This
would be in the pricing of the shares of the public sector enterprises, in the
terms of payment of the shares of these private firms.
MR. COLAYCO: I want figures. The bad experience of Commissioner Rodrigo
and others has shown that the 10-percent cash payment was just a drop in
the bucket
of the price paid. Does the Committee intend to follow the same percentage
of cash payment?
MR. MONSOD: When we answered Commissioner Rodrigo, we said that it is
not really a question of whether it is paid in cash or not. Even if it is paid only
10 percent in cash, the problem in the previous system was that the balance
of 90 percent was payable over a long period of time at a very low interest
rate, so that the present value of that bond was way below the real value of
the property. Now, even if we have long-term payment and its balance is in
bonds, if the interest rate on the bonds is such that the present market value
of the bonds equals the price of the land, it is possible to exchange that
in the free market, even in the private sector, because then there will be a
market-for such bonds. When the government unloads these public sector
enterprises, then it is possible, in addition to giving them the real value in
terms of bonds, that the pricing of the shares is such that it gives an
incentive for them to buy those shares.
MR. COLAYCO: Does the Gentleman think that his ideas will sufficiently guide
the legislature to avoid past mistakes?
MR. MONSOD: There are, I think, enough records of this Commission which
define just compensation.
MR. COLAYCO: Thank you.
MR. REGALADO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Regalado is recognized.
MR. REGALADO: I had previously discussed this matter with Commissioner
Monsod, and I just want it to be on the record. With respect to the incentives
that
will be given to holders of these land bonds, among other things, will these
land bonds be acceptable for the payment of taxes of the landowner
concerned,
and for the payment, let us say, of loans from government banks?
MR. BENGZON: This was already articulated in the affirmative by
Commissioner Ople this morning, and we reiterate that it is the intention of
the Committee
to be such.
MR. REGALADO: In other words, whenever it is an obligation in favor of the
government or of any of its owned or controlled corporations or banks, as the
case may be, this will be among the incentives for the acceptance of these
land bonds.
MR. BENGZON: It is not only among the incentives but it is the intent of the
Committee in proposing this section here, that that be one of the
consequences.
MR. REGALADO: Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Davide be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: With this particular section, we not only institutionalize the
bonds which were used in payment under the agrarian reform program, but
also
enshrine the right of Congress to require payments for lands taken under the
agrarian reform program by way of bonds. Could it exclusively be bonds?
MR. MONSOD: No. I think the reason why we used the word financial
instruments is that we did not want to preempt the possible range of
financial
instruments that could be issued under the agrarian reform program.
MR. DAVIDE: So, financial instruments may include any negotiable
instrument for that matter certificate of indebtedness, promissory notes,
and other
instruments.
MR. MONSOD: Yes.
MR. DAVIDE: Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, Commissioner Rosario Braid seeks to be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rosario Braid is recognized.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Just a clarificatory question. Would ENTERPRISES OF
THEIR CHOICE mean that we give the landowners the freedom to choose
from all
available enterprises or does the State suggest vital enterprises?
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, what we mean is within the number or the
range of enterprises which the government has decided would be privatized.
Then the
landowners or the holders of these instruments make a choice from among
those enterprises. It is not the landowners who direct which public sector
enterprises will be privatized.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Since industrialization is the goal, should we not qualify
it by saying a VITAL enterprise so that we could not just allow everyone to
make free choices?
MR. MONSOD: That might be an unnecessary adjective there because there
are other sections in the Constitution that define more clearly and in more
detail
the areas or the manner by which the government can get involved in
industrialization. This would not be the article for that definition.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Lastly, in the spirit of brevity, could this not be
shortened to mean the same thing? This appears to be a long provision. I
think by
capturing the concept of cooperation with private enterprise and the goal, as
well as the purpose for the investment, could we rephrase it in some other
way?
MR. MONSOD: Does the Commissioner have any suggestions?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: I do not know if this amendment captures the meaning
I wish to convey: THE STATE IN COOPERATION WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR
SHALL PROMOTE
INDUSTRIALIZATION BY EMPLOYMENT CREATION AND PRIVATIZATION OF
PUBLIC ENTERPRISES. TOWARDS THIS END, IT SHALL PROVIDE INCENTIVES
TO LANDOWNERS WHO INVEST
PROCEEDS FROM AGRARIAN REFORM BOND ON VITAL ENTERPRISES.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, the second sentence would convey the
ideas we have here but the first sentence sounds like a general statement
that might
belong in the Declaration of Principles and State Policies or in the Article on
the National Economy and Patrimony. If we count the words, there are about
the same as in the original.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Madam President, I withdraw the amendment.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: I would like to ask a question of my fellow member of our
Committee.
This is meant to be an incentive. Now I would like to ask a similar question to
the one that I asked yesterday regarding land reform. Supposing a landowner
does not want to take advantage of this incentive and then he says, I will
not sell my land until you give me cash and that is the only one that I will
accept. Will the landowners prevail or can they be forced to accept these
financial instruments other than cash?
MR. MONSOD: During yesterdays discussions, we defined the agrarian
reform program in terms of the exercise of police, power, because in this
case there is
a higher level of objective and value than the landowners option to hold on
to the private property. In that case, to refuse to participate or to allow
the land to be part of the agrarian reform program merely on the basis of the
fact that he wants all payments in cash probably would not be allowed.
However, the owner is entitled to ask that the just compensation be really
that.
BISHOP BACANI: Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: Commissioner Lerum seeks to be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Lerum is recognized.
MR. LERUM: Madam President, I just want to ask a few questions.
I agree with the purpose to the effect that it will liberate the tiller from the
bondage of the soil. That is the first purpose. The second purpose is to
release idle capital locked up in the antiquated land system and therefore
accelerate industrialization and employment expansion. I am just curious
what
is this capital that is locked up in this system? Will the sponsor kindly explain
this?
MR. OPLE: Madam President, there is a lot of potential capital locked up in a
land system which does not encourage productivity. For example, just to cull
from some of the most recent examples under P.D. No. 27, there are many
landed estates in rice and corn that were broken up, and so I am speaking of
absentee landowners. By the coverage of the land reform program, this
largely idle capital of the absentee landowner which relies on the tenants
efforts
to generate production, is released in terms of the compensation given him.
So that this gives him the opportunity to transform his role from an absentee
landowner not really connected with the productive process, a virtual
parasite of society, into an entrepreneur or perhaps even just as an investor.
In the
case of Taiwan, within five years from the inauguration of its land reform
program, NT$2 billion was released to industry as a result of the agrarian
reform program which otherwise would have been capital lying dormant in
the land.
MR. LERUM: The Gentleman is referring to Taiwan, but we are talking about
the Philippines. Does this locked-up capital refer to the payment that should
have been received by the landowner?
MR. OPLE: Yes, the proceeds of agrarian reform.
Ordinarily that is so. But in the case of the bonds paid by the government to
the landowner, these are not new capital but indebtedness to the landowner,
so we did not create any capital. My contention is that there is no such
locked-up capital because the bond represents indebtedness of the
government to
the owners of the land which was given to the tillers of the soil. That is my
point.
MR. MONSOD: I am sorry, but I do not agree with the Gentleman.
MR. LERUM: I am through, Madam President.
MR. MONSOD: When we talk about capital, we have to distinguish between
different types of assets. And usually in economics when we talk about
investment,
it is the creation of new productive enterprises or new productive assets.
What we are saying here is, that is possible because then there would now
be
money available to finance new productive assets.
THE PRESIDENT: Does Commissioner Maambong have anything to say?
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes, Madam President. In fact, I am one of the proponents
of Section 9, but I would like to present to the Committee a perfecting
amendment
to delete the words SO AS after the word PROGRAM in the third line so
that it will read: THE STATE SHALL PROVIDE INCENTIVES TO LANDOWNERS
TO INVEST
THE PROCEEDS OF THE AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM TO PROMOTE
INDUSTRIALIZATION.
Would that be acceptable?
MR. MONSOD: We accept, Madam President.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, may we now take a vote on Section 9?
THE PRESIDENT: Does everybody have a copy of this proposed amendment
of Commissioner Ople and several others?
MR. BENGZON: Everybody has a copy, Madam President.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: Those who are in favor of the proposed Section 9 of the
Article on Social Justice, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised
their
hand.)
Those who are against, please raise their hand. (No Member raised his hand.)
Those who are abstaining, please raise their hand. (One Member raised his
hand.)
MR. RODRIGO: Please register my abstention.
THE PRESIDENT: The results show 30 votes in favor, none against, and 1
abstention; the amendment is approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, Section 3 of this Article has not yet been fully
amended. May I ask that Commissioner Regalado be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Regalado is recognized.
MR. REGALADO: Thank you, Madam President.
My proposed amendment will be on Section 3, paragraphs (c) and (d). With
respect to paragraph (c), it is more of a perfecting amendment on the last
clause
which says: and enforce mutual compliance thereof 1; propose to
change thereof to THEREWITH, because one complies with something and
not of
something.
THE PRESIDENT: May I have that again, Commissioner Regalado? What line
please?
MR. REGALADO: The fourth line of Section 3, paragraph (c), page 2, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner proposes to change the word thereof to
THEREWITH.
MR. REGALADO: Yes, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that accepted?
MR. BENGZON: It is a matter of style, Madam President; we accept.
THE PRESIDENT: Let us vote on the amendment first. Is there any objection
to the proposed amendment of Commissioner Regalado to change the word
thereof
to THEREWITH. (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is
approved.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: May we make a request from the Floor Leader?
The principal author of this section, Commissioner Aquino, had to be called
outside on a long distance call and we would like to wait for her. Can we
defer
on the others and just proceed with Urban Land Reform and Housing?
MR. REGALADO: This is Section 11?
MR. MONSOD: Yes.
MR. REGALADO: So, I will just defer my proposed amendment to paragraph
(d) of Section 3.
MR. MONSOD: Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Foz be recognized to
amend Section 11.
MS. NIEVA: Madam President, before we go to the amendments from the
others, I would like to explain some minor changes that we would like to
propose on
Section 11.
This is on the line that says: a continuing urban land USE and Housing
program. First of all, Housing should be with a small h. And we would like
to
add the phrase IN COORDINATION WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR, and then,
will MAKE decent housing.
MR. FOZ: Madam President, our amendment will also affect the same line.
MS. NIEVA: As Chairperson of the Committee, may I be allowed to continue?
THE PRESIDENT: Please proceed.
MS. NIEVA: The rest of the sentence shall read: continuing urban land USE
and housing program that IN COORDINATION WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR will
MAKE
decent housing; and then here we add: AND SERVICES AVAILABLE at
affordable cost to deserving low-income citizens in urban centers and
resettlement
areas.
The reason for this is that we realize the magnitude of the housing problem
in the country. We know that at this stage, there is a nationwide backlog
representing just the households in slums and blighted areas estimated at
992,000 households and these blighted areas are 80 percent privately
owned. Of
these 992,000 squatter households, some 282,000 are in Metro Manila. The
studies have shown that these sites, in order to be upgraded, will cost
approximately P543 billion, while the balance of the households will have to
be resettled in various government resettlement sites and this again will cost
P828 million. It is also estimated that every year, 20,000 home lots have to
be developed over the next 10 years, and this again cost approximately P460
million. This is just for Metro Manila where one-third of the urban poor
dwellers are located.
A similar situation is evident in the 19 major regional urban centers outside
Metro Manila for some 213,000 squatter households living in slum areas. An
estimate showed that more than P3 billion will be needed to upgrade these
areas in the provinces. So, in view of this, and we have supporting statistics
here, we realize that the problem of making decent housing and services
available cannot be done by government solely. In fact, we feel that the
governments main job is to make the opportunities present and provide
what they call new approaches of sites and services and development of
improved
infrastructure, leaving the matter of direct housing opportunities to the
private sector, which includes the people themselves, the different
landowners,
land developers, financing institutions, and for them to cooperate and work
together to solve this problem that is not only a Philippine problem, but is
the problem of all urban centers throughout the world.
Therefore, we would like to put the phrase IN COORDINATION WITH THE
PRIVATE SECTOR so as to make it clear that our intention here is not for the
government
alone to be responsible for answering and addressing this very serious
problem of our urban poor dwellers in the country.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Floor Leader, who is the first in the list?
better word would be UNDERPRIVILEGED; but I welcome the way this has
been revised.
Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, Commissioner Villegas would like to comment
on the same amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Villegas is recognized.
MR. VILLEGAS: Could I just supplement the reason why I think the word
REFORM in urban land REFORM should stay? I think it has to be clear that
we are
giving the State the authority to expropriate large urban tracts of land for
redistribution to deserving citizens in the spirit of agrarian reform. So, I
think the State cannot only expropriate large agricultural lands; it can also
expropriate large urban lands for the common good.
MR. MONSOD: Yes.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.
It was 3:41 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 3:57 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, the proponents have reached a meeting of the
minds. I ask that Commissioner Foz be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Foz is recognized.
MR. FOZ: Madam President, after consultation with the Committee, as well as
with other Commissioners, including Commissioners Treas, Sarmiento, Tan,
Rama,
Villegas and de los Reyes, we have come up with a common formulation on
Section 11, and which the Committee is accepting.
So, I would like to read for the benefit of the Committee the entire provision,
as reworded or reformulated.
with
cooperation, the private sector will just say, we agree, but there is no
involvement, no commitment.
MR. NOLLEDO: I do not think so, because when we coordinate, we coordinate
only efforts on the part of either side. But when we use COOPERATION,
then
cooperation may include investments, efforts and other factors. I would even
recommend COLLABORATION the original word that the Gentleman used.
MR. FOZ: Actually, the word COORDINATION was suggested by the
Committee.
MR. NOLLEDO: That is why I explained to the Committee and the Committee
accepted my suggestion.
MR. FOZ: In that case, we also accept, Madam President.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you, Madam President.
MS. QUESADA: Madam President, I really feel I have to react to this watering
down of this particular provision, when the original that the Committee
presented was SHALL REGULATE. But when we say, BY LAW, that
subjects it to legislation which removes the mandate that all along we have
wanted the
urban poor to enjoy as a form of social justice.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, may we just answer our colleague because
the reason we agreed to the removal of the words regulate the ownership
is that the
general rule on regulation, acquisition, ownership, use and disposition of
property and its increment is already stated in Section 1. Therefore, the
general rule affects all the sections on Social Justice. So it do not dilute or
diminish because the general rule is very strong and is in the first
section.
MR. FOZ: And in addition, the term urban REFORM involves the idea of
regulation.
THE PRESIDENT: How does the section read now?
MR. RAMA: Madam President, Commissioner will read the complete text.
MR. FOZ: The provision reads as follows: The State shall BY LAW and for the
common good undertake a continuing program of urban land REFORM and
housing IN
COOPERATION WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR that will MAKE decent housing
AND BASIC SERVICES AVAILABLE at affordable cost to UNDERPRIVILEGED
AND HOMELESS citizens
in urban centers and resettlement areas.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, before we vote would like to explain briefly why
I asked that the word deserving be deleted and that instead we add the
words
HOMELESS citizens after UNDERPRIVILEGED AND, the reason being that
there are underprivileged citizens that have homes by inheritance Our main
concern
here are the homeless citizens who live on the sidewalks, on top of garbage
dumps and shacks. So, that is the explanation why I inserted the words AND
HOMELESS citizens. May I ask that we now take a vote, Madam President?
THE PRESIDENT: Just to clarify: we also have the proposed amendment of
Commissioner Treas.
MR. TREAS: Madam President, we have incorporated all our ideas.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: Those in favor of this particular amendment on Section 11,
please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
Those against, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
The results show 35 votes in favor and 2 against, amendment is approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: May I ask that Commissioner Sarmiento be recognized to amend
Section 12.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, my amendment is an amendment by
deletion. May I propose that we delete the words with valid claims after
dwellers?
MS. NIEVA: We have taken that out.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, that has been taken out.
MR. BENGZON: We have taken that out.
MR. SARMIENTO: But for clarity and what are two lines among friends I
propose that we retain these. After all, this was the original proposal of the
Committee for the inclusion of these two lines. May I suggest, therefore, that
we retain the same.
MR. BENGZON: The situation we are really trying to avoid is that, if after all
the planning which is done by the government in consultation with these
people, they ultimately refuse to be resettled, then everything will have gone
to waste. After all, this phrase is already covered in the word
consultation.
MR. SARMIENTO: Anyway, if the real intent of the Committee is for that
consultation to cover their involvement in planning and implementation, then
I
withdraw my amendment.
MR. BENGZON: Thank you very much.
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de Castro is recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you.
May I inquire from the Committee whether the words here, urban poor
dwellers shall not be evicted, refer to the squatters?
MS. NIEVA: Yes.
MR. DE CASTRO: Under existing law, squatters are per se illegally occupying
the land.
MR. BENGZON: That is why we say, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, because if
he is a squatter, under the law, he is a nuisance per se.
MR. DE CASTRO: Yes.
MR. BENGZON: He can be evicted because of the very fact that he is a
nuisance per se, which is in accordance with law. However, the eviction will
have to
be in a just and humane manner, not in the manner by which, for example,
the squatters in the Tatalon Estate were evicted or were attempted to be
evicted.
MR. DE CASTRO: I will agree on the use of JUST AND HUMANE MANNER. But
when we say that they cannot be evicted nor their dwellings demolished
except in
accordance with law would that force the poor owner of the land being
squatted on to go to court to evict them?
MR. BENGZON: That is why I say that if the illegal squatters are a nuisance
per se, an eviction, without going to court, would be in accordance with law.
MR. DE CASTRO: Yes. So, the owner of the land on which they are squatting
will have to go to court to evict them. Is that right under this provision?
MS. NIEVA: Yes.
MR. DE CASTRO: Suppose the poor owner does not have the means to go to
court because litigation is costly, will he then have to live with the situation
that what he owns he does not have? With the statement urban poor
dwellers shall not be evicted nor their dwellings demolished EXCEPT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH
LAW AND ALWAYS IN A JUST AND HUMANE MANNER, we are forcing the
owner of the land to go to court, in accordance with law for the eviction. If
the owner has
no money because court litigation is quite expensive, then we are liable to
have a small landowner ending up without any land at all.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, may we request Commissioner Regalado to
explain this.
MR. REGALADO: Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Regalado is recognized.
MR. REGALADO: As we were saying, a professional squatter with no valid
claim whatsoever can be considered a nuisance per se. And in the
abatement of a
nuisance per se as distinguished from a nuisance per accidens, the owner
does not have to go to court. He can report to the municipal authorities or to
the
health authorities or he can seek the aid of the police authorities. If, on the
other hand, it is a nuisance per accidens which requires a determination of
facts, then that will be the time when judicial recourse will be necessary.
Also, the owner himself, under the law on property, is entitled to use a
reasonable cost in defense of his property, whenever there is a clear, patent
infringement upon his property rights. Now, this does not compel the owner
to
go to court. If it is a nuisance per se, all he has to do is to seek the help of
the local authorities.
The results show 1 vote in favor and 30 against; the amendment is lost.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Davide be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, before going to Section 11 or 12 in the draft,
may I be allowed to go back to Section 11 after the Foz amendment. With the
permission of the Commission, we failed to answer a basic demand and a
basic right for the urban poor a dwellers and resettlement dwellers.
I seek to add, after the Foz amendment, the following sentence with the
permission of the Commission: IT SHALL ALSO PROVIDE ADEQUATE
EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITIES TO SUCH CITIZENS. This is an amendment jointly proposed
by Commissioners Nolledo, Sarmiento, Foz, Bennagen and Tan. Perhaps, in
the euphoria
of our desire to answer the needs of the urban poor dwellers, we forgot one
very important and significant assistance which we should give to them.
MS. NIEVA: Madam President, the original committee report carried the
phrase employment-generating economic activity. Yes, that is very
important.
MR. DAVIDE: Would the Committee willingly accept this amendment?
MS. NIEVA: We are accepting that amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the Commissioner please repeat the amendment.
MR. DAVIDE: It is to place a new sentence after the Foz amendment: IT
SHALL ALSO PROVIDE ADEQUATE EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES TO SUCH
CITIZENS. Commissioners
Foz, Sarmiento, Nolledo, Tan and Bennagen are coauthors.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this proposed amendment which
has been accepted by the Committee? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
amendment is
approved.
MR. DAVIDE: On Section 12 of the proposed draft, I am constrained to
present this amendment because my past is haunting me. I come from a
very poor rural
community. But at the start of Section 12, we only speak of the urban poor
dwellers. So, I seek to insert between urban and poor the words AND
RURAL.
MR. BENNAGEN: May we ask the proponent what to include under the
category of rural poor?
MR. DAVIDE: The same as the rural poor referred to in the phrase No
resettlement of URBAN OR RURAL DWELLERS appearing in the second
sentence. These are
the rural poor.
MR. BENNAGEN: Would these include also rural communities that are
threatened by huge infrastructure projects?
MR. DAVIDE: Certainly.
MR. BENNAGEN: Thank you, Madam President.
MS. NIEVA: The Committee gladly accepts the amendment.
MR. DAVIDE: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the proposed amendment which
has been accepted by the Committee? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
amendment is
approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Regalado be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Regalado is recognized.
MR. REGALADO: Thank you, Madam President.
Still on Section 12 of the draft proposal: we have a little difficulty in the
conception of urban poor dwellers. I, therefore, propose an amendment to
read
UNDERPRIVILEGED URBAN DWELLERS because when we speak of poor or
poverty, it is generally conceived in terms of their financial capacity. But
financial
capacity alone is not the only consideration. There may be other factors to
consider in classifying an underprivileged urban dweller. So, in lieu of urban
poor dwellers and to have a broader scope which will include the poor, I
propose that we use the phrase UNDERPRIVILEGED URBAN DWELLERS to
make it a little
more encompassing.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
MR. REGALADO: I will yield to the use of the word urban poor.
MR. BENGZON: With that understanding, Madam President.
MR. REGALADO: With regard to the third line which says, EXCEPT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ALWAYS, I propose the deletion of the word
ALWAYS because it
is redundant. The third line already says EXCEPT IN ACCORDANCE WITH
LAW AND IN A JUST AND HUMANE MANNER.
MS. NIEVA: We accept, Madam President.
MR. BENGZON: We accept.
MR. REGALADO: On the fifth line, I propose insert THEM AND between the
words with and the and after communities, add WHERE THEY ARE that
the amended
portion will now read: or rural dwellers shall take place without consultation
with THEM AND the communities WHERE THEY ARE to be relocated. We will
give
the communities where they are going to be transferred a say on whether or
not they should be placed in that particular community. In other words, we
provide a dual consultation with community and with the urban poor in their
own community. Also, this will provide a chance for the other community to
which they are going to be relocated to explain whether their resources or
their situation would accommodate so many in the resettlement areas.
MS. NIEVA: Madam President, does THEM to entire communities, because
here we have in mind entire communities that have to be relocated and
resettled
because of infrastructure projects like dams?
MR. REGALADO: No. The use of the pronoun them has for its antecedent
the urban or dwellers. There must be prior consultation, of course, with the
urban
and rural dwellers. So the word them has reference to the urban or rural
dwellers who are going to be relocated. The second addition is also a
consultation with the community to which the going to be relocated. So, it is
not just the government saying, We will transfer you here, without giving
that other community where they are intended to be relocated the
opportunity also to say, Well, this is our present situation. We have these
problems
ourselves.
They may not have enough arrangements for giving employment as has
already been adopted in the amendment of Commissioner Davide. So, at
MR. DAVIDE: I heard the Committee Chairman reading urban and rural
dwellers. It should be or.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President, just for verification. Do the records show
the words without consultation or without adequate consultation?
THE PRESIDENT: Without adequate consultation.
BISHOP BACANI: Thank you.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor, please raise their hand. (Several
Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (One Member raised his
hand.)
The results show 34 votes in favor, 1 against and no abstention; Section 12 is
approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Nolledo be recognized
to amend Section 13 which is now Section 12 under the subtitle health.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Nolledo is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the pleasure of Commissioner Monsod?
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
MR. MONSOD: We had deferred considering the last two paragraphs of the
section on labor. Since Commissioner Aquino is back, may we go back there,
with the
indulgence of Commissioner Nolledo?
Madam President, may we have a suspension of the session to organize
ourselves?
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.
It was 4:37 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 5:14 p.m., the session was resumed with the Honorable Regalado
Maambong presiding.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : The session is resumed.
Mr. Floor Leader, will you kindly indicate where we are now.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, there is a request from the Committee that
Commissioner Aquino be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Commissioner Aquino is
recognized.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer, by now the body should have been
furnished with copies of the reformulated section on labor, pertaining to
Section 3.
May I be allowed to read it while we are waiting for the xerox copies?
MS. AQUINO: The reformulation would account for a reformatting by way of
completing the paragraphs instead of mere enumerations, and some
transpositions
which would best define the concepts.
Section 3 reads: The State shall afford EVERY protection to labor and
promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities FOR ALL.
It shall guarantee the rights of ALL workers to self-organization, collective
bargaining and negotiations, peaceful and concerted activities including the
right to strike in ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THEY SHALL BE ENTITLED TO
SECURITY OF TENURE, just and humane conditions of work, A LIVING WAGE,
and TO PARTICIPATE
IN the policy and decision-making PROCESSES affecting their rights and
benefits AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW.
The State shall promote THE PRINCIPLE OF SHARED RESPONSIBILITY
BETWEEN WORKERS AND EMPLOYERS IN settling THEIR disputes THROUGH
THE USE OF VOLUNTARY MODES,
INCLUDING CONCILIATION, AND THE ENFORCEMENT OF THEIR MUTUAL
COMPLIANCE THEREWITH.
THE STATE shall regulate THE RELATIONS BETWEEN WORKERS AND
EMPLOYERS, RECOGNIZING, FOREMOST, the right of labor to its just share
and the right of BUSINESS
ENTERPRISES to reasonable returns on investments, EXPANSION AND
GROWTH.
This reformulation took off basically from what we had voted upon in
subparagraphs (a) and (b) of Section 3, and we have incorporated the
proposed
amendments of Commissioners Azcuna, Foz, Colayco, Regalado and the
Committee.
MR. REGALADO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Commissioner Regalado is
recognized.
MR. REGALADO: Before the suspension of the session, I was on this last
paragraph where I was supposed to introduce an amendment, but we had to
wait for the
reformulation. With respect to this last paragraph, on the third sentence
thereof, I am proposing an amendment by insertion of the word EQUIVALENT
between
the words the and right to read: share and the equivalent right of
business enterprises to reasonable returns.
The reason for this is that the original draft stated the corresponding rights,
which are very vague and ambiguous. Then I noticed that the word
corresponding was eliminated and that the words the right were simply
put. In the case of labor, it is stated that it must be RECOGNIZING,
FOREMOST,
the right of labor to its just share. To put this on an equipoise, since all
persons should be equal before the law, I pro- pose this amendment: and
the
EQUIVALENT right of business enterprises to reasonable returns on
investments . . .
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Before the Committee responds,
we would like to know from Commissioner Aquino if there is a reformulation
of
paragraphs (c) and (d) because I think Commissioner Regalado is now
proposing to amend paragraph (d).
MS. AQUINO: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer. There is a reformulation of the two
paragraphs.
MR. REGALADO: I am using the reformulated draft as furnished me.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Is it the reformulated draft he is
using now?
MS. AQUINO: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer. But there are some minor corrections.
The omission of the word corresponding was not intended; it must have
been
a typographical error.
MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Presiding Officer, may we be furnished a copy? We are
just guessing here.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Even the Chair is waiting for its
copy. In the meantime, may we just proceed, Commissioner Regalado?
MR. REGALADO: Yes. Since Commissioner Aquino said that the word
corresponding should have been there, I am proposing the change to
EQUIVALENT right
because corresponding right is very vague; there can be no corresponding
right of capital, shall we say, capital vis-a-vis labor. So, I am proposing the
EQUIVALENT right on the part of capital also to realize its growth potential.
Equivalent does not mean equal.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : What does the Committee say?
Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: The understanding then is that the meaning is not equal.
We prefer the word corresponding, I believe, because we do not wish to
speak in
terms of equality here nor we do not deny equality. You do not compare an
orange to an apple, and say it is equal to an apple. As you can see, the terms
are not completely parallel. We are vindicating almost the right of labor to its
just share and what is said regarding the right of business enterprises is
to reasonable returns on investments, expansion and growth. So we are not
speaking of two completely equivalent things. That is why we used the word
corresponding.
MR. REGALADO: As I said, the word equivalent does not mean equal
because you cannot equalize rights pertaining to different antecedents
because
corresponding is a little too vague. Just what is meant by corresponding
rights?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Is the Committee accepting the
amendment or not?
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer, we would rather submit it to the body for
a decision.
May the Committee be allowed to explain? It is the shared sentiment that the
substitution of the word corresponding with EQUIVALENT would
effectively
reduce the potency of the word FOREMOST.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Is Commissioner Regalado
insisting on his amendment of adding the word EQUIVALENT?
MR. REGALADO: Yes, to be voted upon by the body, because of their
insistence on putting the word FOREMOST insofar as labor is concerned.
MR. RODRIGO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Commissioner Rodrigo is
recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: Is EQUIVALENT or CORRESPONDING the word to be
inserted?
MR. REGALADO: The amendment of the Committee omitted the word
appropriate in the drafting.
MS. AQUINO: Corresponding.
MR. RODRIGO: Corresponding.
MR. REGALADO: Lack of corresponding.
MR. RODRIGO: I am asking whether the amendment of Commissioner
Regalado is to insert the word EQUIVALENT.
MR. REGALADO: EQUIVALENT right instead of corresponding right.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : We will take this up one by one.
Will the Committee now indicate again the amendatory word of
Commissioner Regalado
which has been accepted so that we do not have to put that to a vote?
MS. AQUINO: The last paragraph, as amended, reads: THE STATE shall
regulate THE RELATIONS BETWEEN WORKERS AND EMPLOYERS,
RECOGNIZING, FOREMOST, the right
of labor to its just share, and the corresponding right of ENTERPRISES to
reasonable returns on investments, EXPANSION AND GROWTH.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : That is acceptable now to the
Committee.
Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is
approved.
Commissioner Padilla is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: On lines 2 and 3 of paragraph 4, I suggest that we eliminate
foremost and corresponding. There are some adjectives that are
meaningful
like preferential. The words foremost and corresponding do not seem
to add any substance.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : The Chair does not understand
the proposed amendment of Commissioner Padilla. What specifically is the
Gentlemans
proposed amendment?
MR. PADILLA: On lines 2 and 3, eliminate foremost and corresponding.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : What does the Committee say?
MS. AQUINO: The Committee regrets that it cannot accept the amendment,
Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : The Committee does not accept
the proposed amendment. Does the Gentleman insist on a vote?
MR. PADILLA: May I explain briefly my amendment and then I ask for a vote.
The sharing of responsibility and likewise the sharing of the benefits of
industrial peace are rights not only of labor but also of the enterprise.
Actually, if the enterprise does not earn or realize profits as reasonable
returns on investments, if there are no profits or net income, then there can
hardly be any basis for the share of labor in the fruits of production. They
are joint rights, concomitant, mutually dependent on each other. So, I feel
that the adjectives or the words foremost and corresponding do not add
to
the real intent of more productivity, which we fervently expect from
industrial peace. Both factors should derive enough earnings or profits for
reasonable
returns to capital and a just share to labor. When the word just justifies
share, that is meaningful; but the adjectives foremost and
corresponding
do not add any substantial significance.
BISHOP BACANI: Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. RAMA: For the last amendment to Section 3, I ask that Commissioner Foz
be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Commissioner Foz is recognized.
MR. FOZ: Mr. Presiding Officer, this is an amendment that seeks to add a
phrase after the word therewith on the third paragraph. The words to be
inserted
are: IN THE PROMOTION OF INDUSTRIAL PEACE.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : What does the Committee say?
MS. AQUINO: We accept the amendment, except that it might sound a bit
awkward because the word promote appears already in the beginning of
the sentence.
But in principle, we accept the proposed amendment.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Commissioner Rosario Braid is
recognized.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Would Commissioner Foz accept an amendment to his
amendment? Instead of PROMOTION, how about the word ACHIEVEMENT
so there will be no
redundancy. So it will read: IN THE ACHIEVEMENT OF INDUSTRIAL PEACE.
MR. FOZ: IN THE REALIZATION OF INDUSTRIAL PEACE.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : So the word now is
REALIZATION. What does the Committee say?
MS. AQUINO: We accept the amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : The proposed amendment is
accepted.
Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is
approved.
The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: There are no more proponents of amendments to Section 3, so I
ask that a vote be taken on the whole Section 3 after its reading.
MR. ROMULO: May we ask the high-speed train to slow down a bit because
the Committee has some suggestions.
MS. QUESADA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I would like to propose an amendment
which has been accepted by the members of the Committee and that is, to
bring back
the original provision which reads: The State shall afford FULL protection to
labor, LOCAL AND OVERSEAS, ORGANIZED AND UNORGANIZED, and promote
full
employment and equality of employment opportunities for all.
In the public hearing the problems of unorganized as well as of the overseas
or migrant workers have often been mentioned. The reason we did not have
any
special section for this particular group is because of this one statement that
would already cover the concern for these particular members of the labor
sector. So as we had already provided such protection to fisher- men and to
farmworkers, I believe . . .
MR. FOZ: Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. JAMIR: Parliamentary inquiry. Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Commissioner Quesada was just
about to finish her sentence; will the Commissioner continue.
MS. QUESADA: As I was saying, we have already provided a special provision
for fishermen, and the inclusion of this particular provision would already put
the stress that we are considering the plight of the unorganized and overseas
workers. This was in the original provision but was deleted because of the
demand for brevity. I have appealed and the Committee has reconsidered
this particular provision.
MR. JAMIR: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Commissioner Jamir is
recognized.
MR. JAMIR: May I know whether that is a reconsideration?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : The Floor Leader will respond to
that because it is the recollection of the Chair that this first sentence has
already been approved. Will the Floor Leader please respond to the
parliamentary inquiry of Commissioner Jamir?
MR. RAMA. It seems that there needs to be a motion for reconsideration.
MR. FOZ: Mr. Presiding Officer, before we go into such a motion for
reconsideration, I would like to go back to a previous amendment which was
accepted by
the Committee regarding the phrase in the realization of industrial peace. I
think the more proper word is INTEREST.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Just a moment, please. Let us put
everything in order. The phrase in the realization of industrial peace has
been
accepted by the Committee and since nobody objected, it was approved by
the body. So, the Gentleman is now asking for a reconsideration of the
approval of
his amendment, in the realization of industrial peace.
MR. FOZ: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer, and this has the clearance of the
Committee. I would like to change the word realization to FURTHERANCE
of
industrial peace.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : What does the Committee say?
MS. AQUINO. For a while, we are trying to agree on the alternative formula.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : The Chair declares a suspension
of the session.
It was 5:59 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 6:00 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : The session is resumed.
Is it the understanding of the Chair, Commissioner Foz, that in the approved
amendment on paragraph 3 which reads in the realization of industrial
peace,
the Commissioner would wish to amend the word realization to some other
word?
MR. FOZ: The amendment is to change the phrase in the realization of
industrial peace to the following phrase: TO FOSTER industrial peace.
May we know the reaction of the Committee?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : The Chair will now treat this as a
primary amendment to an approved amendment.
What does the Committee say?
MS. AQUINO: We accept the amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : The proposed amendment is
accepted.
Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is
approved.
The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Quesada be recognized.
MR. JAMIR: I have a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Commissioner Jamir is
recognized.
The Floor Leader will please respond once more to the parliamentary inquiry.
MR. RAMA: What is the parliamentary inquiry?
MR. JAMIR: My parliamentary inquiry is whether the statement of
Commissioner Quesada is a motion for reconsideration.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Commissioner Aquino is
recognized.
MS. AQUINO: The Committee volunteers to answer the question. If the
Gentleman remembers, yesterday when we decided to vote on paragraphs
(a) and (b) of
Section 3, they were subject to the proposed recasting by Commissioner
Colayco.
MR. JAMIR: So, this is not a reconsideration.
MS. AQUINO: This is not a reconsideration. The Committee, on its own
initiative, recasted the whole paragraphs in cooperation with some of the
Commissioners who have shown interest in this particular section, and the
UNORGANIZED
and a comma (,). Is that the correct amendment, Commissioner Quesada?
MS. QUESADA: The State shall afford FULL protection to labor, LOCAL AND
OVERSEAS, ORGANIZED AND UNORGANIZED, and promote full employment
and equality of
employment opportunities for all.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : What does the Committee say?
MR. SARMIENTO: Mr. Presiding Officer, in support of Commissioner Quesadas
manifestation, I move for the reconsideration of Section 3 to incorporate all
her amendments.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : It has already been clarified by
Commissioner Aquino that there was merely a recasting of the section; so,
there is
no need for a reconsideration.
MR. SARMIENTO: Then I withdraw my motion, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : The motion for reconsideration is
withdrawn.
What does the Committee say to the proposed amendment of Commissioner
Quesada?
MS. AQUINO: Yes, we accept the proposed amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : The proposed amendment is
accepted by the Committee.
Is there any objection to the proposed amendment? (Silence) The Chair hears
none; the amendment is approved.
The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, there are no more registered amenders to
this section and I do not think there are suggestions from the Committee; so,
I
ask that we take a vote on the whole Section 3.
MR. GASCON: I would like to make a clarification on the second paragraph of
Section 3.
Will the Committee please read the whole Section 3 so that everybody will
understand before we take a vote.
MS. AQUINO: The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and
overseas, organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and
equality of
employment opportunities for all.
It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, collective
bargaining and negotiations, peaceful and concerted activities, including
the right to strike in accordance with law. They shall be entitled to security of
tenure, humane conditions of work and a living wage. They shall also
participate in policy and decision-making processes affecting their rights and
benefits as may be provided by law.
The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between
workers and employers and the preferential use of voluntary modes in
settling
disputes including conciliation, and the enforcement of their mutual
compliance therewith to foster industrial peace
The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers,
recognizing the right of labor to its just share in the fruits of production and
the
right of enterprises to reasonable returns on investments, expansion and
growth.
VOTING
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : As many as are in favor of the
whole Section 3, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their
hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (No Member raised his
hand.)
The results show 34 votes in favor and none against; the whole Section 3 is,
approved.
MR. COLAYCO: May I explain my vote of yes.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Commissioner Colayco is
recognized.
COMMISSIONER COLAYCO EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. COLAYCO: I am constrained to vote yes because I agree with the main
thrust of this section. But I want to make it of record that I still believe we are
too profligate and generous with words.
Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: We now move on to Section 13 as denominated under the subtitle
Health.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Commissioner Aquino is
recognized.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
MS. AQUINO: The Committee requests a suspension of session.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : The session is suspended.
It was 6:11 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 6:16 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : The session is resumed.
The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, there is a consensus among the
Commissioners that we jump to the section under the subtitle Women.
May I ask that the foremost expert in women, Commissioner Romulo, be
recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Commissioner Romulo, the expert
in women, is recognized. (Laughter)
MR. ROMULO: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: May I just make an amendment to the amendment and
that is by including a phrase that will accommodate the disadvantaged
women. This
provision is for working women and although many women are marginalized,
there are some who are more marginalized than others; namely, the
illiterates,
particularly in terms of working conditions.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Where does Commissioner
Rosario Braid propose to insert the word DISADVANTAGED?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Working women usually connotes working in the
formal economy. There are illiterates.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : The Committee has accepted the
proposed amendment of Commissioner Romulo. But probably, we should first
dispose of
the proposed amendment of Commissioner Rosario Braid. What does the
Committee say to that?
MS. AQUINO: The Committee believes that it is an unnecessary surplusage
and we regret that we cannot accept it.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Working women usually connotes working in the
formal economy. There are many women who do not really work in the formal
workplace.
They are marginalized and we would like to include them.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : The Committee which has
accepted the proposed amendment of Commissioner Romulo does not seem
to be in favor of
accepting Commissioner Rosario Braids proposed amendment to the
amendment.
Will the Commissioner insist on her amendment?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: I would not mind if we are able to come up with a
provision that will really address itself to the marginalized women where the
concern
is more than just providing them safe and healthful conditions.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : The Chair suggests that we first
dispose of the primary amendment after which we can probably take up the
amendment
to the amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : May the Chair ask a clarification
on that? The proponent does not accept the change of the word RELEASE
to
ENHANCE.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
MR. ROMULO. Mr. Presiding Officer, may we ask for a suspension of the
session?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : The session is suspended for one
minute.
It was 6:27 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 6:31 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : The session is resumed.
Has Commissioner Romulo conferred with the Committee?
MR. ROMULO: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer. After having released our energies in
combination with the Committee, we have agreed on a common
amendment.
Commissioner Aquino will now read it.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Commissioner Aquino is
recognized.
MS. AQUINO: The section will read: The State shall PROTECT THE working
women by providing SAFE AND HEALTHFUL working conditions, TAKING INTO
ACCOUNT their
maternal functions, AND SUCH facilities AND OPPORTUNITIES THAT will
ENHANCE THEIR WELFARE AND WELL-BEING TO REALIZE THEIR FULL
POTENTIAL IN the service of
the NATION.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Has the proponent heard the
formulation? Is that what the Commissioner agreed on?
MR. ROMULO: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Is there any objection? (Silence)
The Chair hears none; the amendment is approved.
MR. RAMA: There are no more proponents of any amendments to the section
on women. So, I ask that we vote on the whole section.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : May the Chair know from
Commissioner Romulo what would be the numbering of the section now,
considering that this is
proposed to be the combination of Sections 16 and 17?
MR. ROMULO: Section 17 is now deleted and combined with Section 16.
MR. RAMA: May I ask the Committee to read the full text of Section 16.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Will the Committee now read the
whole Section 16 for purposes of voting?
MS. NIEVA: The State shall PROTECT THE working women by providing SAFE
AND HEALTHFUL working conditions, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT their maternal
functions, AND
SUCH facilities AND OPPORTUNITIES THAT will ENHANCE THEIR WELFARE AND
WELL-BEING TO REALIZE THEIR FULL POTENTIAL IN the service of the
NATION.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : The Chair is now putting Section
16, as read, to a vote.
Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; Section 16 is
approved.
The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: Before we adjourn, Mr. Presiding Officer, there is only one
proponent of amendments to all the three provisions under the subtitle
Minors. May
I ask that Commissioner Davide be recognized?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Commissioner Davide is
recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: The second sentence on the section on Minors will read as
follows: INFANTS, PARTICULARLY ORPHANS AND ABANDONED CHILDREN, ARE
LIKEWISE
ENTITLED TO THE PROTECTION OF THE STATE.
MR. GASCON: Will Commissioner Davide accept an amendment?
MR. DAVIDE: May I hear it, Mr. Presiding Officer?
MR. DAVIDE: So, the Gentleman wants it inserted in the first. So, the
provision will read: THE STATE SHALL PROVIDE SPECIAL PROTECTION TO
INFANTS, ORPHANS,
ABANDONED CHILDREN AND MINORS, ESPECIALLY WORKING MINORS, AND
SHALL PROHIBIT THEIR EXPLOITATION AND INSURE THEIR FULL
DEVELOPMENT. That would be only one
sentence then.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Is that an acceptable formulation
to the Committee?
MR. TINGSON: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Commissioner Tingson is
recognized.
MR. TINGSON: May I just inquire? It seems to me that there is a move all over
the world to discourage minors to work. But here we are referring to working
minors?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes.
MR. TINGSON: May I please have an explanation?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, in the Philippines, we still classify persons below 21 as
minors, but above 14 or even above 13, they can already work. We would
like to
give special protection to that age level.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Why do we not just say MINORS
and include working minors, nonworking minors and sick minors?
Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: There is still a distinction between minors and infants.
MR. MONSOD: No, I am only suggesting that we delete the words
ESPECIALLY WORKING MINORS because we are already stating SPECIAL
PROTECTION TO and then
enumerate. So, a minor is part of that phrase.
MR. SUAREZ: Mr. Presiding Officer,. when the Gentleman speaks of working
minors, I suppose we are referring to minors allowed to work under the law.
I
ask Commissioner Tingson to enlighten us on this point.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Commissioner Tingson is
recognized.
MR. TINGSON: I have in my possession the reported section. It reads:
The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and
strengthen the family as a basic social institution. The State shall equally
protect
the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from the moment of
conception. The natural right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth
for
civic efficiency in the development of moral character shall receive the aid
and support of the government.
The last paragraph of Section 10 reads:
The State shall protect children from all forms of neglect, cruelty and
exploitation particularly in conditions harmful to their physical, mental or
moral
well-being.
So, that is covered in our Declaration of Principles.
MR. DAVIDE: My proposal then would be to delete this particular heading and
to transfer it to the Declaration of Principles. In other words, we make
reservations for possible amendments to the Declaration of Principles and
State Policy.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : The Chair takes note of the
intention of Commissioner Davide. But before we present that to the
Committee, we have
to dispose of the parliamentary inquiry of Commissioner Sarmiento,
considering the reading of the-provision on minors in the Declaration of
Principles.
What is now the pleasure of the Gentleman?
MR. SARMIENTO: With that clarification, I withdraw my parliamentary inquiry.
It has been completely satisfied.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : There is now a pending intention
of Commissioner Davide or is it a motion to transfer this provision to the
Declaration of Principles? We will have to present that before the Committee.
MS. NIEVA: Mr. Presiding Officer, some members of the Committee say that
they are too tired to tackle these provisions tonight and they think there may
be
more changes than we have anticipated. We suggest to defer this until
tomorrow.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : The Floor Leader is recognized.
ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION
MR. RAMA: I ask that we adjourn the session tomorrow.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong) : Is there any objection to the
motion to adjourn? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the session is adjourned
until
tomorrow at nine oclock in the morning.
It was 6:47 p.m.
Footnotes:
* Appeared after the roll call.
R.C.C. NO. 52
Saturday, August 9, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
At 9:25 a.m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia Muoz Palma, opened the
session.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is called to order.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please rise to sing the National Anthem.
Everybody rose to sing the National Anthem.
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please remain standing for the Prayer to be
led by the Honorable Crispino M. de Castro.
Everybody remained standing for the Prayer.
PRAYER
MR. DE CASTRO: Almighty God: We beseech Thee once again to guide our
minds and our hearts so that the thoughts and feelings that may emanate
from each of
us will be those of the Filipino people on whose behalf we seek to fashion a
fundamental law that shall embody our collective ideals and aspirations.
Enlighten us, O Lord. Open our eyes and minds. Give us the courage and the
strength to see and understand those ideals and proposals that may differ
from
our own.
Let the light of reason shine on our discussions and debates so that we may
exchange ideas, thoughts and arguments with truth, clarity and sincerity
towards democratic ideals. This, our people expect from us.
Help us, O Lord, to finish this Constitution as early as possible because
millions of Filipinos are awaiting the day when we shall live in peace and in
glory.
Thank you, O Lord, Amen.
ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will call the roll.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Abubakar
Present *
Natividad
Present *
Alonto
Present *
Nieva
Absent
Aquino
Present *
Nolledo
Present
Azcuna
Present
Ople
Present *
Bacani
Present
Padilla
Present *
Bengzon
Present *
Quesada
Present
Bennagen
Present
Rama
Present
Bernas
Present
Regalado
Present
Rosario Braid
Present
Reyes de los
Present
Brocka
Present
Rigos
Present
Calderon
Present *
Rodrigo
Present
Castro de
Present
Romulo
Present
Colayco
Present *
Rosales
Present
Concepcion
Present
Sarmiento
Present *
Davide
Present
Suarez
Present
Foz
Present
Sumulong
Present
Garcia
Present *
Tadeo
Present
Gascon
Absent
Tan
Present
Guingona
Absent
Tingson
Present
Jamir
Present
Treas
Present
Laurel
Present *
Uka
Present
Lerum
Present
Villacorta
Present *
Maambong
Present
Villegas
Present
Monsod
Present *
would
want to defer this until these papers are distributed.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, if it is the understanding that we defer
consideration of the definition, my proposal will be only the following: In the
opening sentence of Section 19, I seek the deletion of the words the ends
of; it will just read: In the pursuit of Social Justice.
MR. BENNAGEN: It is accepted.
MR. DAVIDE: That is all that I seek to introduce. I am waiting for the definition
because I have some amendments on it.
MR. BENNAGEN: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bennagen is recognized.
MR. BENNAGEN: We were provided with a copy of the definition of peoples
organizations which is suggested to be Section 21. I am not sure whether
this is
shared by the Committee, but let me just say that personally, I am not in
favor of including a definition of peoples organizations in the same
manner
that we did not even include even as we wanted to a definition of social
justice. I do not see why it is more important to define peoples
organizations rather than social justice.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair suspends the session for a few minutes.
It was 9:47 a.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 9:54 a.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
devices, and all other social services which are necessary to improve the
level of health of the people.
These main concepts would probably have to be explained because they
would serve as the bases for future legislation. This Member has been very
conscious
of the criticism leveled against non-lawyers that they are too verbose and
are working on legislation rather than on constitutional provisions, so I would
like just to use these terms. The integrated and comprehensive approach
here contains principles on the means to achieve peoples right to health
that
could be adopted by future legislation. Such an approach would require the
integration of many sectors to become involved in addressing the health
problems
of the people. It would mean improvements in food, housing, education, in
purchasing power and access to health services; higher allocation of
resources to
health; more active participation of the people in health efforts; a
reorientation of health development strategies and the political will to act on
policies and plans.
But more specifically on health, the concept of integration would imply the
following:
As I explained earlier when Commissioner Romulo introduced the concept of
integration and comprehensive health care, integration implies the need to
unify
the countrys health delivery system along the primary health care approach
which is a commitment of the Philippine government to the 134 nations that
signed the Alma Declaration in 1978, which sought to meet the goal of
health for all in the year 2000. The State has to work out a mechanism by
which the
different agencies or instrumentalities thereof would unify their efforts in
addressing or satisfying the health care needs of the country. These
instrumentalities would include the Ministry of Labor and Employment,
Ministry of Health, Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports, Ministry of
National
Defense, the private sector or non-governmental organizations.
Those who wanted to introduce some concepts such as appropriate
technology and peoples participation and self-reliance would actually be
unified in this
primary health care approach because this would now include the concepts
of peoples participation and multi-sectoral linkages. Health interlinks with
agricultural, social development and national economic programs.
Then the fifth, the phrase the underprivileged, the sick, women and
children, aged and disabled singles out these groups as disadvantaged in
terms of
access to adequate health services and resources. This being the Article on
Social Justice has to single them out because they are denied the right to
health and the right to life.
So, these are basically the concepts and the rest would be self-explanatory.
The second section, Section 14, states: The State shall maintain an effective
food and drug monitoring system and UNDERTAKE appropriate health
manpower
development and research RESPONSIVE TO THE COUNTRYS HEALTH NEEDS
AND PROBLEMS. This section has been modified in the light of the proposal
of
Commissioner Ople, who introduced the term UNDERTAKE and also the
phrase RESPONSIVE TO THE COUNTRYS HEALTH NEEDS AND PROBLEMS.
I think that the succeeding explanatory notes would already enlighten the
Commissioner on what would be covered by this provision, so I need not go
into
the other details. Section 13 is the one I wanted to highlight because this is
where most of the proposals will coming from.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Nolledo be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Nolledo is recognized.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you, Madam President.
Commissioner Quesada said that my proposed amendment is deemed
included in this provision. But I do not believe so because of the use of the
term
affordable cost, which does not exist in the vocabulary paupers. They
simply have no money to pay medicines or medical care.
I would like to insist on my amendment, with due respect to Commissioner
Quesada and with the kindest indulgence of the Members of this
Commission. I must
be very frank that I was hesitant in presenting this amendment. But my
conscience bothered me and dictated to me that I should pursue it before
this
Commission. Madam President, it is a truism that I slept with my conscience.
I would like to explain this before I propose the amendment. I would like to
submit it to the body for voting. This is a very emphatic provision that was
initially objected to by my friend, Sister Christine Tan, on the ground that it
will promote mendicancy but the question of whether it will promote
mendicancy is the matter of implementation. I think Congress can adopt
measures to see to it that this will not promote mendicancy.
I am insisting on this amendment, Madam President because just like Sister
Tan, my sister, Nelia (now Sis. Idmara, S.Sp.S.) is also a nun at the Holy
Spirit Convent, and with her, I really saw with my own eyes paupers dying
because they had no medicines.
Paupers go to government hospitals and are given prescriptions. However,
the doctor would tell them to buy the medicines they need. But they have no
money;
they just depend on the limited charity of other people while the government
has all the resources at its command.
The second objection to my proposal is based on the need for big funding. I
am a teacher of taxation in different schools, Madam President. Pardon me
for
saying that the procedure of tax collection in the Philippines is very
defective. An example is the residence tax. I know many people who are rich
and who
own landholdings yet they pay only P1. Likewise, when they file income tax
returns, they falsify the amounts paid as residence tax in said returns. I call
the attention of Commission Bienvenido Tan, who is the present
Commissioner of the BIR. The government can impose a one-peso additional
residence tax which
can be termed as Residence Tax E or D. The government can raise funds
through the sale of postage stamps as was done under the Anti-TB Stamp
Law. The
Anti-TB Stamp Law generates millions of pesos every year. Also, the
government can tap private resources and invite the help of socially
conscious
corporations, like the San Miguel Corporation, the Ayala Corporation and
others. It can also impose special levies. Likewise, the government has many
sources while we, private individuals who are willing to help the paupers,
have limited resources.
I remember Senator Diokno telling me: Pepe, please do something about
the poor. Your Constitution must not only be nationalistic and must not only
be
pro-people but must be pro-poor. While we talk, Madam President, of
fighting for the rights of people, we forget to talk of people fighting for their
lives because of poverty brought about by mal-administration, antipathy and
indifference on the part of the government. So I ask that the members of the
Committee and the Members of this Commission be magnanimous. In the
words of Jose Maria Escriva: Magnanimity connotes largeness of heart
wherein many can
find refuge. Let us not forget the anguish of the poor. For the information of
the body, Commissioner Tan has told me she will let her heart rule over her
head by voting for this amendment.
MS. QUESADA: Madam President, I really sympathize with Commissioner
Nolledo. As a matter of fact, it is a big struggle to actually put this in the
provision. That would have a lot of implications and we would like to prevent
the people being raised to a high level of aspiration only to be frustrated
because of the inability of the present health care system to provide free
medical care. That is why we settled for affordable or minimum cost. As a
matter
of fact, with the present administration, there are efforts to really address the
problem of the paupers. In the City of Manila, the Ministry of Health is
zeroing in on this particular problem.
So, we are preparing a Constitution that is not just going to be relevant for
this year or next but within this decade. We are preparing a Constitution
that will be for the next generations. We hope that people will already learn
how to be more conscious of health promotion and disease prevention. In
addition, we really do not want to promote mendicancy.
MR. NOLLEDO: I do not think so, Madam President.
MR. COLAYCO: Madam President.
MR. NOLLEDO: I think Commissioner Colayco has something to say.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, may the Committee be given a chance to
reply so that there will be order. After the Committee gives its reply, then
perhaps
the proponent and others who may support him can also give their
comments.
MR. COLAYCO: Madam President, what I have to say I think will help the
Committee respond. I would like to give actual cases why this proposal of
Commissioner Nolledo can be considered an imperative. We have had
occasions, particularly my wife to bring poor people to the Philippine General
Hospital
in Manila, and the case is always that when medicines are needed, they are
told to buy these at the drug stores outside the hospital. Now, these drug
stores right in front of the Philippine General Hospital sell medicines at
exorbitant prices.
The poor people who go to the Philippine General Hospital need every help
that our government can extend. We know that the government allots a big
sum of
money for the purchase of medicines and drugs which are necessary. I do not
see why this allotment cannot cover the medicines which are called for in
most
cases being attended to in government hospitals. To my surprise, it has
always been the case that whatever the medicine may be, whatever, the
sickness may
be sometimes even simple fever people are referred to commercial
drug stores to buy their medicines.
I, therefore, support 100 percent the proposal of Commissioner Nolledo.
MS. QUESADA: Will Commissioner Nolledo please state his amendment.
MR. NOLLEDO: Since the word paupers has attained an established legal
meaning, the amendment will read as follows: THE STATE SHALL EXTEND
FREE MEDICAL
CARE TO PAUPERS. Paupers are those who have no source of livelihood or
their sources of income are just enough to make their body and soul
together. They
really have no money. We cannot talk of affordable cost with respect to
paupers. The State must exercise its parens patriae role, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that an additional sentence?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, an additional sentence to Section 13.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: May I introduce an-amendment to the proposal of Commissioner
Nolledo. It will not be a new sentence but after the word cost, delete with
priority for the needs of the UNDERPRIVILEGED, the sick, women and
children, aged and disabled and in lieu thereof insert AND WHENEVER
NECESSARY, FOR FREE
ESPECIALLY TO THE UNDERPRIVILEGED AND THE DISADVANTAGED, so it will
read: affordable cost, AND WHENEVER NECESSARY, FOR FREE ESPECIALLY
TO THE
UNDERPRIVILEGED AND THE DISADVANTAGED.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, it seems to me that Commissioner Davides
amendment will also destroy the essence of the Committee amendments. It
will expand
details and the work, with all the order that he has, the way that
Commissioner Quesada has done her job. It is very clear in the explanatory
note on page
3, that there should be medical care to the paupers.
So, that is the sense and the objective of the Committee. However, we
cannot put it in black and white in the Constitution, otherwise it becomes an
absolute mandate. And if the State would be unable to give a medical care
for millions of reasons, for which it shall not be blamed, the people will be
disappointed frustrated, and this might complicate matters.
So, suppose the proposed amendment of Commissioner Bacani becomes
unattainable, what happen? After all, the term affordable cost does
necessarily have to
mean cash. It could mean that these people could pay with their services.
We have a lot self-help programs. So, if these paupers cannot afford pay
cash,
perhaps their relatives can render services to various health clinics.
These are details which could be left to the Ministry of Health or to the
government to implement. But us to specifically state in the Constitution that
everything is going to be free is very dangerous. Anyway, the intent of this
Commission and that of the Committee, as articulated in the explanatory
note,
is as much as possible to give free medical services, particularly to the
paupers.
MS. QUESADA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Quesada is recognized.
MS. QUESADA: Because of my sympathy to particular cause, would
Commissioner Nolledo be amenable to introducing the term PAUPERS after
the needs of the so
that it reads with priority for the needs of the PAUPERS, the
UNDERPRIVILEGED the sick, women and children, aged and disabled, with
the understanding
that the health care system shall provide free medical care services for these
paupers who cannot afford such services that will entitle them to right to
health and the right to life.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, I am deeply grateful to Commissioner
Quesada, but because of existence of the term affordable cost, I think
there will
really be complications.
MR. BENGZON: Before anything else, Madam President, I move that this
position paper prepared by Commissioner Quesada be integrated into the
record in toto.
*
MS. QUESADA: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion of Commissioner Bengzon is approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, Commissioner Rosario Braid seeks recognition.
I ask that she be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rosario Braid is recognized.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Madam President, I find Commissioner Quesadas paper
enlightening and comprehensive but I would like to put also on record that an
earlier conversation between Minister Pardo Tavera and Minister Bengzon,
both have indicated one problem that, although implied here, has not been
stressed; that is, the services are available but the people are indifferent and
passive in the acceptance of these services. As noted, in the immunization
program although immunization is available, one out of two acceptors does
not continue the immunization program. Both Ministers have indicated that a
refocusing of the program would put emphasis on education and attitudinal
transformation. That is why they have expressed concern with the mass
media and
all types information that would effect the transformation attitudes and
passivity. This is one.
The other concern is that in this decade where voluntarism is the model and
where there is an attempt to really move towards the self-reliant use of
backyard farming, backyard gardening, indigenous health and indigenous
medicines, I would like to highlight the need for indigenous health resources
and
self-reliance. While we accept that for many years there will be focus on
delivery of services, we would also like to highlight the equal importance of
developing self-reliance because the indigenous and local resources are
there.
The third point has to do with Section 14 which is the need for an even
distribution or regional distribution of health personnel. As statistics would
show
and I am sure that Commissioner Quesada would bear me out, there are
adequate rural health workers totaling more than 92,000 and there is a total
national
And so, I would appeal to the Commissioner to include the concept of selfreliance because as we know, we are very rich in resources such as herbal
medicines. I think there is a comprehensive documentation of herbal
medicines and local indigenous foods and I would like to emphasize their
utilization.
So, if the Committee would not accept, I would like to throw this to the body.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair suspends the session for two minutes to afford
Commissioner Rosario Braid time to confer with the members of the
Committee on the
word SELF-RELIANCE.
It was 10:32 a.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 10:36 a.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session was resumed.
The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Rosario Braid be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rosario Braid is recognized to restate her
proposed amendment. Is it an entire substitution or just an insertion of
certain
words?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: It will just be insertion, Madam President. I think I will
go along and use all the phrases of Commissioner Quesada but eliminate
the
sick, women and children, aged and disabled as this would belong to the
underprivileged, and then add the phrase AND ENCOURAGE SELF-RELIANCE
THROUGH USE
OF INDIGENOUS HEALTH RESOURCES.
THE PRESIDENT: Where shall this be inserted, after the word disabled?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: After the word UNDERPRIVILEGED, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner proposes eliminate the rest?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Yes, Madam Presidents but to insert instead the phrase
AND ENCOURAGE SELF-RELIANCE THROUGH USE OF INDIGENOUS HEALTH
RESOURCES.
THE PRESIDENT: Is this accepted by the Committee.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: May I ask that if we should vote on this, we should vote first
on the deletion of the words that the Commissioner proposes to delete.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that acceptable to the Committee that we vote first on
the proposed deletion of the words the sick, women and children and
disabled on
Section 13?
MR. BENGZON: Yes, we will vote first on that motion to delete before we can
insert the proposed amendment.
MS. QUESADA: Madam President, I just like to clarify the enumeration.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, please proceed.
MS. QUESADA: I would like to clarify why I enumerated the underprivileged
the sick, women and children, aged and disabled. These are the groups we
consider as the special groups with special health problems that have to be
addressed to by the health care system the sick, particularly because if
they
are not addressed to, then they die; the women and children because of the
nature of women, especially their maternal functions, their needs; and the
children will have to be addressed too. The aged and the disabled are just as
much disadvantaged because we do not have the special services and
attention
given to these special groups. In the health system, we already recognized
these groups as those that would have special needs and singled them out to
provide the basis for future legislations.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rosario Braid is recognized.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: I have no objection about mentioning all these
beneficiaries, but in the spirit of brevity and in order that it could
accommodate the
Those who are in favor of deleting the phrase the sick, women and children,
aged and disabled from Section 13, please raise their hand. (Few Members
raised their hand.)
Those who are against, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised
their hand.)
The results show 3 votes in favor and 16 against; the amendment is lost.
The next amendment of Commissioner Rosario Braid is to add after the word
UNDERPRIVILEGED the phrase AND ENCOURAGE SELF-RELIANCE
THROUGH THE USE OF
INDIGENOUS HEALTH RESOURCES. This has not been accepted by the
Committee as explained by Commissioner Quesada.
Those in favor of the second amendment of Commissioner Rosario Braid,
please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
Those who are against, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised
their hand.)
The results show 14 votes in favor and 15 against; the amendment is lost.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Davide be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide, is this still on the same Section 13?
MR. DAVIDE: The same section, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Please proceed.
MR DAVIDE: On the first line, insert after HEALTH the words OF ALL THE
PEOPLE, and then delete the words right to, so that the first line will read:
The State shall protect and promote the health OF ALL THE PEOPLE.
MS. QUESADA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Quesada is recognized.
MS. QUESADA: We find that the word right should be expressly stated in
this particular provision.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, I have read the report of the Committee on
Preamble, National Territory and Declaration of Principles. The same
sentence
relating to health is found in the Declaration of Principles. So, to be
consistent with the Declaration of Principles, I think the matter of the right to
health is already included when we say that the State shall protect and
promote the health of all the people. It is conceded that that is a right, but it
will emphasize the fact that this obligation is to all the people.
MS. QUESADA: Yes. But still we would like to retain the word right because
this has a special meaning now to the direction of the provision of health
care. We would like this expressed because there are many violations of this
human right. One might be a patient one day and discover that providers of
services do not recognize his right to health care and may not provide him
the tender loving care that he deserves because they do not understand fully
and
appreciate that this is already a right that has been enshrined in the
Constitution.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, I will agree to the non-deletion of right to
but I reserve my right to amend the corresponding provision in the Article on
Declaration of Principles and State Policies.
MS. QUESADA: Yes, we would welcome that.
MR. DAVIDE: But I insist on the inclusion after the word HEALTH of the
phrase OF ALL THE PEOPLE.
MS. QUESADA: We accept.
THE PRESIDENT: So, what is the decision of Commissioner Davide?
MR. DAVIDE: The amendment is only to add after HEALTH the words OF ALL
THE PEOPLE.
MS. QUESADA: On second thought, Madam President, would that not
contribute to more verbiage because there is already a mention here of
making all the
services available to all citizens?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, I will have a subsequent proposal to that
later. The idea here is, if we only say right to health, whose right is it?
MS. QUESADA: Is it not understood that when we talk about the right to
health, we refer to the right of all citizens?
MR. DAVIDE: I suggested OF ALL THE PEOPLE because in the succeeding
sentence, only to all citizens is mentioned.
MR. BENGZON: Primarily, to every citizen here in this country, to the Filipinos
and, of course, to everybody, regardless of race, creed or whatever. That
is already understood.
MR. DAVIDE: The point is, in the first sentence, it is silent; but in the second
sentence it is to all citizens. So, this would classify certain persons
in the country. The second sentence relates only to all citizens.
MS. QUESADA: Would the Commissioner want to amend the second sentence
where the use of all citizens could be changed to ALL THE PEOPLE?
MR. DAVIDE: Gladly.
MS. QUESADA: We accept.
MR. DAVIDE: So, I will not insist on the amendment on the first line but
instead on placing the words PEOPLE in lieu of citizens on the third from
the
last line.
MS. QUESADA: We accept, Madam President
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this proposed amendment of
Commissioner Davide which has been accepted by the Committee? (Silence)
The Chair hears
none; the amendment is approved.
MR. DAVIDE: On the same line where the substitution is made, I seek for the
deletion of the words with priority for the needs of, and in lieu thereof, we
say ESPECIALLY TO.
THE PRESIDENT: Is this acceptable?
MS. QUESADA: Yes, Madam President, we accept.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this proposed amendment which
has been accepted by the Committee? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
amendment is
approved.
MR. DAVIDE: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Rodrigo be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MS. QUESADA: The understanding is that health is part of the social services.
There will be the social service of education, housing, employment, security.
So, we just singled out HEALTH because we cannot have the state of health
unless we provide health services, but which is not alone responsible for man
or
people attaining a state of health.
BISHOP BACANI: Yes, but what I mean is, the interest of clarity might make it
necessary that we say instead HEALTH SERVICES and OTHER social vices
available. I have read this part twice, three times, and it was only later on
that I realized the need to make this clear. So, may I suggest that we add
the word SERVICES after HEALTH.
MS. QUESADA: I accept the amendment, Madam President.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President, I submit amendment which the
Committee has accepted.
MR. SUAREZ: Where are we going to insert the amendment?
BISHOP BACANI: Insert the word SERVICE between the words HEALTH and
and OTHER which appear on the fourth line.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: In other words, the phrase will now read health SERVICES
and OTHER social services available.
BISHOP BACANI: Yes, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: The Committee accepts, Madam President.
BISHOP BACANI: So, the Committee has accepted, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this proposed amendment of
Commissioner Bacani which been accepted by the Committee? (Silence) The
Chair hears
none; the amendment is approved.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Padilla is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: On that same line 4, I was thinking to change the words
goods, health services and other social services to ESSENTIAL MEDICINES,
HEALTH
I suppose that with this understanding of the holism, the broadness of this
concept of health, we realize that it is not just being sick or utilizing goods
offered in a hospital, but also the goods which are offered in the communities
that are considered.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President, if Commissioner Padilla is no longer
insisting, may I pursue a second amendment?
THE PRESIDENT: Please proceed.
BISHOP BACANI. I do not know whether this is a matter of style, but there is
some reason for the change I wish to propose. After saying There shall be
priority for the needs of the underprivileged, the sick, women and children,
the aged and the disabled, may I suggest that the order should be There
shall be priority for the needs of the underprivileged, the sick, THE AGED
AND THE DISABLED, WOMEN AND CHILDREN. May I explain the reason. All
of the
previous ones, except the last two, necessarily suffer from some
disadvantage or infirmity; while the women and children, though they may
have special
needs, do not necessarily suffer from any infirmity or disadvantage.
MS. QUESADA: Yes, Madam President, we accept.
BISHOP BACANI: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: May we ask Commissioner Bacani to read his amendment
again.
BISHOP BACANI: There shall be priority for the needs of the underprivileged,
the sick, THE AGED AND THE DISABLED, WOMEN AND CHILDREN.
THE PRESIDENT: Do we eliminate women and children?
BISHOP BACANI: We put them at the last, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection?
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Please proceed, Commissioner Rodrigo.
MR. RODRIGO: I have a special predilection for women but it is precisely
because of this that I find a jarring note in this enumeration. Why should we
place women, in general, in the same class with the sick, the aged, the
disabled, the underprivileged? Do women, in general, include the women
who are
healthy, wealthy and wise?
I thought I could remedy this in the Committee on Style but I do not think I
can because it is not just a matter of form. In the case of men, only the men
who are sick come under this only those who are disabled and
underprivileged. But then we have placed women, in general, in the same
class with the sick,
the aged and the disabled.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, it may sound jarring and a bit inelegant but
apparently women have the exclusive monopoly of maternal functions and
for that
reason, they need special health care services and attention.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: If the women do not see anything jarring in it, I do not mean
to be more popish than the Pope.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: I was just wondering if we can read this in connection with the
Section on Women because I guess we are applying ourselves to working
conditions and to working women. Is it possible to integrate this?
THE PRESIDENT: What does Commissioner Quesada say?
MS. QUESADA: The Section on Women refers to working women, but we are
referring to women all over including those who may not be working in
industries but
whose health care needs have to be addressed to because of their biological
reproductive maternal functions.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: This is just a clarification addressed to Commissioner
Quesada.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it also about women?
MR. SARMIENTO: Yes, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Please proceed.
MR. SARMIENTO: The use of the word women is very broad. It would cover
working women, women who are rich, who are wealthy, who are poor. Since
we have
the suggestion from Commissioner Monsod to link this with the provision on
working women, can we say WORKING women and children?
MS. QUESADA: No. We are also referring to women who stay at home, those
who are the child bearers, or the women who are not found in industry.
MR. SARMIENTO: So the intent in using the word women is to cover all
women?
MS. QUESADA: Yes.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, there are no more proponents of amendments
to Section 13.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, may we have just one minute to try to
reconcile the different ideas that have been propounded?
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.
It was 11:15 a.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 11:26 a.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
Before we suspended the session, we were discussing the proposed
amendment of Commissioner Bacani to transpose women and children. Am
I correct? Was the
amendment to place women and children at the end of the sentence after
disabled accepted by the Committee?
MR. RAMA: Yes, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this proposed amendment?
(Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is approved.
Is there any other pending amendment?
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
MR. OPLE: May I propose an amendment at the very end of the consolidated
section.
THE PRESIDENT: It is not being consolidated anymore.
MS. QUESADA: No, it has been separated.
MR. OPLE: It has been separated again. Anyway, on Section 14, after the
very end of the present sentence and research on health care problems,
please add
the following: AND CORRECT THE HISTORIC IMBALANCES IN THE DELIVERY
OF HEALTH CARE TO THE RURAL AREAS.
May I explain briefly, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Gentleman may proceed.
MR. OPLE: Thank you.
During the period of interpellations on this subject, this Commissions
records would reflect the admission of the Committee through Commissioner
Quesada
that there is, in fact, a very gross disparity now existing in the health care
services available to the urban areas and the services available to the
rural areas. She admitted that although we have a glut of nursing graduates
sent abroad, there are no takers among nurses and doctors for vacancies
existing in the rural health units of the country. The reason is that the
countryside is too unattractive for doctors and nurses. That is why we hear
from
representatives of Mindanao that there are millions in Mindanao, in the
countryside, who live and die without ever seeing a single doctor or a nurse.
Although this is probably an extreme example in the case of Mindanao, the
fact that many Filipinos live and die without seeing a doctor reflects a
nationwide reality outside the cities.
Therefore, I strongly urge the Committee, in interest of social justice, for
those deprived of medical care in the rural areas, to give a countervailing
bias now in this section so that the redressing of this imbalance in health
care for the rural areas, for the rural poor in particular, will be part of the
mandate of the health section of the Article on Social Justice.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Madam President.
MS. QUESADA: Madam President.
MR. BENGZON: May the Committee react first to that amendment before any
proposals are presented, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Quesada is recognized.
MS. QUESADA: Madam President, we have taken into consideration the
rationale behind the proposed amendment of Commissioner Ople. We have
act taken his
proposed term TO UNDERTAKE APPROPRIATE HEALTH MANPOWER
DEVELOPMENT which would now encompass the need of redirecting the
health manpower development
so that we can address these resources to the needs of the country
particularly the rural poor. But we do not want to specify manpower
development as it
would be only one development.
MR. OPLE: It is not only manpower development but the whole range of
services under the integrated and comprehensive health care and
development program.
MS. QUESADA: Yes, the concept of manpower development being from
production to utilization management, which includes the deployment
distribution of the
health manpower resource.
So, we are really addressing this redirection in the manpower training and
education to meet the needs of our people, particularly the rural poor.
MR. BENGZON: We cannot accept the amendment.
MR. OPLE: The Committee does admit that this a very grave problem not
only of health but also of social justice. If this is correct and it rises to that
gravity, should it not deserve some explicit mention in this section?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Madam President, may recognized?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rosario Braid recognized.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Yes, I concur with Commissioner Ople. This is why I
have an amendment to his amendment and perhaps we could put it
together. After
research, add the phrase AND ENSURE THE EVEN REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION
OF HEALTH PERSONNEL. I concur with Commissioner Ople because statistics
would show
that only 30 percent of the entire force of physicians are in the rural areas
serving 70 percent of the population. I mentioned earlier that although there
Throughout the world, governments are now moved by the advancing social
morality
of the age. They are taking vigorous steps to redress the disadvantages for
the elderly, those who will retire from the work force.
MR. BENNAGEN: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me. May the Chair propound one question, if I can
be allowed to propound one question?
MR. OPLE: Yes, Madam President. It is a great honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the veterans be included because we have been
receiving so many communications, hundreds of them, asking for the
protection also of the
rights of veterans?
MR. OPLE: The veterans are included to the extent that they are retirees of
the government or of the private sector and, therefore, are enrolled in the
SSS
or in the GSIS.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President.
MR. BENNAGEN: Madam President.
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tingson is recognized.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, may I add a little word in support of this
amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: The Gentleman may proceed.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, those of us who are over 60 years old in this
Constitutional Commission would like to say that we cannot avoid growing
old,
but we can avoid growing cold. We read in a very well-known publication all
over the world, entitled Daily Bread, that growing old has some definite
advantages. If God gave us full use of our mental faculties, the sunset years
provide a wonderful opportunity of coming to terms with our past. So, the
elderly should be protected in the sense that they should be supported. The
care and welfare of the elderly shall enjoy the support and protection of the
State because the elderly are not afraid of tomorrow. They have seen
yesterday and they are in love with today. A famous poet aptly said:
The vain regrets of yesterday had vanished through Gods pardoning grace.
The guilty fear has passed away and joy has come to take its place.
Madam President, I strongly support this amendment because those of us
who are getting old would like to say: Come, grow old with me; the best is
yet to
be.
MR. BENNAGEN: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bennagen is recognized.
MR. BENNAGEN: Thank you, Madam President.
We have in the section on family rights a provision which says that the State
shall encourage the Filipino tradition of the family taking care of the
elderly. We recognize that the practice of the State taking care of the elderly
is a western tradition. But while the State and government agencies may be
able to take care of the elderly, the elderly will die not from lack of care but
from a broken heart. I do not know that this provision shall relate to
that provision in the Article on Family Rights.
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President.
MR. OPLE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de Castro is recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you, Madam President
Mention has been made by the President on voluminous letters we receive
from war veterans and government retirees. Commissioner Nolledo and I
filed
Resolution No. 497 for these war veterans and government retirees, and this
had been referred to the Committee on Declaration of Principles. So, I would
not present it at this time in the Article on Social Justice because it is
appropriately referred to the Committee on Declaration of Principles.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the Committees reaction to this Ople amendment?
MS. QUESADA: Madam President, we do sympathize with the concern of the
Commissioners but we would like to state that Section 13, indeed, takes into
consideration such concern for the elderly when this special group has been
singled out as one of the underprivileged to which the State should afford
protection because it includes not only the right to health but also the other
essential social services which this particular disadvantaged or
underprivileged group would be able to obtain. So, we feel that providing
another special section would open the floodgates to other sections that
would
include special care for the aged, the sick and women.
MR. OPLE: May I call for a vote, Madam President. And in this respect, may I
amend our own amendment so that it will include the veterans.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: Before the amendment is put vote, I seek to introduce some
amendments.
Both proponents took into account only the elderly; we have forgotten the
orphans and the abandoned children. So, I seek to amend the second line by
inserting before ELDERLY the following: ORPHANS, ABANDONED
CHILDREN, WAR VETERANS AND THE ELDERLY.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: Yesterday, Madam President, there was a discussion here on
the section for minors, in which the phrase ORPHANS AND ABANDONED
CHILDREN was to
be included. We believe that both the suggestions of Commissioner Ople and
Commissioner Davide are amply covered in Section 13 because that section
talks
about the underprivileged, the elderly, women and children, and it is in the
context of a total approach to health care.
Secondly, the other aspect of taking care of the elderly will be provided for in
the section on family rights as mentioned by Commissioner Bennagen.
So, we believe that this is amply covered in this section on social justice and
health services.
The veterans would be included in the elderly as well because veterans are
approaching old age.
If the proponents insist on their amendments, then we are willing to call for a
vote and ask for the judgment of the body on whether their inclusion would
not be redundant.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, may I reply briefly to the Committee before the
amendment is voted upon?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: I appreciate the intervention of other colleagues Commissioners
de Castro, Davide, Sarmiento, and above all, Monsod, on behalf of the
Committee
concerning this subject. However, I think they missed the jugular issue
behind this proposed amendment.
As I said in my remarks, we are not talking of family obligations to the
elderly. They have earned their right in the Social Security System and in the
Government Service Insurance System by paying to these funds all their
working lives, only to be rewarded later with pittances, strictly
disproportionate
to the money they have paid out of their very low wages throughout their
working lives. The veterans, of course, already have earned a niche for
themselves
in the Declaration of Principles.
The de Castro amendment is actually taken from a provision already existing,
I understand, in the Declaration of Principles.
So, when we speak of State protection for the elderly, we are giving a
mandate especially to the SSS, the GSIS and the Pension Funds of the Armed
Forces of
the Philippines, that they should not cheat their own members by denying
them living retirement pay that they have already earned in this system by
faithfully remitting their premium contributions all of their working lives.
That is one very important significance of this proposed amendment, Madam
President.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: May we just say that Section 13 precisely begins with the
phrase The State shall protect and promote and talks of a comprehensive
integrated
health care to all the people, with priority to the elderly and the aged, et
cetera. So, we believe that this amply covers the elderly. However, we leave
it to the vote of the body, Madam President.
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de Castro is recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: We have been talking about the elderly, war veterans and
government retirees. I believe, and I made mention of my Resolution No. 497
co-authored with Commissioner Nolledo, it is timely that we read a provision
of Resolution No. 497. It says:
It shall be the responsibility of the State to provide adequate care and
benefits for war veterans and government retirees as well as their
dependents
commensurate with their present conditions in life. Preference shall be given
these war veterans and government retirees in the acquisition of public lands
and the development of natural resources.
May I be allowed to explain this.
THE PRESIDENT: But the point is that this particular idea of the Gentleman is
already in the Article on Declaration of Principles. That is what I
understand; that is what was stated. What we have here now is just
Commissioner Oples amendment on the welfare of the elderly.
MR. DE CASTRO: I was thinking if the elderly can also be included in this
resolution because they are also war veterans and government retirees.
While this
was referred by the Committee on the Accountability of Public Officers to the
Committee on Declaration of Principles, it is not yet in the report of the
Committee on Declaration of Principles because the reference was late.
THE PRESIDENT: Is Commissioner Ople agreeable to the suggestion of
Commissioner de Castro? Actually, the proposal of Commissioner de Castro is
an amendment
to the amendment.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, I am a veteran of World War II but I am not
retired. There are 600,000 veterans in the country. Approximately half of
these are
retired and the others are not retired. However, there is no bar to providing
for the veterans in our proposed amendment although the right place for
veterans . . . I would like to be associated with Commissioner de Castro in
that proposal provided it is appropriately located in the Article on
Declaration of Principles or in the General Provisions, perhaps immediately
following the statement concerning the Armed Forces and the defense of the
State.
THE PRESIDENT: So, just to clarify from the Committee. The Committee does
not accept the proposed Ople amendment. It does not also accept the
inclusion of
the issue on veterans in this particular section of the Article on Social Justice.
Is that correct?
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
MR. SUAREZ: May we ask for a suspension of the session.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.
It was 12:18 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 12:23 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de Castro is recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: May I withdraw my amendment to the Ople proposal
because I sincerely believe that provisions on war veterans and government
retirees
properly belong to the Article on Declaration of Principles.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
We will now proceed to vote on the amendment.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: Considering that there are several issues related to this,
whether this particular amendment would be proper in the Article on
Declaration of
Principles, I would raise a privilege motion. The privilege motion is to
consider the Ople proposal in the Article on Declaration of Principles.
MR OPLE: I oppose this motion, Madam President and I would like a vote on
it.
THE PRESIDENT: We will put it to a vote then Actually in the vote, we may
already consider the proposed amendment of Commissioner Ople, whether
this
proposed section should be adopted in the section of the Article on Social
Justice or not. Is that correct?
MR. DAVIDE: So, the privilege motion is to take this up when we consider the
Article on Declaration of Principles.
THE PRESIDENT: That would be the effect of whatever action is taken by the
body.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Those in favor of including this Ople amendment on the
elderly in the Article on Social Justice, please raise their hand.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, may we restate the motion submitted by
Honorable Davide? I think it is the other way around.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes.
MR. ROMULO: Yes, the motion is not clear, Madam President.
MR. DAVIDE: The motion is to consider this Ople proposal in the Article on
Declaration of Principles.
MR. OPLE: I support the decision of the Chair, which was very deliberately
arrived at, that the voting be on the amendment itself.
RULING OF THE CHAIR
THE PRESIDENT: While Commissioner Davide said that this motion is a
privilege motion, I believe we should take this up directly to the point
whether this
proposed section properly belongs to the Article on Social Justice. If it is so
decided by the body, then we will vote on whether it should be included. In
other words, are we in favor of this particular section? It does not necessarily
mean that if it is adopted, that if we agree that it be included here, the
empowering the people to pursue and protect through peaceful means their
legitimate and collective interests and aspirations.
Peoples organizations are bona-fide associations of citizens with identifiable
leadership, membership and structure and demonstrated capacity to
promote
the public interest.
SEC. 20. The State shall respect the right of the people and their
organizations to effective and reasonable participation at all levels of social,
political and economic decision-making, and shall MAKE POSSIBLE adequate
consultation mechanisms.
I will present a very brief explanation for Sections 19 and 20 and why we feel
these are very important and integral parts of the entire Article on Social
Justice.
Empowering the people is a key to the attainment of the ends of social
justice. So, in this new constitution, we feel we must recognize that peoples
organizations can be one significant vehicle in this progressive and
democratic tradition. The majority of no wealth nor political influence can
empower
themselves through peoples organizations that are popular and authentic
expressions of their will. Indeed, it is argued here that peoples power can
find
most permanent, organized and articulate expression through such
organizations within the democratic framework. The new constitution must,
therefore,
recognize the role of peoples organizations as a principal means of
empowering the people to pursue and protect, in a peaceful manner, popular
and social
reforms and mandate the State to respect their independence as
autonomous checks to State power. Finally, the new constitution must also
institutionalize
peoples participation and ensure consultation among the basic sectors at all
levels of social, political and economic decision-making, guaranteeing that
the people have access to information necessary to make informed and
responsible decisions. Concretely, the State must be mandated to make
possible proper
and adequate consultation mechanisms with the people, and the formulation
and implementation of local, regional and national priorities, plans, programs
and projects that affect the peoples lives. Thus, in sum, empowerment of
the people is the enabling mechanism in the cause of social justice and
peoples
power can find more permanent expression in peoples organizations and
through the institutionalization of consultation mechanisms that insure
peoples
participation in decision-making.
We would like now to ask if there are others who may wish to add or amend.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Romulo be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Romulo is recognized.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, this is a brief amendment. I would like the
Committee to consider the deletion of the opening clause In the pursuit of
Social
Justice because it is really unnecessary. This whole Article is devoted to
social justice and Sections 1 and 2 lay down the basic premise and spell out
the means of carrying it out. So, I really do not think the opening clause is
necessary.
MR. GARCIA: We thought it is important to place it because peoples
organizations are precise vehicles and enabling mechanisms to achieve
social justice.
Of course, it is within the context of the whole Article.
MR. ROMULO: So are the other provisions but we do not begin the other
provisions with In the pursuit of social justice, agrarian reform, urban
reform, et
cetera.
MR. GARCIA: That is true but in a sense, this is a summary of the different
sections. We realize that we are going to draft an imperfect constitution and,
therefore, it will be up to many of the peoples movements and organizations
advocating the protection and the interest of their specific sectors like the
farmers in land reform and the urban poor to pursue and pressure Congress
so that it can be responsive to enact the laws that will definitely meet their
basic needs. So, it is a summary that for social justice to be pursued and
perfected, these peoples organizations will finish whatever we have
accomplished.
MR. ROMULO: Although it can have the meaning that the other sections are
not in the pursuit of social justice.
MR. GARCIA: It does not have that meaning, of course.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. ROMULO: I have another amendment on the first line. It will be on the
words the independence and. I believe that this may be misinterpreted to
mean
that other forms of organizations and associations which are guaranteed
under the Bill of Rights are not entitled to independence because we are
singling
out for respect only the so-called peoples organizations. What about the
other associations like civic, religious unions, etc. which are guaranteed
under
the Bill of Rights?
MR. GARCIA: In our understanding, many of these associations and
organizations can be classified as peoples organizations. But the term
independence is
important because we want to ensure that these organizations are not
simply or merely a creation of the State, that they are not manipulated in
any way
like what we had in the past. And so, it is important to maintain that
independence so that they can be a check on the power of the State, that
they are
never instruments only of whatever group.
MR. ROMULO: So, the Gentleman does not mean to imply that the other
types of organizations and associations which are guaranteed under the Bill
of Rights
do not deserve a respect of their independence?
MR. GARCIA: Of course, they have a right to that independence too. But what
is important is that very often we have organizations that are created, like
our experience with the Samahang Nayon, which are simply manipulations or
instruments of the State. And we want to ensure that there are no labor
unions,
trade unions, or any other organizations that are used for that purpose.
MR. ROMULO: The other implication is that since the Gentleman wants the
State to respect their independence, the State may pass laws or regulations
ostensibly for the purpose of protecting their independence. Has the
Committee considered that? This may have a reverse effect.
MR. GARCIA: We do not believe so, Madam President.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, would it solve the Gentlemans anxiety over
the interpretation if we transpose the word independent and say: The
State
shall respect the role of INDEPENDENT peoples organizations?
Chair hears
none; the amendment is approved.
Commissioner Colayco is recognized.
MR. COLAYCO: Thank you, Madam President. If we put the adjective
INDEPENDENT before PEOPLES ORGANIZATIONS which will be like this:
The State shall
respect the role of INDEPENDENT PEOPLES ORGANIZATIONS, it would seem
that there are peoples organizations which are not independent. I would just
omit
the adjective INDEPENDENT, and it will read: The State shall respect the
role of PEOPLES ORGANIZATIONS.
THE PRESIDENT: What does Commissioner Romulo say?
MR. ROMULO: No, the implication is wrong. Precisely, we want the State to
respect only a bona-fide independent peoples organization, not a company
union.
MR. BENGZON: Yes, that is the idea.
MR. GARCIA: Not just any group of individuals.
MR. BENNAGEN: Madam President.
MR. COLAYCO: I fail to see the difference there. I think that the word
INDEPENDENT is a surplusage.
MR. BENNAGEN: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bennagen is recognized.
MR. COLAYCO: I do not mind if we do not have this.
MR. BENNAGEN: On behalf of the Committee, I think the same issue was
raised with respect to the right of independent peasant organizations. We are
saying
here that there are all sorts of peoples organizations and some of these are
really company unions and that they carry the government line. But we
would
like to encourage as a source of complementary structures the existence of
independent organizations that can develop their development programs
apart from
those that are pursued by governmental structures.
For instance, we can mention peasant organizations that are really only
supportive of existing government programs, which need not really redound
to the
benefit of the peasant themselves.
MR. COLAYCO: Company unions are not necessarily openly dependent. They
become dependent when it is proven that they are company unions. I mean,
prima
facie, all organizations are independent. Even if we put INDEPENDENT
PEOPLES ORGANIZATIONS, company unions can always claim that.
MR. BENNAGEN: That is a manner of speaking. We can cite maybe a more
specific example, the Kabataang Barangay, which in itself is a kind of youth
organization which is also under the ambit of peoples organization. But they
can be manipulated to carry on the party line as it were. That is what we
want to avoid.
MR. COLAYCO: Yes, but I mean, by simply putting INDEPENDENT PEOPLES
ORGANIZATIONS does not stamp any organization for that matter as
independent. As I
said, a company union can always claim to be an independent organization,
which they always do anyway.
MR. BENNAGEN: I cannot follow because by definition, when we speak of
company union, it carries the thrust of the company which may become
productive to
the interest of authentic labor unions.
MR. COLAYCO: But they are not officially called company unions. I will not
press my point on this. I think that saving the time of the Commission is
more
important than this.
MR. BENNAGEN: Even ILO Convention 141, to which the Philippines is a
signatory, assigns this role to independent organizations.
MR. RAMA: The Commission is ready to vote, Madam President.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: Is this clear: The State shall respect the role of
INDEPENDENT PEOPLES ORGANIZATIONS? That is what is to be voted upon.
As many as are in favor of this particular amendment, please raise their
hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Nobody raised his hand.)
MR. RODRIGO: I register my abstention, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a minute, we will just announce the results.
The results show 28 votes in favor, no vote against and one abstention; the
amendment is approved.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, may I ask that I be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: Just a basic question. I have before me the text of the Bill of
Rights which we have approved already. Section 7 provides:
The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private
sectors, to form associations, unions or societies for purposes not contrary to
law shall not be abridged.
Section 9 reads:
No law shall be passed abridging the right of the people peaceably to
assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.
I would like to ask: Do these provisions not cover the peoples
organizations which are sought to be protected again by the government
under Sections 19
and 20?
MR. GARCIA: Sections 19 and 20 have a very particular thrust: as an enabling
mechanism precisely to make social justice real. The encouragement is given
to
the people that they organize themselves, that they protect their legitimate
interests peacefully through their collective efforts. That is the whole
thrust.
MR. RODRIGO: Yes, I understand.
MR. GARCIA: Therefore, what does it do? It refines and it amplifies what we
already have in the Bill of Rights, specifically, because of the whole vision
that we have of social justice. If the Gentleman will remember, when we
began the definition, we said to redistribute wealth and power. In other
words,
it is not simply the State later on which will ensure that all of these
protections and recognition of rights are given but the people also must have
a
legitimate share of political power for them to participate. And so, this is the
vehicle for them.
MR. RODRIGO: I just want to be very brief. So is it my understanding now that
even without these provisions, the general provisions of Sections 7 and 9 of
our Bill of Rights would cover this, but for emphasis the Committee wants to
particularize?
MR. GARCIA: Yes, that is the intent, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: But this is already covered in general.
MR. GARCIA: The general rights are found in the Bill of Rights.
MR. RODRIGO: So, this is only to particularize and for emphasis.
MR. GARCIA: Yes.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, there are three more speakers on the two
sections. May I ask that Commissioner Davide be recognized?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: Thank you, Madam President.
I have very few simple amendments. On line 4, Section 19, delete the words
the people and substitute the word THEM.
MR. GARCIA: We accept, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other amendment?
MR. GARCIA: Excuse me. I am sorry. This is not simply to empower the
organization but the people. It is a vehicle to empower the people.
MR. DAVIDE: The proper reference to that would really be the peoples
organization. So, it is to these organizations that the respect must be
accorded to.
MR. GARCIA: No, I am sorry. It is basic to the people.
MR. DAVIDE: In effect, we will broaden the provision, and it might become
rather deceptive.
MR. BENNAGEN: Madam President.
MR. DAVIDE: The State shall respect the role of INDEPENDENT PEOPLES
ORGANIZATIONS as a means of empowering them to pursue and protect
through peaceful
means their legitimate. . ., meaning again, the organization.
MR. GARCIA: No. Madam President; in fact, many people are unorganized
while others are organizing, but some are already organized. In a sense, we
are
trying to say that only a citizenry that is organized and mobilized can really
pursue this very difficult endeavor of the State. In fact, if the Gentleman
will remember, in many of the previous interventions, when we spoke of the
unfinished popular revolution of February, we said it was a political act and
that the social changes which are unfinished still have to be pursued. It is not
only the task of the State but also the people. We will still have to
pursue this through their organizations.
MR. DAVIDE: In other words, these organizations would be the vehicle of the
people?
MR. GARCIA: Exactly.
MR. DAVIDE: Then I will not insist. But after the word protect, I would seek
certain transpositions. Delete through peaceful means and in lieu thereof
insert the following: WITHIN THE DEMOCRATIC FRAMEWORK. And then, after
aspirations, insert THROUGH PEACEFUL AND LAWFUL MEANS. So, it will
read: the
people to pursue and protect, WITHIN THE DEMOCRATIC FRAMEWORK, their
legitimate and collective interests and aspirations THROUGH PEACEFUL AND
LAWFUL
MEANS.
MR. GARCIA: We accept, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this proposed amendment of
Commissioner Davide which has been accepted by the Committee? (Silence)
The Chair hears
none; the amendment is approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Aquino be
recognized?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, I move to delete the phrase as a means of
empowering the people on lines 2 and 3 of Section 19.
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their
hand.)
The results show 30 votes in favor and 8 votes against; the amendment is
approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, there are no amendments to Section 20, which
is the last section; so I ask that a vote be taken on Section 20.
THE PRESIDENT: We have not yet voted on Section 19 as a whole. Will
Commissioner Garcia please read Section 19, as amended?
MR. GARCIA: Section 19, as amended, will read: The State shall respect the
role of independent peoples organizations to enable the people to pursue
and
protect within the democratic framework, their legitimate and collective
interests and aspirations through peaceful and lawful means.
THE PRESIDENT: There is a second paragraph.
MR. GARCIA: There are no amendments on the second paragraph.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, may I suggest that we limit the vote to the first
sentence, because I would like to engage in a brief discussion later on
concerning the second sentence.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection?
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, just a very minor point which will be
affected by the second paragraph.
I notice that we are about to vote on the paragraph.
THE PRESIDENT: That is the first paragraph.
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes, Madam President. When we talk of independent
peoples organizations, the apostrophe is after the letter e while in the
Committee
definition, the apostrophe is after the letter s. Which is which, because the
meaning will vary?
MR. GARCIA: Peoples is with an apostrophe after the letter e; it is just a
typographical error.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of the first paragraph of Section 19
which has been read by Commissioner Garcia, please raise their hand.
(Several
Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (No Member raised his
hand.)
The results show 38 votes in favor and no vote against; the first sentence of
Section 19 is approved.
There is a second paragraph which was read before by Commissioner Garcia.
MR. GARCIA: PEOPLES ORGANIZATIONS ARE BONA-FIDE ASSOCIATIONS OF
CITIZENS WITH IDENTIFIABLE LEADERSHIP, MEMBERSHIP AND STRUCTURE
AND DEMONSTRATED CAPACITY
TO PROMOTE THE PUBLIC INTEREST.
MR. OPLE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: Will the Committee yield to some questions concerning the second
paragraph?
First of all, do I understand it right that this is a consolidation of several
proposed amendments which were earlier brought to the attention of the
Committee by Commissioners Christian Monsod, Ricardo Romulo, Hilario
Davide, Jr. and myself?
This definition of peoples organization is acceptable to me, being one of the
proponents of the amendment which are now considered subsumed in this
definition. But I thought I would make the observation that indeed, this draft
Constitution, not only in the Article on Social Justice but in other
Articles, will probably stand out among contemporary constitutions once it is
ratified in one respect: there is a fairly ubiquitous reference to peoples
power in several forms as one of the guiding principles for a new social order
that is, in effect, ordained by this Constitution. Thus, people
organizations may initiate amendments to the Constitution and the laws
through the power of initiative and referendum already vested in them
elsewhere.
They may even overthrow a government that will become a traitor to the
people and their Constitution. This is found in the Declaration of Principles.
They
Since labor organizations are already covered by these laws, then the rigor of
the qualifications to be considered bona-fide and independent peoples
organization would be higher in the case of labor than in the case of other
organizations, including civic associations. Would that be correct?
MR. GARCIA: We are not trying to establish a hierarchy of one being more
important than the other. We are saying that they have an equal rule. In as
far as
they can protect the public interests in a far more effective and better way . .
.
MR. OPLE: I am describing an existing situation where by virtue of the
existing law, there is indeed a higher standard of rigor for labor organizations
than in the case of non-labor organizations, except those that register with
the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Would the Committee not consider equalizing this standard of rigor for all by
also requiring the other peoples organizations to deposit their
constitutions and bylaws in an appropriate office of the government?
MR. GARCIA: Madam President, there are also different levels of organizations
and their nature vary. Therefore, there are some who may not even have
constitutions and bylaws. They may just simply have a declaration of
principles and a program of action. Therefore, we also have to respect that
level of
political maturity or that level of organization which those groups have.
MR. OPLE: Yes. I am not going to insist on that.
MR. GARCIA: We would not want to impose simply one standard.
MR. OPLE: I am not going to insist on that because I already yielded to the
Committees request earlier. But would Commissioner Garcia, for purposes of
recording the intent of the Committee, not agree that in the future, all the
independent peoples organizations, considering the powers and duties
vested
in them in this Constitution, including the possibility of participating in
regional development councils and the planning work of the National
Economic
and Development Authority, should be encouraged to rise to a level of
maturity and responsibility where they will write their own constitutions and
bylaws
for their own internal guidance and for the guidance of those who support
them?
am not
insisting on that particular amendment.
MR. GARCIA: I concur with the opinion of Commissioner Monsod.
MR. DAVIDE: So, the only amendment is the apostrophe ().
MR. RAMA: So, we are now ready to vote on the amendment on the second
paragraph, Madam President.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of the second paragraph of Section
19, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (No Member raised his
hand.)
The results show 39 votes in favor and no vote against; the second
paragraph of Section 19 is approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, there is a minor amendment to Section 20 by
Commissioner Maambong.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: I propose a minor amendment on Section 20 by adding the
words AS DETERMINED BY LAW.
THE PRESIDENT: Where?
MR. MAAMBONG: In the last sentence after the word mechanisms. I feel,
Madam President, that the phrase AS DETERMINED BY LAW is necessary in
order that
we could provide the mechanics and the process of consultation; otherwise,
the consultation mechanism would be meaningless.
THE PRESIDENT: What does the Committee say? May we have the reaction of
the Committee?
MR. GARCIA: The understanding is that whether there is a law or not, this
basic right must be respected and they should be consulted. The
consultation
mechanism itself could be threshed out and discussed, and later on, we need
not have a law for that right.
But if Congress sees it fit to make some qualifications later on, then this will
not preempt Congress. Congress may even strengthen this consultative
process and require adequate mechanisms for such a consultation.
THE PRESIDENT: Is this clear now with the Committee? Can we now read the
whole Section 20?
MR. GARCIA: Section 20, as amended, will read: The State shall respect the
right of the people and their organizations to effective and reasonable
participation at all levels of social, political and economic decision-making,
and shall make possible adequate consultation mechanisms AS MAY BE
PROVIDED
BY LAW.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of Section 20, as amended, please
raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their
hand.)
MR. GARCIA: Madam President, I would like to abstain. I would simply like to
put on record that the phrase AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW substantially
weakens the provision.
THE PRESIDENT: May I just announce the result of the voting.
The results show 30 votes in favor, 6 votes against and 1 abstention; Section
20 is approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, may I just ask Commissioner Regalado one
clarificatory question?
THE PRESIDENT: Please proceed.
MR. NOLLEDO: As I understand it, AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW should
refer only to the mechanisms.
MR. REGALADO: No, it refers to the entire participation process. The law will
provide how it will be done or how the participation will be.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: So, are we through now with the Article on Social Justice?
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, before I move to terminate the period of
amendments, I would like to register the reservation of Commissioner Jamir
to amend
Section 5 and Commissioner Foz to amend Section 11.
With those reservations, Madam President, I move that we close the period of
amendments on the Article on Social Justice.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection?
FR. BERNAS: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bernas is recognized.
FR. BERNAS: I would also like to reserve an amendment on Section 20. That
is the very last one.
MR. RAMA: Commissioner Bernas would like to make a reservation on Section
20.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, just a small point.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: I just want to make the manifestation that Commissioner de
los Reyes was consulted in the drafting of the section on the rights of fish
workers
which included the phrase service workers and other forms of contractual
relationship. That is just for purposes of drafting it, the styling.
MR. RAMA: With those reservations, Madam President, I move that we close
the period of amendments on the Article on Social Justice.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION
R.C.C. NO. 53
Monday, August 11, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
At 9:43 a.m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia Muoz Palma, opened the
session.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is called to order.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please rise to sing the National Anthem.
Everybody rose to sing the National Anthem.
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please remain standing for the Prayer to be
led by the Honorable Jose D. Calderon.
Everybody remained standing for the Prayer.
PRAYER
MR. CALDERON: Let us pray.
Almighty God, we are entering the final phase of our task to draft what will
become the fundamental law of the Filipino people.
The last two months had been hectic but the days ahead will be even more
demanding.
Even now, strenuous and sustained effort has taken its toll among those of
us who are not in excellent health nor of robust physical attributes.
But, Almighty God, the few of us who had been stricken ill are, by Your Grace,
holding on tenaciously to the job at hand, pushed on by a determination and
a purpose single to the completion of this endeavor, together with our more
physically able colleagues.
As our work intensifies, as the demands on our efforts grow heavier, give us,
O Lord, the strength to carry on. Reenergize our bodies; give more light to
our minds; put more love in our hearts; and grant us more understanding
and sympathy for those views that contradict our own.
As crucial issues are submitted to a vote, fortify us, Almighty God, with
humility in victory, with grace in defeat, and with the wisdom to understand
that
every vote cast in this Chamber is a vote of conscience in tended to achieve
the common weal and certainly not a partisan stand designed to defeat a
foe,
for in this Chamber, O Lord, there are no foes, only colleagues in the
common endeavor to structure the foundation of this nation.
Guide us, Almighty God, in these, the final days, to make the Constitution we
are drafting one that is acceptable to our people but, more importantly, one
that is deserving of Your blessing and benediction. Amen.
ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will please call the roll.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Abubakar
Present*
Natividad
Present*
Alonto
Present
Nieva
Absent
Aquino
Present*
Nolledo
Present
Azcuna
Present
Ople
Present*
Bacani
Present
Padilla
Present
Bengzon
Present*
Quesada
Present
Bennagen
Present
Rama
Present
Bernas
Present
Regalado
Present
Rosario Braid
Present
Reyes de los
Present*
Brocka
Absent
Rigos
Present
Calderon
Present
Rodrigo
Present
Castro de
Present
Romulo
Present
Colayco
Present
Rosales
Present
Concepcion
Present
Sarmiento
Present
Davide
Present
Suarez
Present
Foz
Present
Sumulong
Present
Garcia
Present*
Tadeo
Present*
Gascon
Present
Tan
Present
Guingona
Absent
Tingson
Present*
Jamir
Present
Treas
Present
Laurel
Present*
Uka
Present
Lerum
Present*
Villacorta
Present
Maambong
Present*
Villegas
Present
Monsod
Present*
civil service eligibilities and length of service and suggesting the inclusion of
provisions providing equal treatment of all government employees
regardless of the agency hiring them.
(Communication No. 516 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Constitutional Commission and Agencies.
Letter from Mr. Jose C. de Venecia, Jr., President of the Petroleum Association
of the Philippines, 1 Floor Basic Petroleum Bldg., Alvarado St., Legaspi
Village, Makati, Metro Manila, containing the position of the association on
the exploration and development of petroleum resources of the Philippines.
(Communication No. 517 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on the National Economy and Patrimony.
Twenty-seven letters from John Gerard R. de Dios, Edwin F. Sarmiento, Eric S.
Javier, Anmiel P. Galvo, Joselito Ledesma, Terry A. Lafigura, Rosario Torres,
William Intalco, Rojiel S. Lacanienta, Clifford E. Pesalbon, Joselito S. Agbayani,
Romeo V. Paragas, Marlyn Sarmiento, Aurora R. Guiang, Francis G. Bais,
Ramil T. Bruces, Ricky Paglicawan, Luis S. Salazar, Margarita R. Mangaliman,
Victor Maricad, Rolando T. Nepomuceno, Jesus M. Pinlac, Marita Malpaya,
Zenaida B. Viray, Reynaldo N. Regresado, Anselmo V. Contreras, and Ernesto
C. Esteban, Jr. with their respective addresses, all seeking to include in the
Constitution a provision obliging the State to protect the life of the unborn
from the moment of conception.
(Communication No. 518 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of
Principles.
Resolution No. 6 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Pampanga, requesting
the Commission to respect the six-year term given by the people to the
incumbent
President and Vice-President.
(Communication No. 519 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions.
Communication from the Philippine Social Science Council, Inc., Don Mariano
Marcos Avenue, UP Diliman, Quezon City, signed by its Chairman, Dr.
Carolina G.
Hernandez, submitting four recommendations, to wit: (1) federal form of
MR. RAMA: There is a request for a privilege speech for two minutes on the
occasion of the birthday of former Senator Lorenzo Taada. May I ask that
Commissioner Villacorta be recognized.
THE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Villacorta is recognized.
QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE
OF COMMISSIONER VILLACORTA
MR. VILLACORTA: Madam President, as we are about to approve the Article
on Social Justice, the significance of the conferment of the highest
government
award, the Legion of Honor, Rank of Commander, to former Senator Lorenzo
Martinez Taada, should not pass unnoticed by the Constitutional
Commission.
Former Senator Taada as we all know, is one of the greatest Filipinos of our
time. Since the start of his public career, he has fought for the small
people of our society. Always championing basic human rights and national
sovereignty, he has battled the forces of tyranny and foreign domination.
Even as he has advanced to the age of 88, he has been unwavering in his
social consciousness, his incorruptibility and his commitment to freedom and
nationalism. Instead of stagnating in the premises and biases of his
generation, he has always been attuned and responsive to the dynamic
demands of
changing times.
Senator Taada has often said, Life is too short, we have to do our best for
our people before we are summoned by our Creator and are made to account
for
our actions in our lifetime. We are fortunate that in this Constitutional
Commission, we can benefit from the parallel wisdom of his contemporaries
in
lawmaking: Senators Sumulong, Alonto, Rodrigo, Padilla and Rosales, and
Speaker Laurel statesmen of an era when the values of delicadeza and
selflessness
in public life prevailed.
In our work in this Commission, we have endeavored to provide for the
prevention of tyrannys resurgence in our country. We have also striven to
enshrine
peoples power through the institutionalization of sectoral representation and
peoples organizations, and have sought to protect and guarantee the rights
of laborers, farmers, fishermen, women, youth, the middle class, the sick and
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, we realize the merit of the proposal, but this
has been repeatedly stated in the explanation given by the members of the
Committee, so we would rather that we leave this matter to the floor for
appreciation.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: Will the distinguished proponent yield to some clarificatory
questions so we can vote intelligently?
MR. JAMIR: Willingly.
THE PRESIDENT: Please proceed.
MR. DAVIDE: Under the proposed Article on the National Economy and
Patrimony, land should be classified into timber, mineral, national park, and
agricultural. If this particular proposal is adopted, all lands may further, be
classified into residential, commercial, agricultural and so on.
MR. JAMIR: The term COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND RESIDENTIAL LANDS
is merely part of the broader term agricultural lands.
MR. DAVIDE: Consequently, Congress now may classify all agricultural
lands as residential, commercial and so on, or the bigger portion of the
agricultural land as commercial or residential, to defeat the purpose of the
concept of agrarian land reform.
MR. JAMIR: No, Madam President. This is preceded by the word EXCEPT. That
means to say that with regard to the broad term agricultural lands, these
are
the only exceptions.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes. But Congress may now classify what are agricultural,
residential and commercial lands, thus reducing the area or the coverage of
agricultural lands and what may be available for land reform.
MR. JAMIR: I do not really think so.
MR. DAVIDE: We submit that it might dilute further the concept of land
reform.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Bernas be
recognized.
MR. JAMIR: I really do not think so, because at any rate, our laws and
jurisprudence already have instituted these as parts merely of agricultural
lands.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President, it is still my contention that the introduction
of that amendment will seriously impair, if not negate, the possibility of
urban land reform and housing reform.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other comment?
MR. JAMIR: Madam President, I suggest that we submit it to a vote.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, this Commission has been castigated by
various farmer groups for instituting a weak agrarian reform program. The
Federation
of Free Farmers and other nationwide peasant groups have issued
statements criticizing this Commission for instituting a weak and flabby
agrarian reform
program. Madam President, now we are introducing another amendment to
further weaken the agrarian reform. A few days ago, we instituted
amendments that
tend to weaken agrarian reform with provisions like the State shall by law;
subject to such priorities and reasonable retention limits as Congress may
prescribe; the proviso taking into account ecological, developmental or
equity consideration; and just compensation.
Madam President, to me this is another attempt to weaken agrarian reform.
We will be increasing the sorrow and the sadness of our farmers, of our
people,
if we accept this amendment. With due respect to Commissioner Jamir, I
object to the introduction of that amendment.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Padilla is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: The proposed amendment submitted by Commissioner Jamir
has reference to Section 5 under agrarian land reform. The proposed
amendment does not
refer to Section 10 or 11 under Urban Land Use and Housing Program, so
they are two distinct sections. For Commissioner Bernas to say that
Commissioner
Jamirs insertion in Section 5 will affect the provision on urban land use and
housing is not exactly accurate because the proposed amendment is on
Section
5 and not on Section 10 or 11. With regard to the provision that says
encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands, I
recall
that I suggested the elimination of the word all and Commissioner Jamir
suggested to make it applicable to ARABLE agricultural lands. These
proposals
were unfortunately not approved. But definitely this sub-classification of
agricultural land to residential, commercial and industrial is not or should not
be covered by agrarian land reform.
So I am in favor of the proposed amendment of Commissioner Jamir.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de los Reyes is recognized.
MR. DE LOS REYES: May I just inform the honorable Commission that under
Article XIV, Section 10 of the 1973 Constitution, lands of the public domain
are
classified into agricultural, industrial or commercial, residential, resettlement,
mineral, timber or forest and grazing lands, and such other classes as
may be provided by law. Unless the intention of the Committee on the
National Economy and Patrimony is to do away with this classification which I
think is
a good classification, then there should be no question about the
amendment being proposed by Commissioner Jamir because it is so
classified under the 1973
Constitution.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: Thank you, Madam President.
Will the proponent yield to some questions?
MR. JAMIR: Willingly.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, there is settled jurisprudence on the
definition of agricultural land in the case of Krivenco vs. the Register of
Deeds that
would define agricultural land to include commercial, industrial and
residential lands. My concern is in the absence of settled jurisprudence
delimiting
I do object to the amendment. I think it will unduly limit the ability of the
government to introduce land reform in specific rural sites.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Bengzon be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, I am a member of the Committee and I
would like to state here what the intent of the Committee was when it
proposed the urban
land reform and housing and agrarian land reform. When we discussed this
provision on urban land reform and housing, what we had in mind were the
urban
poor-people who have no houses, who are landless, who are not professional
squatters, but are squatting on idle lands in the city, who have been there for
many years, and people who have gotten into these idle lands, paying
certain nominal amounts to the landowners. We were not thinking of the
office spaces,
for example, in Makati.
I appreciate the concern of Commissioner Jamir and I understand that what
he has in mind and his apprehension is that this might cover lands which are
definitely and publicly known to be office spaces or commercial spaces.
However, that apprehension is already eased by the last portion of Section 5
which
has given Congress the prerogative to prescribe certain terms, taking into
account the ecological, developmental and equity considerations When it
passes
laws on agrarian reform and urban reform. And, therefore, in order not to
complicate the matter further, considering that the apprehension of
Commissioner
Jamir is taken care of by the last portion of Section 5, and reading into the
record the intent of the Committee when it proposed the section on urban
land
reform and housing to the effect that it was really the intention not to cover
these office spaces and industrial sites but those lands which are in the
cities and in the urban areas which are idle, which could properly be
expropriated by the government for tenement housing, then we believe,
Madam
President, that there is no need for that amendment.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, there has been sufficient debate and discussion
of the proposed amendment.
factories all around, but within that cluster of factories there is a vacant land,
it is up to Congress now to determine whether for the interest of the
community that land should be expropriated wherein a tenement housing
will be built for the workers around.
MR. COLAYCO: Thank you.
So, what is wrong with clarifying that point?
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, we will get into a lot of complications
because there will be a million and one situations like that.
MR. COLAYCO: There will be more complications, if we do not clarify this
point.
MR. BENGZON: Congress has the right to reclassify those lands as the
circumstances would warrant. We cannot put all of those restrictions here.
MR. COLAYCO: There is just this problem there may be a situation where
an industrial or commercial area is not being used at the moment. This can
be a
big problem if Congress now declares such an area as residential or for urban
housing.
MR. BENGZON: Then if Congress declares so, that means that it is for the
best interest of everybody concerned, and it is not for us here to tell them
what
to do.
MR. COLAYCO: I have another question. There are many vacant residential
areas around the elite enclaves, the subdivisions in Metro Manila. Take the
case of
the Ortigas property which is supposed to have been taken over by the
Marcoses. There was a time when there were many squatters in that area.
Does the
Committee envision the expropriation of similar areas for housing for the
poor?
MR. BENGZON: We do not envision any situation of that sort. We are leaving
it precisely to Congress to determine whether or not, given that particular
situation, it would enhance the value of that land or the interest of the
squatters to stay in that particular area. That is why I am saying that we
leave
the discretion to Congress to decide what is best for the community as a
whole, both for the people who would want to squat there and cut up that
piece of
land into small pieces for themselves, and for the people who are already
living around that community. It is not up for us to dictate to them what to do
nor to envision every single situation. That is why we are leaving the matter
to Congress. We feel that if we do include all the proposals of
Commissioner Jamir here, we are complicating the situation further. The
more we define, the more we limit, and the more we tie the hands of
Congress.
MR. COLAYCO: Thank you for the Gentlemans view.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, the body is ready to vote on the proposed
amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Does Commissioner Villegas want to seek recognition?
MR. VILLEGAS: I just wanted to add some information that would allay the
fears expressed by Commissioner Colayco.
THE PRESIDENT: Please proceed.
MR. VILLEGAS: Let us take, for example, that very specific case of the Ortigas
land. It would be highly unlikely for Congress to consider the area for
urban land reform because the price of that land is more than P1,000 per
square meter. And because we have a very specific statement about just
compensation, it would not be wise for the government to choose a property
right in the middle of the Ortigas area. I think we will have to put all these
provisions in the context of what we also approved just compensation. So,
I do not think there is reason to be apprehensive, assuming that Congress
really represents the people. We should have enough confidence in our
government officials.
THE PRESIDENT: We are ready to vote now.
MR. RAMA: The Committee would like to state its position.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Madam President.
In view of the many explanations given on record regarding the
interpretation of the word agricultural lands in relation to the
implementation to the
urban land reform program of the government together with the agrarian
reform, the Committee feels that there is no necessity for the inclusion of the
MR. SUAREZ: Would the word PROPERTY not be included in the words
REAL ESTATE?
MR. VILLEGAS: No.
MR. SUAREZ: It is the other way around.
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
MR. MONSOD: This sentence is proposed to be included in the same section
defining the rights of farmers to urban land reform and housing. So in that
context, it would only refer to real property.
MR. VILLEGAS: I will not insist on the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the Gentleman now restate the proposed amendment
so that we can proceed to vote.
MR. FOZ: If I may read the sentence: THE STATE SHALL RESPECT THE
RIGHTS OF SMALL PROPERTY OWNERS.
MR. SUAREZ: We reiterate the Committee accepts the proposed amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this proposed amendment which
has been accepted by the Committee? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
amendment is
approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I move that we take a vote on the entire
Section 11.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Are we through with all the reservations? Have we
taken up all the reserved amendments?
MR. SUAREZ: One more reservation, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Can we take that up now?
MR. RAMA: We can take it up now. May I ask that Commissioner Bernas be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bernas is recognized.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President, I call the attention of the Commission to the
third paragraph, page 38 of the Journal last Saturday. The amendment I am
about
to propose is in effect cosponsored by Commissioners Monsod, Garcia and
also Commissioner Regalado who gave the last amendment to this provision
last
Saturday.
Before I state my amendment, let me just give the background of what I am
about to propose. In the interpellation made by Commissioner Rodrigo last
Saturday, it was made very clear that it was not the intention of this
provision to in any way dilute or diminish the rights already guaranteed in
the Bill
of Rights, particularly Section 7 and Section 9, which guarantee the right of
people to form associations and unions for purposes not contrary to law, and
also the guarantee which says that no law shall be passed abridging the right
of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress
of grievances.
So the object of my proposal is precisely to rephrase this so that it will not be
read as diminishing what we already have; and at the same time it will
more clearly project what we hope to add in this provision.
My amendment has two parts. The first involves a splitting of the sentence
into two, and then a rewording of both parts. I propose to delete the first four
words The State shall respect, and I shall begin the provision this way: THE
RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE AND THEIR ORGANIZATIONS TO EFFECTIVE AND
REASONABLE
PARTICIPATION AT ALL LEVELS OF SOCIAL, POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC
DECISION-MAKING SHALL NOT BE ABRIDGED. And then a new sentence will
follow: THE STATE SHALL
FACILITATE THE CREATION OF ADEQUATE CONSULTATION MECHANISMS.
After consultation with the Committee and also with Commissioner Regalado
who sponsored the last amendment, we agreed that this formulation reflects
the
intention of everyone.
MR. GASCON: Commissioner Bernas, is it not STATE SHALL, BY LAW,
FACILITATE?
FR. BERNAS: THE STATE SHALL, BY LAW FACILITATE THE CREATION OF
ADEQUATE CONSULTATION MECHANISMS.
We would like to avoid the use of the words make possible because it gives
the impression that these consultation mechanisms are not possible unless
the
State takes action by law. As a matter of fact, the consultation mechanisms
are already in existence, and the role we are giving to the State is mere
facilitation, not necessarily creation of these consultation mechanisms.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: Since the proposed amendment would be reflective of the
thinking of the Committee the Committee decides to accept the proposals,
Madam
President.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: I would like to have some clarifications.
THE PRESIDENT: Please proceed.
MR. DAVIDE: The emphasis of my question will be on THEIR
ORGANIZATIONS THEIR ORGANIZATIONS would refer specifically to
independent peoples
organizations as defined in the preceding sentence.
FR. BERNAS: Yes.
MR. DAVIDE: Would the Gentleman agree to using the word ESTABLISHMENT
instead of CREATION?
FR. BERNAS: That is with respect to the second sentence.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, to the second sentence.
FR. BERNAS: The sense is the same; I would have difficulty with that.
MR. DAVIDE: Thank you.
FR. BERNAS: But for me the more important word is FACILITATE.
MR. SUAREZ: Is Commissioner Bernas accepting the amendment?
MR. MONSOD: May I just ask a question of the proponent, Madam President.
Would it change the sense of the sentence if we simply say, THE STATE
SHALL FACILITATE ADEQUATE CONSULTATION MECHANISMS without having
to say CREATION
OR ESTABLISHMENT?
FR. BERNAS: First of all, the phrase is THE STATE SHALL, BY LAW.
MR. MONSOD: THE STATE SHALL, BY LAW, FACILITATE ADEQUATE
CONSULTATION MECHANISMS. Do we need the word CREATION there?
FR. BERNAS: There are ready two steps. First, we have the creation of the
consultation mechanisms, and then the facilitation of the functioning of
those
mechanisms.
THE PRESIDENT: Is this a new section or substitution for a section?
FR. BERNAS; A substitution for Section 20, Madam President. So, the first
sentence will read: THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE AND THEIR ORGANIZATIONS
TO EFFECTIVE
AND REASONABLE PARTICIPATION AT ALL LEVELS OF SOCIAL, POLITICAL AND
ECONOMIC DECISION-MAKING SHALL NOT BE ABRIDGED.
Could we take action on that?
THE PRESIDENT: There are two sentences.
FR. BERNAS: There is a second sentence, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is this clear to all the Commissioners?
MR. OPLE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: Thank you.
I am for this amendment which I think better reflects the intent of the entire
Commission, if I may say so. But for the purpose of the records, we should
clarify the meaning of the word PEOPLE DO we refer to the people as the
source of sovereignty from which all sovereignty emanates?
FR. BERNAS: Precisely, yes.
MR. OPLE: I think in the usual construction, the people in this case constitute
themselves into an electorate for the purpose of electing a government to
pass policy questions through their representatives in, let us say, the
legislature. But in this case we refer to people and their organizations. Is
there
no distinction at all between the people contemplated in the earlier
definition that I gave from which all sovereignty emanates and the people
here as,
let us say, the people as a great public?
FR. BERNAS: The people are larger than just merely the electorate because
the electorate consists of those who are qualified to vote. The broader word
PEOPLE would include even those who are under age, and the guarantee in
the Bill of Rights covers all people.
MR. OPLE: We are speaking, therefore, of people in the more generic sense.
Perhaps, the classic formulation of that was what Walter Lippman put forth as
a
national society consisting of generations present, past and future, as well.
FR. BERNAS: Yes; and that adequately defines the section on the declaration
of principles when we speak of sovereignty residing in the people.
MR. OPLE: In empowering peoples organizations to participate in all levels of
decision-making, this presumably rises vertically from, let us say, the
barangay level to the regional level and to the national level.
FR. BERNAS: We are not putting any limitation.
MR. OPLE: I just wanted to make this clarification.
Thank you very much, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Are we now ready to vote?
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, before we vote, I would like to ask the
Committee a question.
THE PRESIDENT: Please proceed.
MR. ROMULO: Since this now has been reformulated, I would like to ask, in
the event the peoples organization is not consulted, what the effect of that
nonconsultation with regard to either the decision made by the bureaucrats
or the law passed by Congress would be.
MR. GARCIA: The Committee feels that in any decision-making that will be
relevant, the thoughts, the aspirations and the participation of people are
essential for the decision-making to be in the right direction.
on, for the decisions to be implemented, the Ministry discussed further and
refined these. There were consultations in the local and municipal levels. So
there are many levels. The level may be vertical on that score
geographical or horizontal when it involves different sectors of society,
multisectoral or
sectoral.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, this section does not say that any group
who claims to be a peoples organization must be consulted for a law or
decision to
be valid or implemented. As I think Commissioner Garcia said, there is the
criteria of practicability as well. Furthermore, in our Constitution, we also
gave the people the right of initiative and referendum.
MR. ROMULO: Precisely.
MR. MONSOD: So, this is another way by which they can express their
disapproval of any decision or law.
MR. ROMULO: So, what the Gentleman is saying is that this is a desired
objective and if it is not fulfilled then the people must go to those
mechanisms
provided in our Constitution.
MR. MONSOD: Yes, the operative phrase is WITHIN THE DEMOCRATIC
FRAMEWORK.
MR. ROMULO: Thank you.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, may I ask a few questions?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: The phrase WITHIN THE DEMOCRATIC FRAMEWORK is a little
too general. In our Declaration of Principles, we state that our government is
a
republican government, which means a representative government wherein
sovereignty resides in the people; but then the people elect their
representatives
to the legislature, to the executive department, and these representatives
are the ones who perform the functions of government. We would like the
people
to have some reserve powers as was stated by Commissioner Monsod. We
are providing for initiative, for referendum, even for recall. And now, we are
providing in this proposed section another direct participation of the people.
What is the meaning of this participation. It seems that this
various levels.
A concrete example would be the construction of huge infrastructure projects
like dams. It has been the case that some form of consultation takes place
but
in the final implementation of these programs, the consultations are not
conducted. We are saying that the people should be able to initiate from the
lowest, as it were, up to the highest level, if necessary, so their voices will be
heard effectively.
Again based on our experiences, in a number of cases, there is lack of
adequate information. Information is never provided for the people on which
to base
their judgment on these infrastructure projects. We are also saying therefore,
that given this framework, social justice and the democratic values could be
pursued, peoples participation could be more effective, and the role of
government here would be to facilitate that form of consultation outside of
party
politics.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, Commissioner Bernas would like to have his
last say on this.
FR. BERNAS: No, I was asking for a vote. But if the Chair wishes, I can restate
the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Are we ready to vote?
MR. RAMA: The body is ready to vote.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the Committee please read the section now?
MR. SUAREZ: We yield to Commissioner Bernas, Madam President.
FR. BERNAS: The section will read: THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE AND THEIR
ORGANIZATIONS TO EFFECTIVE AND REASONABLE PARTICIPATION AT ALL
LEVELS OF SOCIAL,
POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC DECISION-MAKING SHALL NOT BE ABRIDGED. THE
STATE SHALL, BY LAW, FACILITATE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ADEQUATE
CONSULTATION MECHANISMS.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of the amendment, please raise
their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (No Member raised his
hand.)
The results show 25 votes in favor and none against; the amendment is
approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I move that we vote on the whole Article on
Social Justice, as suggested by one of the committee members.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Floor Leader, have all those reserved amendments been
submitted already?
MR. RAMA: Yes, Madam President. There are no more reserved amendments.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: May we request that we first distribute to the Commissioners a
clean copy of the Article before we vote on Second Reading?
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: So, we will vote on it later as soon as we have a clean copy
of the entire Article on Social Justice with all the amendments that have been
approved.
Meanwhile, the Chair suspends the session for a few minutes.
It was 11:15 a.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 11:50 a.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
MR. RAMA: I move that we suspend the session until two oclock this
afternoon to listen to the sponsorship of the Committee on Local
Governments.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
session is suspended until two oclock in the afternoon.
It was 11:51 a.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 2:16 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
CONSIDERATION OF
PROPOSED RESOLUTION NOS. 470 AND 511
(Article on Local Governments and
Additional Provisions Thereto)
PERIOD OF SPONSORSHIP AND DEBATE
MR. RAMA: I move that we consider Committee Report Nos. 21 and 25 on
Proposed Resolution Nos. 470 and 511 as reported out by the Committee on
Local
Governments.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
Consideration of Proposed Resolution Nos. 470 and 511 is now in order. With
the permission of the body, the Secretary-General will read only the title of
the proposed resolutions without prejudice to inserting in the Record the
whole text thereof.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: Proposed Resolution No. 470, entitled.
RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION AN
ARTICLE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
and Proposed Resolution No. 51 1, entitled:
Development
Authority,
(5) Establishment, maintenance and administration of schools in the
autonomous region;
(6) Promotion and regulation of tourism within the region;
(7) Establishment, operation and maintenance of regional health, welfare
and other social services.
(8) Protection of the environment in accordance with standards and
regulations of the national government;
(9) Preservation of customs and traditions and a indigenous to the
autonomous region;
(10) Such other matters as may be authorized by law for the promotion of
the general welfare of the people of the autonomous region.
SECTION 13. Without prejudice to the above provisions, and except in areas
of legislation exclusively belonging to the national government such as
foreign
relations, the national defense customs, tariff, post and telecommunications,
the autonomous regions shall, by its regional assemblies, be authorized to
legislate on all other matters which concern the local administration of such
autonomous regions.
SECTION 14. The maintenance of peace and order within the region shall
remain the responsibility of the local chief executive of each constituent unit
who
shall exercise suspension over local police forces within the region. The
defense of the region shall be the responsibility of the national police or
army.
When circumstances so warrant, the regional government may establish its
own special forces subject to supervision by the national armed forces and
under
such provisions as the law may provide. Such special forces shall be under
the command of the President of the Philippines.
SECTION 15. All powers, functions, and responsibilities granted by this
Constitution or by law to the autonomous regions are vested in the National
Government.
SECTION 16. The first legislature under this constitution shall, within one
year from election of its Members, pass the Organic Acts for the autonomous
regions of Mindanao and the Cordillera. The said legislature shall, within a
period of not more than six (6) months after the organization thereof,
immediately define the territorial jurisdiction of autonomous regions that
may be granted Organic Acts.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Committee Chairman, Commissioner Nolledo, is
recognized.
SPONSORSHIP SPEECH
OF COMMISSIONER NOLLEDO
MR. NOLLEDO: Before I proceed to deliver my brief sponsorship remarks, I
would like to state here that our Committee made two reports. Committee
Report No.
21 covers, among others, the kinds of local government units, their taxing
powers and the provision on coordination of different political units for their
common benefits; while Committee Report No. 25 contains the provisions on
autonomous regions. After my brief remarks, Madam President, the other
members of
the Committee, namely, Commissioner Alonto and Bennagen, will also give
their own remarks to be concluded by Commissioner Ople.
Before I proceed further, I would like to express the Committees most
profound gratitude to the governors and city mayors of the League of
Governors and
City Mayors whom I met at Quezon City and with whom I had a two-hour
dialogue. We would like to express our gratitude to Mr. Rene Santiago of the
Philippine Institute of Environmental Planners, Mr. Michael Mastura, the
Philippine Social Science Council, the Office of Muslim Affairs and Cultural
Communities, especially Minister Candu Muarip and Atty. Fausto Lingating.
Madam President, the cry for meaningful, effective and forceful autonomy
has been loud and clear all over the country. That cry will no longer be a
voice
in the wilderness. Let this 1986 Constitutional Commission give a bold and
unequivocal answer to that cry. The report of the Committee on Local
Governments
is an indictment against the status quo of a unitary system that, to my mind,
has ineluctably tied the hands of progress in our country. It is claimed,
Madam President, that our linguistic and ethnic diversities are weaknesses
that can be strengthened by the unitary system; but I say our varying
regional
OF COMMISSIONER ALONTO
MR. ALONTO: Madam President, there is nothing more that I could add to the
brilliant exposition of the distinguished Chairman of our Committee. I only
want
to add some historical experience I encountered when I had the privilege of
being honored as one of those that have contributed to nation-building.
Madam President, the idea of a regional development plan started in
Congress in the year 1954. It was in that year that the members of Congress
of which I
was a humble member started to promote the idea of a regional economic
development in this country in the course of our nation-building. That
experiment of
Congress developed the idea that a regional economic development of our
country is much more effective than a centralized idea coming from the
central
government.
It was in that period when the establishment of different development
authorities, starting with the Mindanao Development Authority, was passed
and made
into law by Congress. This also started the idea of presenting before the
nation builders of this country that idea of the sociopolitical development of
our country based upon the concept of regional authority or regional
concept. Such concept started the idea that a federal form of government
would be more
acceptable in our country, taking into account the geographical situation, the
composition of the society, and the historical background of the Filipino
society.
Based on a paper I read before one of the seminars organized before the
start of the 1971 Constitutional Convention entitled The Political Problems of
the
Cultural Minorities, Maos effective way of solving the problem of uniting and
consolidating the multifarious sectors of our society would be some sort of
a federal form of government. In this document, I stated the following:
I can surmise this early that the strongest single factor that prompted the
call for this charter revision is the sense of urgency felt by the different
sectors that comprise the society to find a solution to the state of
disintegration taking place in our midst.
It is then a must that in re-framing the same law, it would be the highest
sense of patriotism for every member privileged to participate to analyze all
the basic problems that confront our society, not the least important of which
to start with, with those that in the course of our nation-building have
shown some disparate and unrefusing and a highly unitarian centralized
authority in this country.
I refer, Madam President, to the Muslims of Mindanao and to some of our
brothers in Northern Luzon who adhere to the principle that in order to have
real
freedom, real justice and real democracy, each section of our society must
be given the chance and freedom to develop the ideals they prize so much in
life.
Madam President, I would like to lengthen my remarks in support of the
remarks of our distinguished Chairman. However, I would just submit as part
of the
Record some documents which are very pertinent to the discussion we are
now about to do. One of these is a document entitled Position Paper No. 2,
which
discusses the political problems of the cultural minorities in this country.*
Another document is on the need for a nation community which was the
essence of a speech that the humble Representation delivered before the
1971
Constitutional Convention.**
Another document I would like to submit as part of the Record of this
Constitutional Commission and as part of my remarks is a document entitled
Structure
of Government by Rev. Francisco Araneta, former President of the Ateneo de
Manila.*** This was submitted before the 1971 Constitutional Convention,
proposing a federal form of government for the country.
The last document I would like to present is a speech of a divine some of
the last pronouncements of the late Senator Benigno Aquino.**** In that
document, he proposed a solution to the very perplexing problem caused by
the Muslims in this country which resulted in the conclusion of the Tripoli
Agreement of 1976 by President Marcos and the Moro National Liberation
Front. This document clearly and articulately states that the solution to the
problem of the Muslims in this country is spelled in the implementation of the
Tripoli Agreement, and suggests means and ways by which that Tripoli
Agreement would be implemented by the government. These, I submit to
this body, as part of my short remarks and as part of the Record of this
Constitutional Commission.
Thank you, Madam President, for this opportunity for delivering my short
remarks. I hope that the report of this Committee would be acceptable to the
any. We asked for a doctor, it did not send us one. Instead, government men
came to build a dam and sent in the Philippine Constabulary and the army.
These, we did not ask for.
There are statistics on the thousands of indigenous communities displaced
by plantations, hydroelectric dams, mining and logging operations by virtue
of
state laws, presidential decrees and letters of instructions. But it will suffice
to quote the eloquent voices of Bontoc and Kalinga warriors. They say:
Long experience has shown us that the outsiders law is not able to
understand us, our customs, and our ways. Always, the state laws make just
what is
unjust, and make right what is not right. We are planted here, rooted in
sacred land. All our dead are buried here. Now we are asked by the
government to
allow our dead to be covered by the waters of the Chico Dam Project. This is
an impossible request. The government assures us that it will spare no effort
to disinter the dead, to remove the remains to new and better sites. It does
not understand. The very soil we tread on is the dust of our fathers. What
kind of law is this that asks us to agree to our annihilation as a people? If we
accept the decree of the government, it will be as if we ever doubted that
we belong to the land or that we question our ancient law. If we are forcibly
relocated, we can tell you that we will no longer consider ourselves under
the law.
Let us not forget that among the Bangsa Moro and the Cordillera people were
people who were massacred, salvaged, arrested and imprisoned, tortured
and
raped, all in the name of national security, law and order. For the entire
history of the Bangsa Moro and the Cordillera people is a history of
oppression
and discrimination; but theirs too is a history of heroic resistance against
subjugation, tutelage and assimilation by the Spaniards, the Americans, the
Japanese, and even against uncaring Filipinos.
We should not, therefore, be surprised if they continue to practice their
ancient traditions of tribal democracy and custom law, if they persevere in
their
cherished belief and persist in their struggle to regain the right to selfdetermination.
History tells us, without meaning this to be some kind of blackmail, that the
Bangsa Moro and the Cordillera people can wield the willpower and
determination like fierce knives and sharp spears in demolishing any
obstacle in their quest for justice, peace and self-determination. Listen to the
fiery
approval of this provision will immediately raise the hopes, morale and faith
in
the nation of the millions of our brother Filipinos involved in these regions
and will be a major contribution to peace in our land, in our time.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. NOLLEDO: I thank Commissioner Ople.
Madam President, we are now ready to entertain questions from the
honorable Members of the Commission.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Treas be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Treas is recognized.
MR. TREAS: Madam President, may I ask the Committee or its Chairman a
few questions for clarification?
MR. NOLLEDO: Gladly.
MR. TREAS: I am referring to Committee Report No. 21. Section 1 made
reference to the different political subdivisions and among them, the barrios.
I
notice that in the 1973 Constitution, the barrio was also referred to as the
smallest political subdivision.
In the meantime, we have the barangay as the smallest political subdivision.
May I ask the Committee if this provision of the 1973 Constitution referring
to the barrios has been amended and instead the barangay was used?
MR. NOLLEDO: The Committee has decided to revert to the original name of
barrio instead of barangay.
Mr. Marcos issued some decrees changing the barrio to barangay and those
decrees should be declared unconstitutional because there was no
corresponding
amendment in the 1973 Constitution. The 1973 Constitution uses up to now,
as also embodied in the Freedom Constitution, the word barrio. Besides, we
received a lot of communications from all over the country asking us to
revert to the name barrio because most of the ancient and even legal
documents
including titles still use the word barrio. The term barrio schools is still
found in the different parts of the country. I think another reason is
that the barangay is indicative of the dictatorial regime of Mr. Marcos. It is
also the unanimous sense of the members of the League of Governors and
City
Mayors that we revert to the term barrio.
MR. TREAS: So, from the time of the adoption of the present Constitution
we are drafting, we shall refer to barrios.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, Madam President.
MR. TREAS: Insofar as Section 3 of the Article on Local Governments is
concerned, in case of province or city or municipality is divided or merged,
the
approval of the majority of the votes in a plebiscite called for the purpose in
the unit or units directly affected is needed. We had a recent case of
Negros del Norte which was divided from Negros Occidental. The plebiscite
referred only to the inhabitants of the proposed municipality and the
Supreme
Court declared it unconstitutional. The Committee adheres to the ruling of
the Supreme Court that the inhabitants to be consulted should not only be
the
inhabitants of the new province or city or town but the whole province. Am I
right?
MR. NOLLEDO: I agree with the Gentleman fully. I think the Committee will
fully agree because of the words directly affected. Those people are also
directly affected by division.
MR. TREAS: Just one more question. Section 6 of the same Article made
reference to the right of local governments to create their own sources of
revenue
and taxes. However, Section 7 also gave the same right to local governments
to levy and collect charges of contributions unique, distinct and exclusive to
them. Will the Gentleman briefly explain the difference between Section 6
and Section 7?
MR. NOLLEDO: First, with respect to Section 6, this is a direct conferment by
the Constitution on each local government unit of the power to impose its
own
sources of revenue and to levy taxes subject to such guidelines as may be
fixed by law. The Gentleman will notice that instead of using limitations as
may
be fixed by law, we used guidelines as recommended by the League of
Governors and City Mayors. So, there is a need for an authority like this
constitutional authority for each local government unit to impose such taxes,
fees and charges. With respect to Section 7 this section recognizes some
customary rules authorizing the levy of unique, distinct and exclusive taxes
Article
XI of the 1973 Constitution, this sentence appears:
Highly urbanized cities, as determined by standards established in the local
government code, shall be in- dependent of the province.
We deleted that; we did not place that in our report because we believe that
voters of highly urbanized cities should be allowed to participate in
provincial elections.
MR. TREAS: Thank you very much.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I would like to ask a few questions of the
Committee.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rama may proceed.
MR. RAMA: One reading Articles XXI and XXV will learn a lot of things about
what are the autonomous units, who will form the autonomous units, what
the
main features of the autonomous units are, who is going to supervise them,
et cetera, but it seems that one would not learn this basic question. What is
the purpose of these autonomous units? Why are we creating or introducing
them? Why do we need these autonomous units? Why do we create them?
Does the
Gentleman not think that we should have some kind of a statement on the
purpose, considering that this is a new feature in our Constitution whereby
the
citizen could understand and know the justification and the reason for such
autonomous units by giving a center to all these Articles like, for instance,
stating that the purpose is to speed up the economic and social development
of the regions and the people therein? Would the Gentleman consider a
statement
to that effect later in the period of amendments?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, Madam President. That question of the Gentleman, I
think, is very vital because the members of the Committee are deeply
concerned about
the formation of autonomous regions. Based on my sponsorship speech, I
believe that the purely unitary system has been a failure in the Republic of
the
Philippines. This country will never progress if we do not create autonomous
regions.
MR. RAMA: Yes, I agree with the Gentleman completely but I just want that
information for the people.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes. I would like to furthermore state, if the Chair does not
mind, that even in the Constitutional Commission, we decided to fragmentize
ourselves into forming various committees towards a common end to draft
the Constitution as early as possible. You will notice that Committees
function
effectively, and so we talk of some sort of a division of labor in the same
manner that we talk of division of power.
For purposes of posterity, we would like to give some advantages in support
of regional autonomous regions.
Rapid growth could be better attained with a more efficient-and effective
management of the country. By limiting matters to be decided by the central
government to those of national importance, the central government will not
be unduly distracted by localized problems. Moreover, programs should be
designed according to regional priorities and potentials rather than on the
national yardstick of least common denominator. A genuine autonomy is
inhospitable to the rise of another Marcos; it will be more difficult for foreign
powers to influence or dominate the country because it may happen that
foreigners may influence one region but another region may resist, and it is
not easy to control all these regions. Also, by reason of the archipelagic
geography of our country, central governance is inefficient and
unresponsive. A regionalized structure will make the government more
accessible to the
people That we are regionalistic as a people is beyond dispute The reasons
for these are, besides our island geography, the existing linguistic and ethnic
diversities. The State can achieve equitable distribution of income through
the decentralization of political and economic power. In addition, the exercise
of these powers through local autonomy is also the key to modernization of
our rural areas. You will notice that the following countries have autonomous
regions: Spain, Italy, Argentina, Switzerland, Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics, Austria. among others. China is also one of them. In fact, in the
Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, I understand, even the
names of the regions are mentioned. You will also notice that Switzerland,
because it has different ethnic idiosyncracies it has 22 cantons and two
are semicantons despite the fact that its people have different
persuasions,
remains united. There are Etruscans, Cretans, Celts, Romans, and Germans.
They have also a variety of languages. Two-thirds speak German, one-fifth
French,
one-tenth Italian, and one percent Rhaeto-Romanic. Despite the diversity in
religion as well as diversity in customs and traditions, there is unity in
Switzerland.
MR. RAMA: Thank you, Madam President.
I notice that the basis for unifying components to form into an autonomous
unit as stated in Section 9 should be:
common historical, geographic, cultural, linguistic, ethnic, communal,
economic or other characteristics within the framework of and respecting the
national sovereignty. . .
On the other hand, in Section 16, it seems that the only basis for forming
Mindanao and Cordillera into autonomous regions is the ethnic and cultural
reason; is that correct?
MR. NOLLEDO: The Gentleman will notice that that is not the only basis. That
provision that he cited I am very happy that he cited that provision
opens
the avenue towards full federalization of the Republic of the Philippines. That
is why we enumerated several factors to be considered. The Gentleman can
add other factors if he wishes but ethnic consideration is not the only factor
to be considered in the grant of autonomy to Muslim Mindanao and the
Cordilleras.
MR. RAMA: I grant that ethnic consideration should be considered with
respect to these unique regions. But does not the Gentleman think that we
should be a
little flexible in the sense that when we try to unite certain areas, we also
take into consideration the economic basis?
MR. NOLLEDO: We really consider the economic factor as material in the
formation of an autonomous region.
MR. RAMA: For instance, there is a site where a dam can be constructed that
will benefit a lot of areas around it. Instead of just looking into the ethnic
or cultural components of that area, would we not consider from the
economic point of view that the whole area would be served by that dam
and, therefore,
would boost the economy of that region?
MR. NOLLEDO: The Gentleman is perfectly correct, Madam President. In fact,
the word communal can be a basis to form an autonomous region. For
example, we
can have Bicolandia as another autonomous region.
MR. RAMA: So, in creating an autonomous region for Mindanao, the
Gentleman would consider going beyond areas where the Muslims do not
reside if it would be
for the benefit of that area as a region or as an autonomous unit?
MR. NOLLEDO: That was adopted from the Ople resolution. I would prefer
that Commissioner Ople answer that question.
MR. ROMULO. Yes, then let me pose my question. That is neither referred to
in Section 6 nor in the first part of Section 8; therefore, how is this to be
decided or implemented and by whom? Is this now going to be decided
exclusively by the legislature of the autonomous region?
MR. OPLE: Madam President, the issue has to do with Section 8 on page 2 of
Committee Report No. 21:
Local taxes shall belong exclusively to local governments and they shall
likewise be entitled to share in the proceeds of the exploitation and
development
of the national wealth within their respective areas.
Just to cite specific examples, in the case of timberland within the area of
jurisdiction of the Province of Quirino or the Province of Aurora, we feel
that the local governments ought to share in whatever revenues are
generated from this particular natural resource which is also, considered a
national
resource in a proportion to be determined by Congress. This may mean
sharing not with the local government but with the local population. The
geothermal
plant in the Macban, Makiling-Banahaw area in Laguna, the Tiwi Geothermal
Plant in Albay, there is a sense in which the people in these areas, hosting
the
physical facility based on the resources found under the ground in their area
which are considered national wealth, should participate in terms of
reasonable rebates on the cost of power that they pay. This is true of the
Maria Cristina area in Central Mindanao, for example. May I point out that in
the previous government, this has always been a very nettlesome subject of
Cabinet debates. Are the people in the locality, where God chose to locate
His
bounty, not entitled to some reasonable modest sharing of this with the
national government? Why should the national government claim all the
revenues
arising from them? And the usual reply of the technocrats at that time is that
there must be uniform treatment of all citizens regardless of where Gods
gifts are located, whether below the ground or above the ground. This, of
course, has led to popular disenchantment. In Albay, for example, the
government
then promised a 20-percent rebate in power because of the contributions of
the Tiwi plant to the Luzon grid. Although this was ordered, I remember that
the
Ministry of Finance, together with the National Power Corporation, refused to
implement it. There is a bigger economic principle behind this, the principle
of equity. If God chose to locate the great rivers and sources of hydroelectric
power in Iligan, in Central Mindanao, for example, or in the Cordillera,
why should the national government impose fuel adjustment taxes in order
to cancel out the comparative advantage given to the people in these
localities
through these resources? So, it is in that sense that under Section 8, the
local populations, if not the local governments, should have a share of
whatever
national proceeds may be realized from this natural wealth of the nation
located within their jurisdictions.
MR. ROMULO: Yes, thank you. I am not really arguing the share. All I wanted
to know is who will decide and the Gentleman seems to say that it is
Congress.
MR. OPLE: Congress will decide.
MR. ROMULO: That is my whole point, not the local legislative assembly but
the national Congress.
MR. OPLE: Yes, this will require a national policy that only Congress can
establish.
MR. ROMULO: As to Section 9, in view of the Chairmans answers to
Commissioner Rama, I would assume that not only are the seeds of
federalism implanted in
Section 9 but other regions are actually encouraged to become autonomous;
is that correct? Is that the sense of the Committee?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, Madam President. That is why we mentioned here
specifically Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras because we feel that these
will serve as
models should Congress decide to fully federalize the Republic of the
Philippines. I believe that we must do so, if we are to go far and if we are to
progress.
MR. ROMULO: So, Section 9 really authorizes Congress to federate the
Philippines if it so wishes?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, we give discretion to the Congress.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, I have a slight disagreement with the Chairman
of the Committee. I would like to accept this as a statement of aspiration, but
I
do not think the committee report is sending a definitive signal to the future
MR. ROMULO: And I take it, because of the mandate, whether viable or not,
one will expect the rest of the country to contribute to the viability of these
autonomous regions through their taxes. Is that correct?
MR. NOLLEDO: Not necessarily, because whether it is viable or not, I think
that is a relative question. Congress may provide the necessary incentives or
the necessary support when it complies with the mandate set forth in this
Constitution.
Commissioner Bennagen would like to talk on this.
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes.
MR. ROMULO: Let me ask then the other question: Therefore, is Congress free
to determine whether the applicant for regional autonomy is viable
economically, and if it is not, then Congress may refuse to grant autonomy?
Is that the application?
MR. NOLLEDO: Congress may delay the grant.
MR. ROMULO: Delay?
MR. NOLLEDO: It may delay, in the meantime, and it may not grant
immediately until viability is proven.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, in connection with that, right now the existing
law on local governments provides that one of the standards to be met for
creating a new local government unit such as a municipality or a province is
the economic viability which is often quantifiable and is so quantified.
MR. ROMULO: Exactly.
MR. OPLE: And, therefore, in enacting the organic act, as mandated here for
an autonomous region, the capacity for self-reliance, including financial
self-reliance, will be one of the standards that will presumably be laid down
by Congress on the basis of existing law.
MR. ROMULO: Although it is conspicuously absent in Section 9.
MR. BENNAGEN: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bennagen is recognized.
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes. For the information of Commissioner Romulo, at least,
in the case of both the Cordillera and the Bangsa Moro, we have statistics to
show
again that the cost of maintenance will be borne by the autonomous region.
If not, and even if these are maintained, to what extent may this educational
system be subordinated or coordinated with the policies of the national
government with regard to education?
MR. BENNAGEN: There could be a number of variations on this in relation to
financial responsibility. It could end up to a secondary or tertiary level. But
we are more concerned with curricular content, with what is being taught;
that is, an educational program should be responsive to the particularities of
the region and the peoples aspirations. So that in recognition of the cultural
and geographic diversity, the central government shall not impose a uniform
educational system.
As to the mechanics, some form of working relationships can be established
between the central government and the regional-governments.
MR. ROMULO: But not to the exclusion of the national governments
educational policies.
MR. BENNAGEN: No, definitely not.
MR. ROMULO: Because I suppose that while we want to preserve indigenous
culture, et cetera, there is another value that we wish to promote, and that is
national unity.
MR. BENNAGEN: That is right.
MR ROMULO: And integration to some extent and identity.
MR. BENNAGEN: That is clear in the statement of principles: that we
recognize diversity within the framework of national unity. This holds true in
many
spheres of social services, not only in terms of education but also of health
and even of infrastructure.
MR. OPLE: In the case of Muslim Mindanao, Madam President, schools here
can refer more specifically to the Madrasah system where Islamic traditions
are
taught.
MR. ROMULO: There are other speakers; so although I have some more
questions, I will reserve my right to ask them if they are not covered by the
other
speakers. I have only two questions.
I heard one of the Commissioners say that local autonomy already exists in
the Muslim region; it is working very well; it has, in fact, diminished a great
deal of the problems. So, my question is: since that already exists, why do
we have to go into something new?
MR. OPLE: May I answer that on behalf of Chairman Nolledo. Commissioner
Yusup Abubakar is right that certain definite steps have been taken to
implement
the provisions of the Tripoli Agreement with respect to an autonomous region
in Mindanao. This is a good first step, but there is no question that this is
merely a partial response to the Tripoli Agreement itself and to the fuller
standard of regional autonomy contemplated in that agreement, and now by
state
policy.
For example, most of the functions listed here are not yet being exercised by
the regional autonomous government in Mindanao, and that is the reason for
the continuing negotiation between the Philippine government and the Moro
National Liberation Front and its allied organizations in order to insure that
the standards of autonomy and its effectiveness will rise to that level
contemplated in the Tripoli Agreement.
MR. ROMULO: For my final question, Madam President, because I think it is a
serious one and I do not wish to have it misunderstood. It seems to have
been
implied that the choice of the Commission is either to accept these
provisions and have peace or we reject these provisions and have war. Is that
really
the dilemma of the Committee in presenting this to us?
MR. OPLE: It is not the Committee but it is history that presents this choice to
our people. I do not think it can be denied that more than 100,000 lives
have already been lost. There would have been many more thousands of
lives lost, if there was no ceasefire in 1976 and 1977. That Agreement, of
course, has
suspended hostilities for a time.
But I think we have heard from our colleagues from Mindanao about the new
gravity of the situation there. This explains the urgency with which a local
ceasefire in Sulu was concluded the other day, and the general sense of
relief that greeted it on the part of the national government. But that is
merely a
partial settlement. The bigger settlement will be negotiated next month in
Jeddah, when the President of the Philippines sends a delegation to negotiate
with the MNLF within the purview of the next meeting of the Organization of
the Islamic Conference.
And we only wish that it could be made within the framework of national
unity
and democratic processes because there are other options that are open to
the people beyond which we will have no domain.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, Commissioner Bernas wishes to be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bernas is recognized.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President, the questions I have are fundamentally
follow-up questions on some of the questions raised by Commissioners
Treas and Romulo.
I would like to begin from the recently decided case of Negros del Norte. The
Gentleman said that the principles enunciated in that Negros decision are
still applicable under this provision.
MR. OPLE: Yes.
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes, Madam President.
FR. BERNAS: However, I notice that the word directly was added in this
committee report whereas under the 1973 Constitution, it said: In a
plebiscite
called for the purpose in the unit or units affected. Does the word directly
add anything or modify the principles in the Negros decision?
MR. NOLLEDO: To my mind, the word directly does not change the
substance of the ruling.
FR. BERNAS: So, it was not the intention of the Committee to change the
substance of the ruling.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, Madam President.
FR. BERNAS: To go into greater detail, for purposes, for instance, of the
creation of a barrio or the abolition of a barrio, would we need a plebiscite of
the entire municipality?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, because the barrio will be taken out of the municipality.
FR. BERNAS: Yes. And for the purpose of the creation of a city or a
municipality within a province, would we have a plebiscite in the province?
MR. NOLLEDO: That is the implication.
Thank you.
MR. RAMA: I ask, Madam President, that Commissioner de los Reyes be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de los Reyes is recognized.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Madam President, I would like to differ from
Commissioner Bernas view that there is a deviation from the doctrine in the
Negros del
Norte case when it comes to the creation of an autonomy. I think there is no
deviation because we are only creating another form of local government
and
there is no portion of the territory of the nation that is being divided or
separated. Therefore, only the people affected will vote. While in the Negros
del Norte case, a new province is being carved out of an existing province,
which means a diminution of that existing province and for which reason the
whole province will vote.
MR. NOLLEDO: I would like to support that theory, but it seems that the
difference is very minimal. And I think Commissioner Bernas has a point
there.
However, as far as I am concerned, I would like to support the Gentlemans
theory because it really supports our report.
MR. DE LOS REYES: In answer to the questions of Commissioner Treas where
he stated that the old provision in the 1973 Constitution, which makes highly
urbanized cities independent of the province, is already being repealed
because it is his intention again to make highly urbanized cities part of the
province.
In Section 166 of the Local Government Code, highly urbanized cities are
cities with a minimum population of 150,000, as certified by the National
Census
and Statistics Office and with the latest annual income of at least P30 million,
as certified by the Minister of Finance; whereas the other city is known
as the component city which does not have that qualification, which means
that it has a population of less than 150,000 and its annual earning is less
than
P30 million. I would like the Gentleman to know that these highly urbanized
cities are better off as independent cities rather than being made part of the
province. They are independent; they earn a lot; they even earn more than
the province; and, moreover, they do not contribute anything to the
province. For
this reason, would the Gentleman like to reassess or rethink his stand on the
matter? I think the present setup where highly urbanized cities are separate
from the province should be maintained.
MR. NOLLEDO: I think the question of Commissioner Treas is predicated on
the principle of whether or not the population of the highly urbanized cities
can
participate in the election of officials of the province. In all other cases, the
provisions cited by the Gentleman; namely, Section 166 of the Local
Government Code, which is Batas Pambansa Blg. 337, may still stand. I know
as a fact that there is a future amendment to be presented possibly by
Commissioner Napoleon Rama where inhabitants of highly urbanized cities
should be allowed to vote for elective provincial officials because there was a
claim that this was done by Mr. Marcos in order that the highly urbanized
cities composed mostly of intellectuals who are fighting him should not
participate in the election of provincial officials because of the intent to
control elective provincial officials.
MR. DE LOS REYES: So, under the Gentlemans theory, we will revert to a
situation where the Cities of Pasay and Caloocan and, I think, even Quezon
City
will have to vote for the Governor of Rizal. Is that the intention?
MR. NOLLEDO: I think Commissioner Rama would like to comment on that.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Commissioner Ramas situation is different because that
is Cebu City.
MR. NOLLEDO: No, I would like to give my opinion after him.
MR. RAMA: I would like to explain why I filed that resolution. Traditionally,
since time immemorial, Cebu City has been voting for its provincial
officials. It may be different here in Manila because for a long time the
Greater Manila area was not voting for governorship. So, I just want to have
that
practice because there was gerrymandering in the case of Cebu.
MR. NOLLEDO: I adopt the answer of Commissioner Rama with the addition
that the Greater Manila area has been a separate geopolitical unit for a
considerable length of time.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Madam President, in Section 1, the Gentleman stated
that the different local units and political subdivisions are provinces, cities,
municipalities, barrios and autonomous regions. Does this mean that
Congress cannot create another form of politic subdivision, for example, a
metro
government, like to present Metro Manila government? Does the report of
the Gentlemans Committee mean that we are doing away with the Metro
Manila
government and that we are prohibiting future Congress from creating such a
form of local government unit forever?
MR. NOLLEDO: I would like to answer the last question because it is more
specific. That was the intent of the Committee. Because of overlapping of
functions, we feel that highly urbanized cities can stand alone without the
need of forming a supergovernment, like the Metro Manila Commission.
Besides,
we provided in Section 5 of Committee Report No. 21 that local government
units may group themselves, consolidate or coordinate their efforts, services
and
resources for purposes commonly beneficial to them. That, to my mind, is
enough basis to form a coordinating agency, for example, to coordinate the
basic
services and efforts of areas that are covered within the metropolitan area of
Manila. In other words, we are doing away with the metropolitan
governments
even if the draft of the University of the Philippines recommended such kind
of government. We did not adopt the provisions on metropolitan government,
and
this is in accord with the suggestion of the League of Governors and City
Mayors.
MR. DE LOS REYES: So, upon the approval of ratification of this new
Constitution, assuming that the committee report will be adopted, the Metro
Manila
Commission and the Metro Manila government shall be deemed abolished.
MR. NOLLEDO: Not necessarily because there is a provision in the Transitory
Provisions that existing laws may still continue until changed or repealed by
the forthcoming Congress.
But to my mind-I am speaking individually, not on behalf of the Committee
-P.D. No. 824 that created the Metro Manila government was really contrary
to the
Constitution, as I stated in my sponsorship speech. But because the Supreme
Court of the Philippines, in the case of Lopez vs. COMELEC and Lopez vs.
Metro
Manila Commission ruled that P.D. No. 824 is constitutional in view of the
1984 Amendment to the Constitution where the National Capital Region was
considered as a separate region by itself. In fact, I think the Supreme Court
found difficulty in justifying the constitutionality of P.D. No. 824.
In view of that ruling and our belief adhering to the rule of law that the
Supreme Court, whether right or wrong, is still correct, then P.D. No. 824 still
exists until repealed by the Congress of the Philippines.
Thank you.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I move for a suspension of the session for a few
minutes.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.
It was 4:16 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 4:51 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. ROMULO: Madam President, the next interpellator is Commissioner
Rodrigo. May he be recognized?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, I have a few questions for clarification.
Section 16 provides that the legislature in within a limited period of time
shall
pass organic acts for the autonomous regions of Mindanao and Cordillera. My
question is: Are these organic acts uniform for the two regions or may the
legislature pass one organic act for the Cordillera and a different organic act
for Mindanao?
MR. OPLE: Madam President, Section 16 says that the legislature will pass the
organic acts for the autonomous regions of Mindanao and the Cordilleras; by
that, I suppose that there will be separate organic acts.
MR. RODRIGO: Separate?
MR. OPLE: Yes, for the two autonomous regions.
MR. RODRIGO: So, it is possible for the legislature to give more autonomy to
the Cordillera than to Mindanao and vice-versa.
MR. RODRIGO: Let me then pursue this point. May Samar and Leyte later on
also be declared autonomous regions, aside from Ilocos and Bicol? And after
that
may Southern Tagalog be declared an autonomous region also?
MR. NOLLEDO: I did not get the question.
MR. RODRIGO: The Gentleman said that under this provision, Ilocos can be
declared an autonomous region with its organic act enacted by the
legislature; the
Bicol region can be an autonomous region, with its organic act enacted by
the legislature. So, I want to pursue this further.
Let us say that Samar and Leyte want to be an autonomous region. Is it
within the power of the legislature to declare them an autonomous region
and enact
its organic act?
MR. NOLLEDO: It is up to the legislature because the question is somewhat
vague in the latter part.
MR. RODRIGO: Is it within the power?
MR. NOLLEDO: The Gentleman is talking of the organic act and also whether
or not Congress can declare Samar and Layte, whose people are all Warays,
an
autonomous region. Should Congress so decide, why not?
MR. RODRIGO: Yes, the two are inseparable, based on the proposed
provisions that an autonomous region is created by enacting an organic act
for that
purpose.
MR. NOLLEDO: And subject to the holding of the plebiscite.
MR. RODRIGO: All right. How about Central Luzon? May we convert it into an
autonomous region?
MR. NOLLEDO: Why not?
MR. RODRIGO: Southern Tagalog?
MR. NOLLEDO: Why not?
MR. RODRIGO: Central Visayas . . . and each of these will have its own
different organic act.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes. If one will read the Constitutions of Switzerland, Spain
and other countries I mentioned these some few hours ago one will
notice
that these regions were autonomous and granted separate legislatures and
executive departments.
MR. RODRIGO: Are they granted different autonomous powers, such that
some cantons have more autonomous powers than other cantons?
MR. NOLLEDO: Generally, they have the same powers.
MR. RODRIGO: That is it. Why should we not also make it uniform in the
Philippines, if we are going to have a semifederal system of government?
Why should
we favor one region, giving it more autonomy than another region?
MR. NOLLEDO: That is why we are giving much leeway to Congress to
determine in which provisions there must be uniformity, taking into account
certain
factors, like economic factors, ethnic characteristics and other idiosyncrasies
of people living in different regions.
MR. RODRIGO: So, there might come a time when half of the Philippines is
composed of autonomous regions and the other half not autonomous.
MR. NOLLEDO: It is possible, Madam President, and I dream for complete
autonomy to different regions in the country.
MR. RODRIGO: So, we will have a country which is half semifederal and halfunitary, is that it?
MR. NOLLEDO: Because of the provision that before an autonomous region
may exercise its powers there should be a charter to be enacted by the
Congress, it
is up for Congress to create such an alleged anomalous situation. If Congress
so decides that only one-half of the country should be regionalized in the
meantime, then I think there is no constitutional inhibition to do so. We
should consider the fact that there is a need for a plebiscite and there is also
a need for a charter or an organic act to be passed by Congress. Those
factors indicate that possibility, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: Yes, half semifederal and half-unitary, depending on Congress.
MR. NOLLEDO: In that case, I think the tendency on the part of the other
regions, if other autonomous regions have succeeded in their autonomy,
would be
apply for their respective charters.
MR. RODRIGO: If we want to make our country semifederal, why not make it
obligatory for the whole country to be divided into autonomous regions so
that we
will have uniformity? In that way, there will be no favoritism and we will not
be fragmented.
MR. NOLLEDO: If the Constitutional Commission decides, I will be the
happiest man on earth. (Laughter)
MR. RODRIGO: I am asking the Gentleman those questions to underscore the
defects in their proposal.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, I take this opportunity to mention some
things that are happening in the unitary system. Please permit me, if the
Gentleman
does not mind.
MR. RODRIGO: I am through with my questions because there are others who
want to interpellate.
MR. BENNAGEN: Madam President.
MR. NOLLEDO: In the meantime, as a continuing answer to the Gentlemans
questions . . .
MR. RODRIGO: I will listen.
MR. NOLLEDO: I talked to several governors and city mayors. They told me,
Mr. Nolledo, you know, when we go to the national government, we cannot
find the
Minister of Local Governments. Whether he is hiding or not, we do not know.
We go to Malacaang; we do not find the President. The President is away or
they talk to us and we tell them our local problems. They listen to us with
sympathy but it seems that there are no solutions to our problems. We
invoke
certain implementing statutes; they tell us to wait. So, what happens is that
we go back to our provinces and cities completely disgruntled and we
entertain ill-feeling against the national government. We become helpless;
we do not know what to do.
MR. RODRIGO: I would like to state that I am in favor of local autonomy. But if
we will have local autonomy, let it be uniform all over the Philippines.
MR. DAVIDE: It could also be possible that a region which may be constituted
under this is only a portion of any of the 13 regions.
MR. NOLLEDO: It is possible.
MR. DAVIDE: Since it could be possible that a region which was contemplated
here may be a portion of any of the existing region, it could only be a
province.
MR. NOLLEDO: That is a possibility.
MR. DAVIDE: In short, Cebu can apply as an autonomous region.
MR. NOLLEDO: The Gentleman will notice that the provisions state: The
legislature shall create autonomous regions consisting of provinces and cities
with
common historical . . . It will be noticed also that in the statutory
construction, the plural includes the singular and/or vice-versa. So I would
consider that there is a possibility.
MR. DAVIDE: That is the possibility. There is also a rule in statutory
construction that the plural can include the singular.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, I agree.
MR. DAVIDE: So, under this proposal, Negros can also apply as a distinct
autonomous region.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, Madam President.
MR. DAVIDE: Any province can apply, as a matter of fact.
MR. NOLLEDO: In fact, I heard from many economists that they would like
each province to be considered an autonomous region. In our Committee, we
received
several letters to that effect.
MR. DAVIDE: As matter of fact, any of the islands belonging to a subprovince
in Leyte, like the island of Maripeti, which is a subprovince of Biliran, can
also apply as an autonomous region?
MR. NOLLEDO: Before I answer that, it will be noticed that in Switzerland we
also have the cantons which are very small, and within the canton there is
economic progress. We also have the so-called semi-canton in answer to the
question of Commissioner Rodrigo. So, there are so many ramifications
involved
in an autonomous government.
MR. DAVIDE: In other words, under the proposal semiautonomous regions
may be created.
MR. NOLLEDO: That seems to be discretionary with Congress.
MR. DAVIDE: But Congress is not prohibited?
MR. NOLLEDO: I do not think so.
MR. DAVIDE: It is not. In other words, Congress can expand the territorial and
political subdivisions as provided for in the Constitution.
MR. NOLLEDO: Subject to the plebiscite as required by the provisions of
Section 3 of Committee Report No. 21.
MR. DAVIDE: So, is it the position of the Gentleman that an ordinary law can
be enacted by Congress, establishing other forms of political and territorial
subdivisions like a semiautonomous region?
MR. NOLLEDO: That is a possibility.
MR. DAVIDE: By ordinary legislations?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, by ordinary legislation and in answer to the question of
Commissioner Bernas, a charter is an ordinary legislation by Congress.
MR. DAVIDE: Correct. Is it the position of the Committee that an ordinary
legislation can establish a new political unit not included in the definition of
political and territorial subdivisions in a Constitution?
MR. NOLLEDO: When we enumerated the provinces, cities, municipalities,
barrios and autonomous regions as the territorial and political subdivisions of
the
Republic of the Philippines, we took into account the present existing local
government units and the formation of future autonomous regions. The
provisions do not prevent Congress in creating other political units.
MR DAVIDE: What is added are only the words autonomous region. But I
doubt very much if this possibility can be carried out by ordinary legislation
without amending the Constitution.
Anyway, I will go to another point. Under the proposal, there are many
organic acts as there are regions aspiring for autonomy.
MR. DAVIDE: Under this particular proposal, when will an autonomous region
begin to have a distinct juridical personality?
MR. NOLLEDO: To my mind, juridical personality will begin when all the
conditions required by the Constitution are complied with; namely, when
there is an
organic act and when majority of the voters in the region have opted to
operate under the autonomous government.
MR. DAVIDE: Since this is an organic act, it may also be subject to the
principles of initiative and referendum as provided for in the Article on the
Legislative and, therefore, the law may be rejected or disapproved through a
referendum all over the country. A referendum and initiative operate all over
the country because we require a certain percentage of the total number of
voters at any given time from all over the country. So, an organic act
creating
an autonomous region for a certain particular area may be rejected by the
votes of all the people of the Philippines by way of a referendum.
MR. NOLLEDO: I thank the Gentleman for asking that question because, as
far as I am concerned, there should be an amendment, if necessary, to make
the
creation of an autonomous region an exception to that rule. We did not
foresee that situation. We are grateful to the Gentleman for calling our
attention
to it.
MR. DAVIDE: And similarly it can be amended also through initiative by a
vote of a certain percentage of the qualified electors all over the Philippines.
MR. NOLLEDO: That would be the inevitable conclusion, if we consider the
charter or the organic act as mere legislation.
MR. DAVIDE: But is it really an ordinary legislation?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes.
MR. DAVIDE: It is not really a part or a supplement of the Constitution which
can be repealed or superseded by an amendment. But even granting that it
is a
part of the Constitution, rather it is supplementary and could only be
repealed or modified by an amendment, the initiative under the Article on
Amendments
can also repeal the same.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes.
autonomy, can that particular area now be compelled to join the autonomous
region? A specific example is Central Visayas.
MR. NOLLEDO: I know that because we considered that possibility. It seems
to me that presents a complication, but as far as we are concerned, we
believe
that we decide on whether or not the plebiscite is in favor of the creation of
an autonomous region by taking into account the entire voting within the
region.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, but that would be imposing the will of others on the will of
the people in a particular component unit. In this specific example, there is
a move to establish an autonomous region in Central Visayas, composed
merely of four provinces Siquijor, Negros Oriental, Bohol and Cebu. But
almost
one-half of the total voting population of the entire region comes from Cebu
and Cebu rejects the proposal or it does not want to join. Would the
Gentleman
now consider Cebu, bound by the entire votes of the other provinces, and
compel Cebu to become a member of that autonomous region?
MR. NOLLEDO: That is a very good questions Madam President, but I will tell
the Gentleman my own opinion without binding the Committee. Because of
the
democratic process of being bound by the majority, then Cebu must comply.
However, Congress itself may lay down certain conditions that if any
province or
any unit so decides not to join the autonomous region, that decision should
be respected. It is possible that Congress may lay down the condition in the
organic act.
MR. DAVIDE: Thank you for that information because at the appropriate time,
there is a need for n amendment in that respect.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you.
MR. DAVIDE: We will go to the regular local governmental units. Upon the
effectivity of this Constitution, the existing Local Government Code shall
govern
the local government units because, under the proposal, there is no mandate
to Congress to enact a local government code. So, necessarily, the existing
Local Government Code shall continue to govern all these local government
units, except the autonomous region.
MR. NOLLEDO: Except if inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution
that we may approve.
MR. DAVIDE: When the Gentleman says except when inconsistent, would it
mean, therefore, that there is a need to amend the Local Government Code
to a
certain extent?
MR. NOLLEDO: I think it is not necessary. Any provision of the Local
Government Code that is inconsistent with the newly approved or ratified
Constitution
should necessarily be revoked.
MR. DAVIDE: What about the initiative as presently provided for in the Local
Government Code?
MR. NOLLEDO: I ask the Gentleman in return, is that inconsistent with the
provisions on initiative of the legislative department?
MR. DAVIDE: I am asking the Committee about this.
MR. NOLLEDO: Because if there is no inconsistency, then the initiative may
continue.
MR. DAVIDE. So, we will leave it to the Supreme Court to determine?
MR. NOLLEDO: Should there be a controversy.
MR. DAVIDE: What about on referendum?
MR. NOLLEDO: The same answer holds true, Madam President.
MR. DAVIDE: Recall?
MR. NOLLEDO: We did not have any provision on recall because in the 1973
Constitution that provision was authorized to be included in the Local
Government
Code. But I understand that there are some Commissioners who would like to
present amendments substantially the same as the provision of the 1973
Constitution, mandating Congress to enact a new local government code.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes. Otherwise, the provision on recall may no longer be
available even if it is already provided for in the Local Government Code.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, based on our report but we are expecting an amendment
to reinstate the principle of recall.
MR. DAVIDE: Another point is this Metropolitan Manila Commission of the
metropolitan government. I understand that the position of the Committee is
that
the creation of this government is unconstitutional.
MR. NOLLEDO: That is my personal opinion. I cannot bind the Committee.
MR. DAVIDE: What is the stand of the Committee so we could be guided
accordingly in the presentation of amendments or in voting on this particular
proposal?
MR. NOLLEDO: As far as the members of the Committee are concerned, it is
not necessary to make a stand because we did not adopt the provisions on
metropolitan government anyway.
MR. DAVIDE: By not adopting a provision on metropolitan government, it
would necessarily follow that once approved, this proposal would, in effect,
put an
end or abolish the existing metropolitan government?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, that would be the necessary effect.
MR. DAVIDE: The necessary further effect would be that municipalities which
were included under the Metropolitan Manila Commission would then be
considered
returned to their mother units?
MR. NOLLEDO: That is also my personal opinion. But the Commissioner
knows that the mayors of Metro Manila came to see both of us and they are
in favor o
maintaining the geopolitical unit, which opinion I share with. Their existence
can still be justified by Section 5 of our committee report which provides
that local government units may group themselves, consolidate or
coordinate their efforts, services and resources for purposes commonly
beneficial to them.
And I would like the Constitutional Commission to know that the mayors of
Metropolitan Manila are in favor of dismantling the Metro Manila Commission
but
that they would like to set up a coordinating agency in lieu of the Metro
Manila Commission under this Section 5 of Committee Report No. 21.
MR. DAVIDE: Under that particular section that the Commissioner has cited,
allowing local governmental units to group together in pursuit of common
objectives for their mutual benefit, would it require a plebiscite? Or is it only
the act of the executives of these local government units?
MR. NOLLEDO: That is a very good question. I do not think it requires a
plebiscite.
respect to
taxes to enable the local governments or the regions to maintain a selfreliant social service program.
MS. QUESADA: So that would be in the area of determining the priority or the
program thrust in the autonomous region or even in the local government.
However, I am thinking of certain standards of that expectation and
regulations like if the country aims to reduce the level of communicable
diseases,
would the local governments be able to respond to that national mandate for
improving the level of health?
MR. NOLLEDO: To my mind, the national mandate set forth in the
Constitution should be considered binding. So the provisions on health as we
have already
approved should bind the regional and other local governments.
MS. QUESADA: So, the Commissioner would amenable to qualifying this
paragraph 7 of Section to correspond to what he has placed here which says:
Protection
of the environment in accordance with standards and regulations of the
national government?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes.
MS. QUESADA: Then the third point I would like to reinforce is the item
expressed by the Committee, on Section 8 which deals with local taxes and
the
sharing of the proceeds of the exploitation and development of the national
wealth. I would just like to put on record that there was a resolution also
submitted to this Member the Province of Negros Oriental in relation to their
geothermal resources in the area of Palimpion, Municipality of Valencia,
which they felt did not really improve the development of the province,
although they were hosting such resources. So, this is really to add on to
what
Commissioner Ople already mentioned that a host community does not really
profit from such wealth because it becomes part of the national wealth. I
think
the people of Negros have already expressed this concern that local
government should really partake of the wealth and natural resource that
they have in
their place.
These are all the questions I want to raise and I hope that this body will be
able to really iron out these matters and to consider not to eliminate the
concept of autonomy for the people who have so loudly and clearly
expressed this desire to us.
Basically, this is the peoples cry for self determination that we must respect,
not for those who have not yet expressed such will or aspiration but for
those who have already done so like the people of the Cordilleras and the
Bangsa Moro people.
Thank you.
MR. NOLLEDO: Mr. Presiding Officer, I would like to express my thanks to
Commissioner Quesada for her sympathetic understanding. Instead of
showing
indifference, she set forth a wonderful rule, that we should find ways and
means by which we can serve our people well because we, the members of
the
Committee, tried our very best and if any of the Commissioners disagrees
with us, then he can suggest to us amendments and will subject ourselves to
the
will of the majority in Commission. The attitude of Commissioner Quesada
overwhelming and I feel grateful to her. I think that should be the attitude of
every Commissioner. Commissioner Quesada has manifested broadmindedness and generosity, as well as magnanimity.
MR. ROMULO: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I ask Commissioner Suarez be
recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sarmiento): Before Commissioner Suarez
interpellates the members of the Committee, I think Commissioner
Bennagen would like to
say something.
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes. I think we have moved away a great deal from the
rather innocuous provision on regional autonomy to the rather threatening
concept of
federalism. I think when we were discussing this in the Committee, we had in
mind nothing more than the concrete elaboration of the 1973 Constitution,
Section 11 of the General Provisions thereof, which says:
The State shall consider the customs, traditions, beliefs, and interests of
national cultural communities in the formulation and implementation of State
policies.
While sympathetic in its intent to the very concrete concerns of cultural
minorities, this provision was honored more in the breach. As a matter of
fact,
the commentary on this was put in a bronze plate along the Chico River.
What we are saying now is that we trace historically the evolution of these
various
indigenous cultural communities. We begin to find out that since the Spanish
period, these cultural communities have been integrated into the national
mainstream as collectivities in contrast to the effort of the national
government to integrate Filipinos as individuals. Note that since the
Americans got
in, they carried over the distinctions already made by the Spanish
government in terms of Muslims, non-Christians, Christians, Indios, and
Fieles.
This was further elaborated on by the American government and expressed
administratively in the creation of a number of organizations that deal
specifically with these cultural communities as collectivities, not as
individuals so much so that we have had even after political independence
organizations such as the Bureau of Non-Christian Tribes and others which
again separated these groups from the larger Christian lowland population.
In
other words, this has been long in coming. These groups have retained
distinctive characteristics to warrant the proposed amendment expressed
earlier by
Commissioner Villacorta.
The popular definitions of cultural minorities all encompass the fact that they
have been the least westernized. This is a commentary on the degree of
westernization that has taken place amongst the low-land Filipino Christians.
We are saying, therefore, that these groups the people of the Cordillera;
the Bangsa Moro; the Lumad (which is a generic term for the various cultural
communities in Mindanao, as well as the scattered tribes in Mindoro and
Sierra Madre); and the Ati or Negritoes of the Visayas have arrived at a
self-definition which separates them from the overwhelming majority of
lowland Filipino Christians. It is in recognition of this self-assertion of their
peoplehood that we have this regional autonomy provision apart from those
other considerations that have already been discussed such as efficiency,
manageability and all others that could very well apply to local government.
However, regional autonomy specifically responds to these distinctive
features
that have separated them from lowland majorities for so long.
Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sarmiento): The honorable Commissioner from
Pampanga is recognized.
MR. NOLLEDO: That is possible but if I were the Congress I would go far when
I grant the organic act.
MR. SUAREZ: The same is true with respect to the other characteristics, like
historical, cultural, linguistic, ethnic, communal and economic. They could
exist independently of each other; nonetheless, they could serve as the
bases for the creation of an autonomous region. Is that understanding
correct?
MR. NOLLEDO: Commissioner Bennagen would like to answer.
MR. BENNAGEN: In the history of autonomous regions, there are these
substantial characteristics so enumerated, and to distinguish autonomy from
the concept
of a federal state, we in the Committee say that autonomy refers to regions
that really show distinctiveness with respect to culture and ecology.
MR. SUAREZ: So, the Commissioner would say that in a substantial degree,
all of these characteristics must be common in that autonomous region?
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
Under Section 15, the Committee is referring to two proposed autonomous
regions Mindanao and the Cordillera. I heard Commissioner Ople mention
the fact
that the Provinces of Davao, Cotabato and Palawan are not included or may
not be included within the autonomous regions of Mindanao. Is my
understanding in
this regard correct?
MR. ALONTO: Under the Tripoli Agreement those provinces that the
Commissioner mentioned which were originally part of the supposed
autonomous regions to be
established were eliminated by the last regime when it started to put up
these two autonomous regions in Mindanao; namely, Regions IX and XII. But
as far
as this committee report is concerned, these autonomous regions existing
now in Mindanao are considered points of reference only because as we
notice,
Section 16 states that the first legislature under this Constitution shall, within
one year from election of its Members, pass the organic acts for the
autonomous regions of Mindanao and the Cordillera. And in passing the
organic acts by the Congress, this refers back to Section 9. In other words,
this
MR. NOLLEDO: In other words, we do not like to mention any statement that
certain provinces are not included or should be excluded because we would
like to
give Congress a leeway to determine what shall compose a particular
autonomous region.
MR. SUAREZ: So, probably, the correct interpretation is regions in Mindanao
instead of regions of Mindanao.
Is that the meaning sought to be conveyed? so because when we speak of
regions of Mindanao the Cordillera, we are referring only to two regions.
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes, that is correct. Incidentally, we wish to declare that
when the period of amendments comes, we would like to amend Section 9 to
change
provinces and cities, which are existing political categories, into AREAS
AND POPULATIONS so that we will not be delimited by existing concepts of
provinces. We feel that the existing boundaries do not represent cultural and
ecological realities, rather they were responses to some political needs and
administrative requirements. We wish to correct that.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you; and I suppose the rule in the case of Mindanao
would apply also to the case of the Cordillera.
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes.
MR. SUAREZ: We will not have to mention the provinces composing the
probable autonomous region of the Cordillera . . .
MR. BENNAGEN: . . .where it does not reflect the ecological and cultural
realities.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
May we now go to Section 8 referring to proceeds of the exploitation and
development of the national wealth within their respective areas. I take it
that
the word proceeds refers to royalties from the exploitation of the natural
resources in that area.
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes, that would include also special charges and schedule of
fees.
MR. SUAREZ: When we speak of the creation of an autonomous region by
virtue of an organic act that is going to be passed by the legislature, are we
thinking in terms of holding a plebiscite before or after the passage of the
organic act? In other words, in addition to the prior consultations with the
local elective officials, I take it that the people have to be consulted about
the possible establishment of an autonomous region. Will that consultation
be made before or after?
MR. NOLLEDO: Obviously, the consultation should be made before.
MR. SUAREZ: Is it going to take the form of a plebiscite called for the
purpose?
MR. NOLLEDO: That is possible, should Congress so decide. I have answered
a similar question like this before.
MR. SUAREZ: So, before Congress would initiate the legislation which would
amount to the passage of an organic act, there must first be a plebiscite
called
for the purpose and that plebiscite would have to be conducted in that
particular autonomous region. Is that correct?
MR. NOLLEDO: I would recommend that it be so.
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes. I think some exceptions have to be made particularly in
the case of the Cordilleras and the Bangsa Moro because of their historical
particularities. In other words, in practice, they have been having some kind
of self-determination, whatever their governments name is, except that we
now call it regional autonomy, and that they have so expressed this desire in
so many ways. I feel that this proposal is even going beyond the spirit of
consultation and initiative. Over the centuries, they have expressed this
initiative or this assertion of right to self-determination to choose their path
of economic, political and cultural development. They have to be considered
as exemptions; but in the future, I would imagine there will be cases of
application for regional autonomy.
MR. SUAREZ: So, in that particular case of the Cordillera and the Bangsa
Moro, the Commissioner will advance the proposition that there is no need
anymore
to call a plebiscite.
MR. BENNAGEN: That is my view.
MR. SUAREZ: So, Congress can immediately enact those contemplated
organic acts.
MR. BENNAGEN: I would even plead that this Commission should declare
both the Cordillera and Bangsa Moro as autonomous regions.
In the Tripoli Agreement, there is a statement to the effect that the regional
government shall be authorized to establish its own special forces. In order
that we may temper the fear expressed from different quarters on the
setting up of such special forces, we laid down the following conditions: (1)
when
circumstances so warrant; (2) that they must be subject to supervision or
even control by the national armed forces; (3) that they shall be subject to
provisions of law that may be provided by Congress.
And the Commissioner will notice that the last sentence also states: Such
special forces shall be under the command of the President of the
Philippines.
I know that there are many who are objecting to this; so we will entertain
amendments at the proper time.
MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sarmiento): Commissioner de Castro is
recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you.
With due respect to the chairman and members of the Committee, I beg to
disagree with the establishment of special forces knowing fully well that in
the
Committee on General Provisions of which I am a member, the CHDF,
categorized as a paramilitary unit, has been dismantled and the provision
therefor has
been transferred to the Article on Transitory Provisions. The activities of
these special forces have led to many things which have been the subject of
so
many complaints including those from the human rights people, resulting in
the constitutionalization of a human rights organization.
However, under the Article on General Provisions, we have what we call the
citizens armed force which may be organized in accordance with law. These
are
the trainees or the reserve officers in the region who may be called to active
duty and may be given certain allowances, and the law will so provide for
their use in the campaign against insurgency.
Also, when we talk of local police agencies here, the provision in the Article
on General Provisions and this is sponsored by Commissioner Natividad
states that there shall be a national police force which should be supervised
ability to lobby for largesse from above. This unholy alliance perpetuates
the underdevelopment of the countryside on two counts: (1) it destroys selfreliance as it fosters dependence on external funding to develop; and (2) it
does not put a premium on performance and on viability.
In addition, I would like to say that the emergence of peoples organizations,
the increasing political awareness and maturity of the people would be a
strong antidote to the resurgence of warlordism where it originally existed,
and its prevention in areas where no such phenomenon has still taken place.
MR. SUAREZ: So the ultimate resolution of this problem will be whether it
benefits the people or not.
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes.
MR. SUAREZ: I am referring to the possible creation of special forces.
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes. I think we should have that foremost in our minds, that
the provisions for autonomous regions should be directed towards the
benefit of
the people in the autonomous region and, of course, not to mention,
maintaining always the complementarity of the autonomous region with the
national
society.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
MR. PADILLA: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I just make one short statement?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sarmiento): Commissioner Padilla is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: This is on special forces. I heard the distinguished chairman
state that the Tripoli Agreement authorizes the creation or establishment of
special forces. That is not exactly accurate.
The Tripoli Agreement has several items. Among them is the special regional
security forces subject to discussion later on. The Tripoli Agreement does not
provide or stipulate . . .
MR. NOLLEDO: I understand that the conditions under which special forces
may be formed should be subject to discussion. That was made clear to our
Committee by some Muslims who appeared before us.
MR. PADILLA: Yes, because when I wrote an article on the Tripoli Agreement
of 1976 I had occasion to read and analyze it. There are many provisions
therein
subject to discussion later on. Among them is the right to set up schools.
Also, the Muslims shall have their own administrative system, financial and
economic system, special regional security forces, and others under Section
14. But these are not so stipulated. They are only to be discussed or
considered later.
Thank you.
MR. NOLLEDO: I thank Commissioner Padilla for the enlightenment, because
we were made to understand that the principle was approved but the
conditions were
subject to discussion.
MR. ABUBAKAR: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sarmiento): Commissioner Abubakar is
recognized
MR. ABUBAKAR: There is an apprehension in connection with this
organization of special local forces. The Committee, probably, saw the need
as it applies to
a particular situation. In many provinces, we have the Philippine
Constabulary-INP, but its police force is drawn from outside the province.
Therefore,
while members are there to maintain peace and order, they are not able to
appreciate the local reaction the temperament or the attitudes of the
people.
This could only promote misunderstanding between those who are there to
maintain peace and order and the citizens who are supposed to be protected
by them.
That is why in many places, in case this situation arises, many local or
provincial officials would ask the national government if they can organize in
their own particular province or municipality a force that would understand
the situation there and the people who might be in opposition. This action
will
enable the people to reach an understanding with this special force so as not
to create a situation of actual military clashes. This is in the interest of
the people. We refer to a special force that is not to be used for a special
purpose but one who understands the people because its members are from
the
same place and they know very well the situation.
MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer; I will yield to the others after
this.
MR. NOLLEDO: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I have the floor because this is very
material.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sarmiento): Commissioner Nolledo is
recognized.
MR. NOLLEDO: With the kind indulgence of Commissioner Suarez, I have
found the Tripoli Agreement provision which states:
Special, regional security forces are to be set up in the area of the autonomy
for the Muslims in the South of the Philippines. The relationship between
these forces and the central security forces shall be fixed later
That is the provision of the Tripoli Agreement as presented to us by the
Bangsa Moro for the Philippine Constitution of 1986.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you for the clarification.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. SUAREZ: May I go to my last question. Under Section 16, there are
certain periods stipulated within which the first legislature is under obligation
to
pass the organic acts for the autonomous regions in Mindanao and the
Cordillera. Do I take it that per the explanation of Commissioner Bennagen
there is no
need for a plebiscite before or after the promulgation of the organic acts
insofar as the autonomous regions of Mindanao and Cordillera are
concerned?
MR. BENNAGEN: May I answer that?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes.
MR. BENNAGEN: There is a need for a plebiscite within the region to approve
the charter. What I was saying earlier is that we would like to state
explicitly in the Constitution that the Cordillera region, minus the details of
its definition and its charter, and the Bangsa Moro, minus its territorial
boundaries and all that, should be considered autonomous regions, without
saying that the charter of the organic acts will not be submitted to a
plebiscite
or a referendum. This will have to be approved by the people themselves.
MR. SUAREZ: Will there be no need to call a plebiscite for those regions or
political units which may be affected by the establishment of these
autonomous
regions?
MR. BENNAGEN: For the specification of the region?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes.
MR. BENNAGEN: There will be a need, but the concept should be there. That
is why we are saying in Section 9, all areas and populations that have
distinctive, et cetera.
MR. SUAREZ: In the case of Mindanao, if we are going to exclude the three
provinces mentioned by Commissioner Ople, are we not going to consult the
people
therein by way of a plebiscite?
MR. BENNAGEN: In the process of defining the boundaries?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes.
MR. BENNAGEN: There will be a consultation.
MR. SUAREZ: And these consultations will take the form of a plebiscite?
MR. BENNAGEN: Whatever is appropriate.
MR. SUAREZ: Would this be before or after the promulgation of the organic
act?
MR. BENNAGEN: In the process it should be before, and there is that terminal
act, which would then make the region acquire its juridical personality.
MR. SUAREZ: Suppose the three provinces would object, but the rest of the
Mindanao areas would agree, what would be the result of the plebiscite? How
would
it affect the establishment or creation of the autonomous region?
MR. NOLLEDO: An identical question was asked by Commissioner Davide a
few hours ago, and my answer was that, personally, without binding the
Committee, it
should be considered as a whole, but there is an amendment on how to
resolve such problem to be presented later on. As far as I am concerned and
following
the democratic process, the entire region should be bound by the majority
rule.
MR. SUAREZ: That means if the electorate in the three provinces would be
more than the electorate in the autonomous region.
MR. NOLLEDO: Then the organic act cannot be granted because as a whole
the voters from the three provinces will defeat the need for a majority of all
the
voters within the region.
MR. SUAREZ: Is that the official position of the Committee?
MR. NOLLEDO: That is my interpretation now, but I understand that there will
be an amendment to be presented later on.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sarmiento): The Acting Floor Leader is
recognized.
ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION
MR. ROMULO: Mr. Presiding Officer, in view of the time and the fact that we
still have many registered interpellators, may I move to adjourn until
tomorrow
at nine-thirty in the morning.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sarmiento): Is there any objection? (Silence)
The Chair hears none; the session is adjourn until tomorrow at nine-thirty in
the
morning.
It was 6:23 p.m.
R.C.C. NO. 54
Tuesday, August 12, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
At 9:44 a.m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia Muoz Palma, called the
session to order.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is called to order.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please rise to sing the National Anthem.
Everybody rose to sing the National Anthem.
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please remain standing for the Prayer to be
led by the Honorable Ahmad Domocao Alonto.
Everybody remained standing for the Prayer.
PRAYER
MR. ALONTO: Wa qaala Rabbukum ud-uuniii astajib lakum. And your Lord
hath said: Call to Me that I may answer your call . . .
Bismillaahir-Rahmaanir-Rahilim. In the name of Allah, Most Benevolent and
Most Merciful.
We begin in Thy Holy Name, O God, to firm our hope for Thy Eternal Grace.
Al-Hamdu Lillaahi Rabbil-halamin; All Praise be to Allah, Lord of all the
Worlds;
Verily none is worthy of praise save Thou, O God, as Thou, and only Thou, is
the Creator, Protector, Preserver and Sustainer of the Universe.
Ar-Rahmaanin-Rahiim; Most Beneficent, Ever-Merciful;
Thy ever-watchful and inexhaustible grace, O God, is what we need most to
guide us in this period of crises and revolution, of restlessness and anguish,
of
anxiety and frustrations, to light our way amidst our nascent but sincere
effort of nation-building.
Maaliki Yawmid-Diin! King of the Day of Judgment;
We, who are Thy obedient servants in this tiny corner of Thy Universe, O
God, are fully aware and do firmly believe that one day everyone will have to
render account of all his acts to Thee.
Iyyaaka na-budu wa iyyaaka nasta-iin. You alone we worship; and to You
alone we turn for help.
We affirm that none is worthy of worship and devotion, submission and
obedience, and subjection and servitude, except Thou, O God, and we affirm
that we
are Thy worshippers, Thy subjects and Thy slaves; keeping these relations
with Thee and Thee alone; and so we ask Thy help as Thou art the Lord of
the
whole Universe and Thou hast all powers and Thou art the Master of
everything; and verily, only Thee can give us help for the fulfillment of our
cry for
justice, freedom and democracy.
Ihdinas-Siroatal Mustaqiim Guide us to the straight path,
We confess, O God, that events in this country in the past few years have
confused our vision and made us lose sight of the right way the way that
can
lead us aright in every walk of life and can keep us free from errors and evil
consequences and bring success in the end, so Thine Will be done.
Siraatal-laziina an-amta alay-him The path of those whom Thou hast
favoured;
We affirm our commitment, O God, to the ways of those excellent exemplars
of human behavior who have not deviated a jot away from Thy blessed way
throughout the whole course of human history the Anbiyya or the
Prophets, the Siddiqin or the Faithful, the Shuhada or the Martyrs, and the
Salihin or
the Righteous
Gayril-magzuubi alay-him wa laz-zaaalliiin. Not (the path) of those who
earn Thine anger nor of those who go astray.
Rabbanaa las tuzig quluubanaa ba-da iz hadaytanaa wa hablanaa
milladuka rahmattan innaka Antal-Wahhaab.
Our Lord! Cause not our hearts to stray after Thou hast guided us, and
bestow upon us mercy from Thy Presence. Lo! Thou, only Thou, art the
Bestower!
Our Lord! We pray for Thy guidance in framing the fundamental law of the
land and grant that by it, we can establish Ummattun yaduuna ilal khayr wa
ya
muruuna bil maruuf wa yanhauna anil Munkar. . . a nation that invites to
goodness, enjoins what is right and forbids what is evil. AMEEN. YA
RABBALALA-MIIN.
ROLL CALL
Present *
Natividad
Present *
Alonto
Present
Nieva
Absent
Aquino
Present *
Nolledo
Present *
Azcuna
Present *
Ople
Present
Bacani
Present
Padilla
Present
Bengzon
Present *
Quesada
Present
Bennagen
Present
Rama
Present
Bernas
Present
Regalado
Absent
Rosario Braid
Present
Reyes de los
Present
Brocka
Present
Rigos
Present
Calderon
Present
Rodrigo
Present
Castro de
Present
Romulo
Present
Colayco
Present
Rosales
Present
Concepcion
Present
Sarmiento
Present *
Davide
Present
Suarez
Present
Foz
Present
Sumulong
Present
Garcia
Present *
Tadeo
Present
Gascon
Present
Tan
Present
Guingona
Absent
Tingson
Present
Jamir
Present
Treas
Present
Laurel
Present *
Uka
Present
Lerum
Present
Villacorta
Present
Maambong
Present
Villegas
Present
Monsod
Present
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection that we dispense with the reading of
the Journal of the previous session? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion
is approved.
APPROVAL OF JOURNAL
MR. CALDERON: Madam President, I move that we approve the Journal of
yesterdays session.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
MR. CALDERON. Madam President, I move that we proceed to the Reference
of Business.
THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
The Secretary-General will read the Reference of Business.
REFERENCE OF BUSINESS
The Secretary-General read the following Proposed Resolution on First
Reading, Petition and Communications, the President making the
corresponding
references:
PROPOSED RESOLUTION ON FIRST READING
Proposed Resolution No. 538, entitled:
RESOLUTION FOR THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION TO CONGRATULATE
SENATOR TAADA.
Introduced by Hon. Villacorta, Muoz Palma, Bernas, Tan, Abubakar, Alonto,
Aquino, Azcuna, Bacani Bengzon, Jr., Bennagen, Rosario Braid, Brocka
Calderon,
de Castro, Colayco, Concepcion, Davide, Jr., Foz, Garcia, Gascon, Guingona,
Jamir Laurel, Jr., Lerum, Maambong, Monsod, Natividad Nieva, Nolledo, Ople,
Padilla, Quesada, Rama Regalado, de los Reyes, Jr., Rigos, Rodrigo, Romulo,
Rosales, Sarmiento, Suarez, Sumulong Tadeo, Tingson, Treas, Uka and
Villegas.
To the Steering Committee.
PETITION
Petition of the Honorable Commissioners Decoroso R Rosales, Jose D.
Calderon, Teodoro C. Bacani, Eulogio R. Lerum, Hilario G. Davide, Jr., Adolfo S.
Azcuna, Teodulo C. Natividad and Jose B. Laurel, Jr., expressing support of the
Petition of the Honorable Commissioners Lugum L. Uka, Napoleon G. Rama,
Florenz D. Regalado, Regalado E. Maambong, Jose N. Nolledo, Ma. Teresa F.
Nieva, Yusup R. Abubakar and Hilario G. Davide, Jr., asking the Committee on
Human Resources to submit to the Constitutional Commission of 1986 a
consolidated committee report.
(Petition No. 2 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Human Resources.
COMMUNICATIONS
Communication from Mr. Dorentino Z. Floresta of the Knights of Columbus,
Council 3722, Olongapo City, saying that if the Filipino people thru its
President, Corazon C. Aquino, decides to extend the US military bases in the
Philippines, he strongly recommends that the compensation given to the
Philippine government by the U.S. government for the use of the bases be
considered rental and the same shall be increased in accordance with the
prevailing rentals paid by the United States to Spain, Korea, Japan, Turkey,
and Germany; that the Labor Code of the Philippines shall be applied to the
labor-management relationship inside the bases; that criminal offenses
committed by American servicemen must be tried by the Philippine courts;
and that
the Philippine government shall have effective control over the bases
including the operation of business establishments.
(Communication No. 524 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of
Principles.
Thirty-seven letters with eleven thousand seventy-nine (11,079) signatories
with their respective addresses, all seeking to include in the Constitution a
provision obliging the State to protect the life of the unborn from the
moment of conception.
(Communication No. 525 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of
Principles.
Letter from Mr. Jaime Z. Bermudez of Agbannawag, Rizal, Nueva Ecija, urging
the Constitutional Commission to include provisions on land reform that
would
enable small landowners to recover their lands from their tenants.
(Communication No. 526 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Social Justice.
Communication from the Council of the Laity of the Philippines, CAP Bldg.,
372 Cabildo Street, Intramuros, Manila, signed by its President, Henrietta
Tambunting de Villa, seeking inclusion in the Constitution the right to life
from conception and the integration of religious instruction into the
primary and secondary educational system.
(Communication No. 527 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Steering Committee.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I move that we continue consideration of Committee Report Nos.
21 and 25 on Proposed Resolution No. 511, the Article on Local Governments.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
The honorable Chairman and members of the Committee on Local
Governments are requested to occupy the front table.
MR. VILLACORTA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Villacorta is recognized.
MR. VILLACORTA: In the Reference of Business, there was a petition
submitted by the honorable Commissioner Decoroso Rosales, et al,
requesting the
Committee on Human Resources to submit to the Constitutional Commission
a consolidated committee report. This puzzles the members of the Human
Resources
Committee because we had already a long time ago submitted a
consolidated report. This gives a wrong impression to the public about the
efficiency of our
Committee. We do not fully understand the intention of this petition.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended for a few minutes to check with
the Secretariat.
It was 9:58 a.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 10:13 a.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Villacorta be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Villacorta is recognized.
MR. VILLACORTA: Madam President, given the stature of our Commission, I
shall try to be as restrained and as respectful as possible. But I would like to
be
just and fair to the members of our Committee on Human Resources who
worked very hard in coming out with a report, which we submitted to the
Commission as
scheduled last July 15, 1986.
Because of the aggressive efforts of one lobbyist, Don Miguel Cuenco, some
Commissioners signed two petitions which came as a surprise to us because
we
feel that after a committee has submitted its report, whatever additional
recommendations Members of the Commission as well as lobbyists may have
should be
presented on the floor. Nonetheless, because we feel that we should be
courteous to our colleagues in the Commission, we responded immediately
to the first
petition of some Members of the Commission.
This first petition basically requested that the teaching of Philippine
geography and folk songs as well as making Spanish an official language be
incorporated in the Constitution. We patiently listened last week in this
meeting we had with Don Miguel Cuenco which I had to adjourn prematurely
because
there was endless talk from this resource person who was not even a
Member of the Constitutional Commission. We are now confronted with a
second petition
asking the Committee on Human Resources to submit to the Constitutional
Commission of 1986 a consolidated committee report. This further puzzles
us. As we
read this petition which was signed by Commissioners Rosales, Calderon,
Bacani, Lerum, Davide, Azcuna, Natividad and Laurel, there is a statement
here that
with the exception of the Honorable Wilfrido Villacorta, Chairman of the
Committee who is Dean of the College of Liberal Arts of De La Salle
University
and the Honorable Serafin V. C. Guingona, Chancellor of Araneta University,
to our knowledge there is no educator in the Committee. Actually, there are
competent educators among the supporters of making English, Spanish and
Filipino continue as the official languages of our country.
This is a very erroneous and unjust statement because aside from
Commissioner Guingona and myself, there are six other educators in the
Committee, namely:
Commissioner Quesada who has been teaching for 16 years; Commissioner
Rosario Braid, for 30 years; Commissioner Bennagen, for 17 years;
Commissioner Uka,
for 30 years; Commissioner Treas, Dean of the College of Law Iloilo
University; and Commissioner Rigos.
I would like to give our fellow Commissioners who signed the petition the
benefit of the doubt. But this is just my plea to our colleagues in the
Commission: Let us not allow one lobbyist to create internal dissension in this
Commission. It is an affront to the integrity of this Commission, and we
would like an explanation from our colleagues about the background of this
second petition.
Thank you very much, Madam President.
MR. BROCKA: Madam President, may I be recognized?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Brocka is recognized.
MR. BROCKA: Thank you very much, Madam President.
In addition to what Commissioner Villacorta said, I just want to ask the ones
who signed this petition whether they read what they were signing before
they
signed. I get the feeling that when they signed this, it is in deference to the
old man who happens to be their teacher in Cebu. As Commissioner
Villacorta
said, we gave in to the request of the lobbyist last week and it was short of
being absurd.
Anyway, I just want to bring this up to avoid cases like this in the future. I
would like to question whether the Commissioners who signed this petition
read what they were signing because some of the things that were in this
particular report are just so absurd they make us look like idiots. It says here:
COMPARING THE SECTIONS WHICH THE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
HAS RESOLVED TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION WITH THE
SECTIONS THAT THE AUTHORS OF
RESOLUTION NO. 141 SEEK TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION,
WE RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT THEY ARE NOT CONFLICTING. Therefore,
we, the undersigned
Commissioners, respectfully ask the Committee on Human Resources to
approve the following Articles which we beg leave to discuss one by one.
1. Section 6. The television owned, controlled and/or supervised by the
Government shall accord prime time to Spanish programs.
The Philippine Government shall also have radio broadcasts in Spanish
addressed to Latin America . . .
2. Section 7. For the preservation and propagation of the Spanish language,
the Government shall provide for the teaching of courses on journalism in
Spanish at the University of the Philippines, University of Sto. Tomas, and
University of San Agustin in Iloilo. The Minister of Culture Education and
Sports shall make representations to the Spanish Governments through the
Minister of Foreign Affairs, to open courses on Spanish journalism at the
Centro
Cultural de Espaa in Makati, which is a very good school for the teaching of
Spanish . . .
3. Section 19 of Resolution 451 reads:
A sum of one-half million pesos has to be appropriated for the teaching of
our native songs in the elementary and high school levels . . .
4. Section 13. The President of the Philippines shall create a Board on
Textbooks on Philippine and World Geography to be composed of the Minister
of
Education Culture and Sports, the Director of Coast and Geodetic Survey, the
Director of the Bureau of National Census and a representative of the
Ministry
of Foreign Affairs . . .
there
and he was insisting on other points, I suggested to the Committee and
this is on record that the teaching of geography was already covered by
Section
3 of the committee report which provides that all educational institutions
should instill political consciousness. I felt that if one wants to be
politically conscious, he should know what is around him and that involves
the teaching of geography.
Regarding the teaching of folk songs, I also made it of record that it is, in
fact, covered by Section 29 of the report which provides that the State shall
support and encourage the development of a Filipino national culture.
Regarding the Spanish language, the Committee was very emphatic in telling
Don Miguel Cuenco that the Committee had already decided that the
national
language would not be included in the committee report. So at that moment,
I felt I had done my job. We heard Don Miguel Cuenco and I thought the issue
was
closed. It is unfortunate that a second petition had been filed here, but I do
not think we should begrudge the other Commissioners for it. Probably the
other Commissioners also have a point to share with the Committee in much
the same way that I did which I shared with the Committee and which the
Committee
kindly acceded to.
That is all I wanted to say, Madam President. I do not think there was any
affront on the part of some Members of the Commission in signing this
petition.
Thank you very much.
MS. QUESADA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Quesada is recognized.
MS. QUESADA: I would like to express, in behalf of the Committee, a desire to
delete or scrap out this second petition because it puts the members of the
Committee in a very disparaging light. It is in that particular kind of tone that
we responded or reacted to this early reading of a resolution that has
been officially entered into the Journal. So, I think it is also but fair to react
because we are very reactive human beings and we feel that this kind of
unjust accusation of being incompetent would have to be corrected
immediately.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: There is still a motion pending before us, the motion of
Commissioner Bacani to withdraw this petition on the ground that it seeks to
require the Committee on Human Resources to submit a consolidated report,
which report, according to Commissioner Villacorta, has already been
submitted
since July 12 and this has been verified by the Secretariat.
Therefore, the Chair finds the motion to withdraw in order.
Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is
approved.
CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 511
(Article on Local Governments)
Continuation
PERIOD OF SPONSORSHIP AND DEBATE
MR. RAMA: Madam President, the Committee on Local Governments is now
ready to continue the deliberation of Committee Report Nos. 21 and 25 on
Proposed
Resolution No. 511.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Colayco be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Colayco is recognized.
MR. COLAYCO: Thank you, Madam President. I have a question or two to ask
the Committee. During one of the meetings of this Committee where I was
present, I
remember that a big group of representatives from the Cordillera region was
present. I heard the vehement objection of a group against the position
taken
by the other group for the granting of autonomy to the Cordillera region. This
group impressed me as quite a big one. I suppose that the same can be said
if and when the autonomous region in Mindanao is organized because we
have two groups there: the Muslims and the Christians. Therefore, it is to be
expected that there will be minority groups in each autonomous region.
Under Section 12, we have a list of the areas where the autonomous
government would
have exclusive authority. Among the items mentioned here are communal or
community centers which would be intended for the benefit of the people
living in
the autonomous regions. They would include appointments to the
administrative government; the erection or construction of schools in the
barrios, health
centers and other community improvements.
There is a strong possibility that these minorities may be discriminated
against in the apportionment of the benefits, and the Northern Ireland
experience
shows us that the main problem there is not religion but the treatment of the
Catholic minority in the Northern Irish government. We may have a
mini-Northern Ireland situation here. So, has the Committee any safeguards
in mind that would prevent this situation to take place here?
MR. NOLLEDO: The Gentleman will remember that in our report, it is provided
that even if we establish the autonomous regions through congressional
action
the President of the Philippines shall exercise general supervision over
autonomous regions to insure that laws are faithfully executed; so if there
should
be discrimination on various economic, social and political matters covered
by existing laws, discrimination can be done away with by effective exercise
of
general supervision by the President.
Commissioner Bennagen would like to give further comments on the
question of the Gentleman.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bennagen is recognized.
MR. BENNAGEN: Thank you, Madam President.
Let me comment first on the observation in one of the hearings we had. The
record will bear me out that the group being referred to by Commissioner
Colayco
is not a big group. They were only seven, and in the deliberations, we did
inquire into the distinction between that group and a similar group actually
bearing the same name. The answer was that there are indeed two groups
bearing the same name with different sets of officers; one is headed by an
anthropologist from Bicol that was the group which was present there
and another headed by no less than a Kalinga himself. Recently, we received
a
joint statement of a Kalinga-led organization, which calls itself the KalingaIsneg Self-Rule Self-Determination Movement, and the Cordillera Peoples
Alliance dated August 5, 1986. To lay this issue down to rest, please allow me
to read the joint statement. It states:
The Kalinga-Isneg Self-Rule Self-Determination Movement (KISSM) and the
Cordillera Peoples Alliance (CPA) express our common position of support for
the
establishment of a regional autonomous government in the Cordillera. We
believe that by uniting the Cordillera people into one self-governing region,
our
rights as indigenous people can be protected and recognized.
We dissociate ourselves from Ms. Mariflor Parpan (this is the lady who was in
that meeting who claims to represent KISSM which is the acronym of the
organization). Ms. Parpan is not a true Kalinga and though she claims to hold
our interests at heart, her actions merely serve to undermine interests at
heart, her actions merely serve to undermine the unity we have built up
through the years. Her words are her own and she cannot speak for the
2,000 members
of KISSM.
We further urge all Igorots to rally behind the cause of self-determination for
the indigenous people and, in his or her own way, to contribute towards the
building of a just, free and democratic society in the Cordillera and in the
country.
For the Kalinga-Isneg Self-Rule Self-Determination Movement this was signed
by Mr. Max Garming who is the Chairman and is connected with the College
of
Public Administration of the University of the Philippines; he is from Bangad,
Kalinga. The other signatory was Mr. Candido Basbasen who is
the-Secretary-General of the same organization and also comes from
Kalinga.
For the Cordillera Peoples Alliance, the signatories are: Fr. Patricio Guyguyon
who is the Vice-Chairman of the Cordillera Peoples Alliance; Ms. Joanna
K. Cario who is the Secretary-Treasurer of the Cordillera Peoples Alliance;
and Fr. Eduardo Solang, Secretary-General of the Cordillera Peoples
Alliance.
As to the question of certain seemingly antagonistic relations amongst
members of the Cordillera people across ili, meaning, village, and across
groups, we can look at this as nothing more than quarrels across villages
akin to quarrels that exist even amongst the best of families. It is in the
nature of social relations that there will always be disagreements, that there
will always be some kind of struggle. But given the history of the peoples
of the Cordillera, this can be resolved given their extremely viable customary
very vital one and should really be eliminated from our society meaning,
the
Filipino society to achieve unity of the different sectors of the Filipino
society so that we can progress faster in our nation-building.
So, for purposes of the record, I would like to refer to a document prepared
and submitted to a government conference called by President Marcos in
1976,
which was actually the first document submitted for the purpose of
structuring an autonomous government for the Muslims of Mindanao. This is
a manifesto
which, with your permission, I would like to read and be made part of the
Record of the Constitutional Commission because this is the one that started
the
idea of organizing autonomous regions in this country in order to solve the
problem of disunity among the different sectors of the society. * This is a
manifesto presented before the Muslim Conference on Government Policies
and Programs for Muslim Mindanao, called by President Ferdinand E. Marcos
and was
held on June 4-6, 1974, more than ten years ago. This is an organization of
Muslims, whose membership throughout the country was over 500,000 at
that time.
The Manifesto states that the Ansar El Islam, a movement of Muslims:
(1) AGREES to the holding of this Conference as it affords the Movement a
chance to declare its stand, along with those of the other sectors of the
Muslim
communities.
(2) STATES that since its founding five years ago, the Movement has been
concerned with the search for a solution to the cancerous problems facing
our
country; and
(3) DECLARES that the only workable solution to the national crisis in relation
with the Muslim communities, short of complete independence for them, is
the granting to them of a complete local autonomy, the following basic
features, among others, to be guaranteed:
a. A defined and guaranteed territorial jurisdiction, and
b. A legislative power to adopt local laws based on the Holy Quran and the
Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him).
This has been signed by over 20,000 members of the Ansar El Islam.
MR. ALONTO: It is the fear of many that if we have this autonomous region
for the Muslims in Mindanao, the majority community in that region will
discriminate against the minority who happens to be in the region who in this
case are the Christians. But I think this Constitutional Commission had
already approved several provisions in the Constitution which are a
prevention to any discrimination by any sector of the society.
Aside from that, the report on local governments has a guarantee on no
discrimination against anyone, whether in any city, province, barrio or region
having autonomy.
For the information of the body, one would expect the least Muslim to
discriminate against his co-being within the area which he occupies because,
according to Islam, the basic idea of an autonomy or the value or principle
that God wants us to practice in our life is stated in the Quran which runs
like this: La-Kum dinna kum walya Dinn. This means the way you want to
live life should be completely within your right, but also give me my way.
THE PRESIDENT: Is Commissioner Colayco already satisfied with the answer?
MR. COLAYCO: Yes, Madam President.
MR. BENNAGEN: Madam President.
MR. ALONTO: With the permission of the Chair, and this means live and let
live, if you discriminate against anyone of your community, that is a violation
of the law of God as far as the Muslim is concerned.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Nolledo is recognized.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, I give way Commissioner Bennagen.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bennagen is recognized.
MR. BENNAGEN: The issue is of utmost importance to me and I would like to
add a few comments.
We share the apprehension of Commissioner Colayco. I think these
apprehensions anticipate two possibilities: (1) a kind of inversion of the
existing
dominant-dominated relationship; and (2) the possibility of the explosion of
internal antagonisms within Cordillera society and within Bangsa Moro.
I think these are legitimate concerns because history tells us that these are
indeed concrete possibilities. But it is good that this is discussed because
in due time, we will be able to accept amendments towards the end of
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Let me state, Madam President and members of the
Committee, that I am supportive of the concept of local autonomy and the
concept of
federalism. We might, however, have to look for another term since,
according to political scientists, we can never really use the concept of
federalism to
describe our kind of decentralization unlike Germany, the United States and
Malaysia which started out as independent states. We never did, so we may
have
to seek another terminology.
I support autonomy because we can never attain people power in a pure
form of unitary government. But towards this end, we should agree on a
devolution of
power towards self-management. I would like to see that these concerns are
really linked with the concerns in human resource development, particularly
non-formal education; the broadening of educational resources and media
resources; the movement towards greater political awareness, and towards a
new
political culture because if we must have self-management, we should move
away from the present authoritarian culture.
I, therefore, hope that the Committee support the need for this horizontal
and vertical mechanisms which will develop political awareness. We,
therefore,
need more two-way communication between the center and the region. We
regret to say, however, that in the inventory of communication and
educational
resources, we find that they are very heavily centralized. Those that are
decentralized are not tailored to the needs of the region. Many of the existing
mass media in the region are either relay, replay stations and carry news
that are produced in big cities like Manila and Cebu. A priority prerequisite
would be to restructure these information infrastructures as they are
important resources to utilize when we would like to see a devolution of
power.
We are aware that even in rural telecommunications, which are essential
necessary infrastructures, we have very poor systems. In San Carlos, Negros
del
Norte, we have to call Cebu to be able to be connected to Dumaguete which
is just two hours away by land travel. This is the state all over the country. If
we have to work towards more autonomy, I think we should not forget to
emphasize the need for these social services which are often left out.
Looking at the checklist of the areas to be attended to in the attainment of
regional autonomy, non-formal education and information structures are
often
left out.
Lastly, I would like to ask the Committee what they would consider as
prerequisites in the reorganization of political areas into ecological provinces.
This means nullifying the old provincial divisions which were mainly based on
the gerrymandering policies of the old elite and restructuring political
divisions based on ecology and culture and managed according to what we
call the physical or biological environment.
Thank you very much.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, incidentally, Commissioner Rosario Braid is
an author of a resolution advocating autonomy of local governments, and I
fully
support her desire to increase social services in line with the statement of
Commissioner Rama yesterday that regional economy is a must for economic
development.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Azcuna be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Azcuna is recognized.
MR. AZCUNA: Thank you, Madam President.
I would like to ask some clarifications from the Committee. First of all, I would
like to congratulate the Committee for a very splendid committee report
which I really support. I just would like to ask some clarifications.
MR. NOLLEDO: I thank Commissioner Azcuna, a distinguished son of
Mindanao.
MR. AZCUNA: Thank you.
With respect to local governments, I believe that the local government units
are those mentioned in Section 1 of the Article; is that correct?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, Madam President.
MR. AZCUNA: And the President of the Philippines is given general
supervision over all those local government units?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, that is correct.
MR. AZCUNA: Including the autonomous regions.
MR. AZCUNA: With respect to this provision on the definition of the territorial
jurisdiction of the autonomous regions of Mindanao and the Cordilleras
mentioned in Section 16 to be done in not more than six months after the
organization thereof, does that mean that the autonomous regions will be
organized
first and then their territorial jurisdiction defined later, or is that with
reference to Congress?
MR. NOLLEDO: I would like Commissioner Alonto to answer that question,
considering that he is the author of this provision.
MR. AZCUNA: Thank you.
MR. ALONTO: Thank you.
In Section 10, there is a period of consultation between Congress and the
elective officials of the provinces and cities within the region; meaning, one
of
the implications of this is that those within the region who do not desire to be
included within the region in this consultation, be excluded from the
autonomous region. To give a specific example, Zamboanga del Norte from
which this distinguished Commissioner comes from is included as of now in
Region
IX. Majority of the people of Zamboanga del Norte are Christians. As a matter
of fact, the socioeconomic leadership is hands of the Christians.
There is a possibility that people in this area, majority of whom will turn out
to be Muslims, would not like to join the autonomous region. So, in that
consultation, it could be excluded from the area that is to be determined by
Congress because, in accordance with Section 10 of the report, even the
area
is to be determined by Congress. The area to be determined by Congress is
to be asked later on, after the organic act is passed by Congress for a
plebiscite, whether they will accept that organic act or not.
Those are steps which will guarantee that any autonomous region could not
exercise discrimination against any of these members or inhabitants of the
region
based on the ideological beliefs. So, I think that has been expressed in
Section 10.
MR AZCUNA: I thank the Commissioner.
One final question. With respect to the powers given to an autonomous
region in Section 12, will these powers be uniform for all autonomous regions
so that
there will at least be some common elements in autonomous regions?
MR. ALONTO: That is correct.
MR. AZCUNA: This is the purpose so as not to have diverse power structures
in autonomous regions while allowing for flexibility in subsection 10 thereof.
For instance, under preservation of customs and traditions, and the cultures
of the indigenous communities of the autonomous regions, suppose one of
their
customs is to prohibit the liberty of abode or of changing-the same and,
therefore, it would conflict with the Bill of Rights, which one would prevail?
Would a member of a tribal community who seeks to change his abode
against a custom compel the courts to allow him to change his abode?
MR. ALONTO: The Bill of Rights is general to all.
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, so it will prevail over customs.
MR. ALONTO: That is a fundamental of law.
MR. AZCUNA: I thank the Gentleman.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Monsod be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: Thank you, Madam President.
Will the Committee yield to a few questions?
MR. NOLLEDO: Gladly.
MR. MONSOD: Yesterday, the Chairman of the Committee enumerated the
advantages of decentralization and the creation of autonomous units and
addressed quite
convincingly the problems attendant to a unitary form of government. I did
not hear the Gentleman mention any disadvantages. Just for the record, are
there
any disadvantages to the creation of an autonomous unit? Would there be
any?
that in his opinion it should be a vote of the entire region. Who determines
the
regional boundaries? Are those the present regional boundaries now in, say,
Regions IX and XII, or are those still to be determined by Congress and to
find
out which?
MR. NOLLEDO: They should be determined by Congress.
MR. MONSOD: So, that is a precondition for Section 16 with respect to the
formulation or the enactment of an organic law.
MR. NOLLEDO: The Gentleman is right.
MR. MONSOD: My question is within that area now of the autonomous region.
There seems to be an implicit assumption and correct me if I am wrong, I
think
Commissioner Alonto already answered it partly this morning that the
government of the region will be for our cultural Muslim brothers in that area.
Suppose under a principle of universal and equal suffrage, the elective office
of the government of the area is won by Christians. This is also possible,
is it not?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, that is possible.
MR. MONSOD: And in that instance, would regions then abide to the
customary law of our Muslim brothers or would the civil laws supposed to
apply side by
side and which would be the predominant customary or civil law in that area?
MR. NOLLEDO: That is a very good question. The personal laws of the
Muslims should particularly apply to them. The Christians will not be bound.
They will
be bound by the new Civil Code. Incidentally, we still have Presidential
Decree No. 1083 ordaining and recognizing a code of personal Muslim laws.
MR. MONSOD: In other words, the principle of universal and equal suffrage
will be applicable within the autonomous area. There will be no reserve seat
system to protect the rights of the cultural minorities. Is that correct?
MR. NOLLEDO: In our report, there is no such kind of system although two or
three Commissioners have told me that they are going to present the
necessary
amendment to see to it that there will be some sort of equal representation
between Christians and Muslims.
authorities
with respect to other government units believing that the provisions of the
Local Government Code may still apply, subject to change by the future
Congress.
On the third aspect, on the lack of authority to appoint, I think that is very
material and corollary to the second question of lack of governing body with
sufficient authority. These things are addressed to the Congress of the
Philippines when they, as we expect, enact a new responsive Local
Government Code.
MR. NATIVIDAD: What is the Committees idea on how the autonomous
regions are supposed to be governed? Will there be a governor? Section 10,
of course,
says that the organic act shall define the basic structure of government but
as a matter of inquiry, what is the plan of the Committee on this?
MR. NOLLEDO: I thank the Gentleman for that question because in the
original UP draft, a regional executive council, contemplating a collegial
body, was
put there but our Committee changed that to a regional executive
department, believing that it would be better that the executive head, as
much as
possible, be alone, perhaps assisted by some sort of ministers. The executive
head of the region will be called a regional governor.
With respect to the legislative assembly, it says here that the regional
executive department will be headed by the regional governor and the
regional
legislative assembly shall be elective and representative of the constituent
political units. We are making this a little bit broader in the sense that we
are giving Congress the discretion to determine the details of the basic
structure of government within the autonomous region.
MR. NATIVIDAD: This regional governor will have a term of office. He will be
elected. Is that right, Madam President?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, Madam President.
MR. NATIVIDAD: As far as the President is concerned, he has the same
supervisory powers over the autonomous region as well as the other local
government
units.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, only supervisory power and not control. Control may
mean changing certain decisions of the autonomous regions or local
government units.
The supervision there, as defined in many cases by the Supreme Court,
refers only to the duty of seeing to it that the laws of the country, including
the
laws of the particular region, should be faithfully executed.
MR. NATIVIDAD: The heads of the local governments have always agitated for
the authority to appoint officials, such as the provincial treasurers, the
district engineers and the provincial health officers. In the concept of the
Article, will the autonomous region have that authority to appoint key
officials?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, Madam President. The Gentleman can present an
amendment to make that emphatic. In our discussion, that was considered. It
will be noticed
that in relation to Section 12 (1), administrative organization, it is the sense
of the Committee that the appointing power, with respect to what the
Gentleman has just said, should be given to the local public officials.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Managementwise and countrywise, would that be good for
the country? This is just for my own satisfaction.
MR. NOLLEDO: In relation to the first part of our report, I would say yes,
Madam President. Of course, that is only persuasive to Congress when they
enact
a local government code because the Gentleman is now asking a question
with respect to local government units other than the autonomous region.
Am I right?
MR. NATIVIDAD: Yes.
MR. NOLLEDO: I fully agree with the Gentleman. I support that idea. And
perhaps, an appropriate amendment will be favorably entertained by the
Committee.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Section 13 says that except in areas of legislation
exclusively belonging to the national government, they will be able to
legislate. There
is an enumeration here of the exceptions, such as national defense, customs,
tariff, post and telecommunications. Does it mean that they can legislate
with
regard to police forces? National defense does not mean the police. This
refers to the military.
MR. NOLLEDO: Before I answer that question, I think Section 13 should be
read in relation to Sections 12 and 15.
MR. NATIVIDAD: In that case, I will not pursue the point. I am sure that
Commissioner Rama will satisfy the Commission. I would like to say here that
I am
glad that the Committee has a very favorable attitude towards a viable
police organization in these areas because I do not believe in very radical
approaches which might exacerbate the disorders rather than make our
peace-keeping chores better.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Bengzon be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: Thank you very much, Madam President.
The Committee has completely left out the municipal and provincial
governments in this Article. What happened to them, Madam President?
MR. NOLLEDO: In what sense, Madam President?
MR. BENGZON: I do not find any provision here with respect to the powers
and, much less, any decentralization of powers to the provincial, cities and
municipalities. Did the Committee not consider that?
MR. NOLLEDO: We did not consider that because we, as I said, opened the
avenue for the formation of autonomous regions all over the country, but we
are
receptive to amendments.
MR. BENGZON: Following the sponsors trend of thoughts, if, for example, in
Region I we apply for autonomy and it was granted, what happens to the
various
provinces and municipalities? Do they remain as separate political units
within the region?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes.
MR. BENGZON: Do they have their own provincial governors and provincial
board within the region?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, although we received a recommendation from many
sectors that the provincial government should be abolished if we should
establish
autonomous regions, but we found that impractical.
MR. BENGZON: I see.
MR. NOLLEDO: And so, we will maintain the provincial government. In fact, in
the government structure, there is a possibility because governors are also
elective officials and the legislative council or legislative department of the
autonomous region may consist of elective officials, like the provincial
governors within the region including the city mayors. Then we will leave
that for Congress to determine.
MR. BENGZON: I also heard yesterday during the interpellation of
Commissioner Rodrigo and others that it is also possible that certain big
provinces can
also apply to become autonomous regions. Do I hear a confirmation from the
sponsor that that is right?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes. That was the question of Commissioner Davide because
we mentioned that the autonomous region consists of provinces and cities,
and we did
not mention municipalities anymore because they are deemed included
within the province. And he asked whether a big province can apply as an
autonomous
region.
MR. BENGZON: Yes.
MR. NOLLEDO: On the assumption that we believe in the statutory
construction that the plural includes the singular, I said yes; that is why he
said that
the report is not clear and perhaps a necessary amendment may be
presented later on.
MR. BENGZON: So, if Ilocos Norte, Ilocos Sur and Abra would petition to
become an autonomous region, that is possible.
MR. NOLLEDO: That is possible.
MR. BENGZON: I see.
MR. NOLLEDO: They are all Ilocanos.
MR. BENGZON: And, therefore, under this Article, they could also have their
own security forces.
MR. NOLLEDO: That is controversial. We put the security forces there under
the command of the President and subject to regulation by the Armed Forces
of
the Philippines should the Commission decide to approve that provision.
MR. BENGZON: And if this happens, there is a great possibility that a
gentleman from Hawaii may come back because he may petition to have
Ilocos Norte,
Ilocos Sur and Abra as an autonomous region and, therefore, cut up Region I,
not including Benguet, maybe, and Mountain Province. That is a possibility, is
it not?
MR. NOLLEDO: There is a possibility, but that possibility is remote because I
think when the gentleman from Hawaii comes over he will be arrested for the
many crimes that he has committed during his incumbency.
MR. BENGZON: That is assuming that those things are all taken care of.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, I consider that possibility. I hope it does not come into
reality.
MR. BENGZON: This Article that we have here does away with the Metro
Manila aggrupation of towns and cities, am I correct? In other words, the
Metro Manila
aggrupation of towns and cities is dissolved.
MR. NOLLEDO: As I said, the existence of Me Manila is sanctioned by
Presidential Decree No. 824, the constitutionality of which was upheld in the
case
Lopez vs. COMELEC and Aralar vs. COMELEC. And so, based on the Article on
Transitory Provisions that all presidential decrees shall exist until repealed or
amended by the forthcoming Congress, then Metro Manila Commission can
exist while P.D. No 824 remains; although I believe that, in my personal
opinion that
P.D. No. 824 is unconstitutional.
In the case of Metro Manila, may I inform the Gentleman that because we did
not adopt the UP draft authorizing the existence of a metropolitan
government,
the Metro Manila government will have no more constitutional basis, in my
opinion, without binding the Committee.
MR. BENGZON: Is it the sense of the Committee then that it is not in favor of
retaining the Metro Manila aggrupation of towns and cities the way it exists
now?
We are saying that we have the cultural basis on which we could elaborate
traditional laws that would respond to new problems. We are not starting
from
scratch.
MR BENGZON: Yes. It does not really answer my question categorically. But I
will leave it at that and, perhaps, we could develop this as we go along in the
period of amendments.
There is another apprehension that I have and I would like to find out
whether or not the Committee shares with me such apprehension and, if it
does, what
can be done about it?
I think we are all aware that there are problems in certain areas, both in
Mindanao and up North. And some groups are labeled as rebels; others, as
bandits
or just mercenaries. And the apprehension I have is that if and when we do
grant autonomy to these various regions that may apply to become
autonomous,
these particular groups or bands of people may just work themselves into a
position where they will become the regional security force for their region.
And I guess, we have read in the newspapers and I myself have received
certain reports about the abuses of these people, not only military abuses
but
abuses of these various bands of people. If we accuse the military of theft,
robbery, rape and acts of lasciviousness, I understand that such acts are also
committed by these various groups of people.
So, this is precisely my apprehension. Is there any way by which we can stop
these groups of people who pretend to cooperate with the government but
who
actually would just police their own groups? Is there any way by which these
things can be checked and stopped?
MR. BENNAGEN: Let me elaborate on my earlier answer to the question of
Commissioner Colayco. Essentially, the thrust of the question is the same. I
said
that having argued for autonomy in the name of peace, let us not have the
illusion that everything will be well. The apprehension applies not only to the
Cordillera, not only to the Bangsa Moro but to the whole of the Philippine
society. We should look at this social conflict as structural and historical
phenomenon and could be understood best in a firmer and a more
comprehensive grasp of the processes that lead to this conflict. Therefore,
we cannot just
think of safeguards be they legal, administrative or whatever, without going
MR. NOLLEDO: Before asking questions, I hope the Vice-President will permit
me to comment on his statement that the Negros case overruled the Lopez
case
because the dissenting opinion in the Lopez case was adopted by the
Supreme Court in that Negros case.
There is a question on the effect of this overruling of the Lopez case upon the
validity of P.D. No. 824. To my mind, the constitutionality of P.D. No. 824
based on the law of the case doctrine in remedial law will still prevail.
Secondly, we will also notice that in that decision, the Supreme Court did not
rely upon the principle of whether or not there was compliance with the
plebiscite requirement. The Supreme Court ruled that in view of the 1984
Amendments
to the 1973 Constitution which defined the different legislative districts in the
Philippines, the Batasang Pambansa, sitting as a constituent assembly,
recognized the Metropolitan Manila area as comprising the National Capital
Region with a constituent composition. So the basis of the decision is not
only
compliance with the requirements on plebiscite. The legal reason was that
the existence of the geopolitical units known as Metro Manila was recognized
by
the people when they ratified the ordinance appended to the Constitution
which ordinance defined the National Capital Region.
Thank you.
MR. PADILLA: The decision, of course, did not mention particularly the Metro
Manila Commission but it said very clearly:
Batas Pambansa Blg. 885 (that is the law creating North Negros) is hereby
declared unconstitutional. The plebiscite of the new Province of Negros del
Norte, as well as the appointment of the officials thereof, is also declared null
and void.
That is the dispositive portion of the decision. Naturally, said decision could
not declare the other P.D. or the other Batas unconstitutional because it
was not the issue, but the body of the decision made reference to the Lopez
decision and followed the rule stated in the opinion of the dissent.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that all?
MR. PADILLA: No, some few questions more, Madam President.
MR. PADILLA: Of course, states or nations have the right to selfdetermination. But I do not believe that portions of a nation, like the
Philippines, would
have that right to self-determination. We may have fragmentation.
MR. NOLLEDO: Before Commissioner Bennagen replies, we know we are
lawyers and we know that self-determination, as used by a well-known,
respected
anthropologist, does not have the meaning in the legal way that we see it.
MR. BENNAGEN: No.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes.
MR. BENNAGEN: If the Commissioner would allow me one whole day, I will
discuss the relationship between the legal concept of self-determination and
its
human right version as it has developed in recent years, but we do not have
the luxury of time. However, I already outlined yesterday the main thrust of
self-determination as applied to indigenous peoples. I discussed it in its
historical context as well as political, economic and cultural content. I
premised that on the framework of national unity as well as within the
framework of the whole history of the struggles of the Bangsa Moro and the
people of
the Cordillera. I even mentioned that historically, the colonial governments
always treated these groups as collectivities, not as individuals, the way
that lowland Christians were treated. This is why we have had several
government agencies and bureaus that addressed themselves singly to
these cultural
minorities or the taxonomic variations through the centuries. They were
treated as non-Christian tribes. They were treated as infieles. Even up to
now,
they are treated as distinctive groups, as collectivities, not as individuals. We
should take the Office of Muslim Affairs and Cultural Communities which
has two bureaus one for Muslim affairs and another for cultural
communities. In other words, even the national government recognizes their
distinctive
characteristics. When we speak of the right of these people to choose their
own path of development, we mean in terms of their right to determine the
political, cultural, and economic content of this developmental path but
within the framework of the territorial integrity of the Philippine Republic. I
think that is what we said the last time
But I can draw the Commissioners attention to an increasing literature
worldwide which treats of this phenomenon in Canada, in the United States,
in
the second part of our report, autonomous regions have authority over the
following: regional, economic, social and cultural development subject, as to
economic development, to policies laid down by the National Economic and
Development Authority.
In other words, certain standards set forth by the national government may
constitute the guidelines to economic, social and cultural development
programs
of regional governments.
MR. PADILLA: When we say regional, we really mean the political units of
barrios, municipalities, cities and provinces. But Section 1 of Committee
Report
No. 21 makes reference to provinces, cities, municipalities, barrios and then
they added and the autonomous regions. But we cannot have an
autonomous
region as yet in accordance with the committee report unless there be: First,
a well-defined territory; and second, a plebiscite by all the people
comprising that supposed region to petition and approve an autonomous
region.
Why are we taking for granted and assuming that we will have all these
autonomous regions? The danger, as already explained by various
Commissioners, is
that we may have too many autonomous regions beginning with the Ilocano
region. And this may impair the unity and solidarity of the nation under one
central government by stressing too much autonomous regions.
We agree to grant autonomy to local governments. The 1935 Constitution
had no provision on local governments while the 1973 Constitution provided
that the
National Assembly shall enact a Local Government Code, and that was
realized through Batas Pambansa Blg. 337. Why do we not just say that
Congress will
strengthen this Local Government Code to grant additional powers within the
concept of local autonomy?
MR. NOLLEDO: I am very sorry but our Committee has decided to set up
autonomous regions. When we defined the political units constituting local
governments, we included autonomous regions as one of them in
anticipation of the fulfillment of the mandate that there should be
autonomous regions in
Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras. I am very sorry, but I beg to disagree
with the Commissioner. That is why we are going to submit this question to
the
body for consideration. I do not believe that there will be disunity if we set up
I think in the case of China, this is more illuminating. It has a unitary state
unlike Malaysia which is federal, but it has vested autonomous status in
Chingkiang and Tibet. And in most ways, Hongkong is the latest of these
autonomous regions when the treaty with the United Kingdom over
Hongkong takes
effect in 1997, under the motto One country, two systems, because China
is communist and Hongkong is capitalist. Both do not disturb the autonomy
of
Hongkong with respect to the choice of an economic and social system until
50 years from 1997, in accordance with that treaty itself.
In the case of Spain, there is a good warning to the Filipino people. The
chronic unrest in the Basque region is a consequence of the denial of
autonomy to
the Basque nation which is, in most ways, really different from the Castilian
Spanish. So I thought I would contribute this input on behalf of the
Committee.
MR. PADILLA: The Vascos in Spain who are in the southern part have a racial
community with some portions of northern France. They are given autonomy,
but
the problem there is that they consider themselves as entitled to be a
separate state. In other words, they are in a way separatists, together with
some
Basques in Northern Europe. So we should not consider that situation
because in the Philippines, we are all for one united nation, one flag, one
people,
without many distinctions as to temporary or incidental differences in the
different islands or regions of the country.
Section 4 (2) of Article XI of the 1973 Constitution, which is reproduced in
Section 5 of this Article on Local Governments, reads:
Local government units may group themselves, or consolidate or coordinate
their efforts, services, and resources for purposes commonly beneficial to
them.
Does not the Committee believe that the different political units beginning
with provinces and cities can avail of this provision in the 1973 Constitution
and repeated in the committee report for a combination, we might say,
among different provinces in the same part of the country, which may
amount to what
we now call or commonly consider autonomous regions? For example,
Commissioner Abubakar says that autonomy in Region IX is working well
under the Tripoli
Agreement. There is a legislative council and an executive council in
Zamboanga City. But these really are only aggrupations of a few provinces.
The fact
is that in every province we have a governor and a provincial board or a
sangguniang panlalawigan. If the legislative council will just be a
combination of
provincial boards or the governors thereof will become members of the
executive council, that could be accomplished within the purview of the Local
Government Code and this provision of the Constitution. In the same way,
the legislative assembly may just be a larger assembly over the municipal
and
provincial legislative bodies. Does not the Commissioner believe that this
could be well implemented within the purview of Section 5?
MR. NOLLEDO: That is possible. I call that a cosmetic autonomy. And
besides, Section 5 of the first part of our committee report contemplates only
a
temporary aggrupation and the situation covers only essential services. So
the function there is merely for purposes of coordination. The situation is
essentially different and apart from the autonomous region.
MR. PADILLA: Its efforts, services and resources are for purposes commonly
beneficial to them. So that can cover the concept of an expanded autonomy
but
within the local units, particularly the provinces.
MR. NOLLEDO: Commissioner Alonto would like to answer some more.
MR. ALONTO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Presiding Officer.
I would like to make a little comment on the remarks of the distinguished
Vice-President of the Constitutional Commission.
In the first place, let us take into account that this appearance of
autonomous regions in the report of the Committee is merely a restatement
of something
that was accomplished by this country through the Tripoli Agreement which
was entered into by and between the regime of President Marcos and the
Moro
National Liberation Front. This was in response to the oppression and tyranny
that the Muslims in this country had experienced, forcing them to go to the
mountains to oppose that regime of President Marcos during martial law
years. In order to eliminate that particular problem, the deposed President
Marcos,
through the help of the government of Libya, tried to negotiate with the Moro
National Liberation Front which, at that time, was mistaken for being a
secessionist group. This negotiation resulted in the establishment of
cosmetic
autonomy. Section 32 of P.D. No. 1680 states:
The collection, custody, use, disbursement and accounting of public funds in
the autonomous region shall be governed by laws and regulations which
cover
similar local and national financial transactions.
It was really deceiving. And so, quoting Mr. Michael Mastura: These
autonomous regions were mere monitoring agencies for the President. The
President was
fooling Muslim Mindanao.
BISHOP BACANI: I have another question. There would be an autonomous
region to be formed in Mindanao. But I am told I do not know how
accurately that
there are only three provinces of the 13 provinces originally covered by the
Tripoli Agreement which are predominantly Muslim Sulu, Lanao del Sur and
Maguindanao and Sultan Kudarat.
MR. ALONTO: I beg to correct the Commissioners impression. It is true that
not all these 13 provinces are predominantly Muslim, but there are at least
seven Lanao del Sur, Lanao del Norte, Sultan Kudarat Maguindanao,
Basilan, Sulu and Tawi-Tawi.
BISHOP BACANI: There are at least seven. So are those the ones to form the
autonomous region?
MR. ALONTO: According to the report of the Committee, that depends upon
Congress.
BISHOP BACANI: Let me go to the third question. This is similar to the
question of Commissioner Suarez but I would like to get full enlightenment.
Section
9 has this list of qualities common historical, geographic, cultural,
linguistic, ethnic, communal, economic or other characteristics within the
framework of and respecting the national sovereignty and territorial integrity
of the Philippines.
In other words, these autonomous regions should be characterized by those
aforementioned characteristics. This was asked yesterday: Should all of
these
come together? The answer was: Well, some of them. However, which are
the minimum characteristics that would come together?
MR. NOLLEDO: I must be very frank that the Committee was divided on the
interpretation of this provision. As Chairman of the Committee, the body has
to
pardon me, if I give my opinion without binding those in the Committee who
disagree with me. To my mind, any of those criteria can qualify as a basis to
set up an autonomous region. But as much as possible, considering that we
are mandating Congress to form autonomous regions, it will be discretionary
on
the part of Congress which of these characteristics should come together or
whether a majority of them should go together. So we are giving Congress a
leeway to determine the criteria. As much as possible, a majority of them
should exist. But as pointed out by Commissioner Napoleon Rama yesterday,
other
than linguistic or ethnic characteristics, economic or other characteristics
may be a basis. In other words, I can now conclude that it is up for Congress
to determine the criteria, whether a majority or two or three of these should
exist in order to justify the formation of an autonomous region.
BISHOP BACANI: From this enumeration, may I know the exact meaning of
communal?
MR. NOLLEDO: The word communal was introduced by one of our Muslim
brothers who appeared before us because he thought it could be a basis of,
for
example, Ilocanos going together in forming a regional government. When
we say communal, they have common aspirations, language, et cetera. So,
we do not
need to apply ethnic, historical or cultural characteristics. This term is
broader than cultural, linguistic or ethnic. For example, Ilocanos or
Bicolanos in Central Luzon can ask for the formation of their autonomous
regions because they are bound by communal characteristics.
BISHOP BACANI: My final question is related to what we may be discussing
later on in the Declaration of Principles. Should we talk about the separation
of
Church and State or something along those lines? Within these autonomous
governments, will there be a separation of Church and State? Let me explain
why I
ask that.
Yesterday, Commissioner Uka presented to us excerpts from a paper entitled,
A Primer on the Autonomy. This came from the Mindanao State Universitys
conference of 500 Bangsa Moro national leaders. There is a quotation stating
that Islam is both religion and government. The other one, as quoted by
Commissioner Uka, says:
Islam is the religion and way of life of the Bangsa Moro that require a
separate political or administrative framework from the western concept and
principle of separation of Church and State.
Thirdly, in this paper on the Bangsa Moro we are told some details of the
proposed autonomy. They say that the legislative assembly shall enact
political,
economic, educational and social legislations including the
institutionalization of sharia courts and an internal security force for the
Bangsa Moro
nation in accordance with Islam. In other words, within this framework, there
would seem to be a very close union between the Church and State or
religion
and the State. Should we approve these autonomous governments or these
autonomous regions, we would still be able to speak of the separation of
Church and
State for the entire Philippines or would there have to be an explicit
exception for autonomous regions?
MR. ABUBAKAR: May I answer that?
MR. NOLLEDO: May I just make one statement.
The Committee will deputize the honorable Ambassador Abubakar after a
few seconds. As far as these Sharia courts are concerned, I do not think they
will
infringe upon the separation of the Church and State because those courts
will only enforce the customs and traditions embodied in the Muslim personal
law
as decreed by Mr. Marcos as may be passed by Congress.
May we ask Commissioner Abubakar to comment on that.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Abubakar is
recognized.
MR. ABUBAKAR: It seems that my good friend and colleague has doubts
about the existence of a separation of Church and State in Mindanao and in
Sulu.
BISHOP BACANI: I am only asking a question. I am asking from ignorance
because of the quotations that have been furnished me.
MR. ABUBAKAR: There is an absolute separation of Church and State in the
Muslim provinces. We have the governor for the whole province, the
municipal
mayors for the municipalities, and the councilors or members of the board.
These two bodies legislate: the municipal board for the municipality and the
provincial board for the province.
In recognition of the Muslims right especially of the people of Mindanao
who had at least advantaged position of all the regions because during the
Spanish-American regime they were rather very late in absorbing modern
education and modern practices a department separate from the national
government
was created during the American regime. They called it the Department of
Mindanao and Sulu. For a while, the Executive Secretary was Frank
Carpenter, an
American. But this has passed. Now, there is a complete separation. In a
Muslim province, we have there a governor, municipal mayors and
councilors. The
provincial board legislates for the province and the municipal council
legislates for the municipality. There is no amalgamation or absorption either
by
the State or the Church in their respective spheres of influence. The church
or the mosque is neither built nor administered by the State. Churches are
administered by the Imam who is selected by the Muslim community of that
particular region. The Imam does not receive a penny of contribution from
the
municipal council or from the provincial government.
This practice has been going on since the American regime up to the
present. We have recently instituted the Regional Legislative Assembly which
is
well-known as has been accepted in Mindanao and Sulu. There is a Speaker
of the Assembly and there are regional representatives from the different
provinces like Sulu, Basilan, Tawi-Tawi, Zamboanga and other parts of
Mindanao.
So, in that context, we are even ahead of the Constitutional Commission in
legislating for the autonomous region. There is no regional governor. Each
province has its own governor. The municipalities are governed in the same
way the municipalities in Luzon and the Visayas are governed. But while the
Visayas is more advanced and is more adjusted to modern administration
because of the 360-year rule of Western powers first Spain and then the
United
States its orientation is easily understandable from our concept of
constitutional arrangement.
What is now asked for Mindanao is local autonomy in terms of the executive
as well as municipal powers. Actually, we are already enjoying local
autonomy. I
BISHOP BACANI: In other words, the Church or the religion can interfere in
State functions?
MR. ALONTO: Yes, because in Islam there is no Church. The State or the
community or the nation is all Islamic if it conforms with the principal
doctrines
of Islam, and so, that does not affect the government. And so, since it is
stated in the Constitution that there is a separation of Church and State, the
Church cannot interfere in what is purely a State affair.
MR. BENNAGEN: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Bennagen is
recognized.
MR. BENNAGEN: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
Let me respond briefly to the third question of Commissioner Bacani with
regard to the minimum combination of criteria for granting autonomy. The
criteria
should respond to the overall criterion of viability. It is important that when
we look into the geographic, cultural, linguistic, ethnic and other
criteria, we should examine the interrelationship of these and the issue of
viability. This is important because yesterday, mention was made of even the
possibility of some islands in central Philippines also asking for autonomy.
In various studies of archipelagic states, it is the conclusion that the island
ecosystems are not too viable as independent development units. We are
saying, therefore, that the interrelationship of geographic or, preferably,
ecological, along with cultural to include politico-legal systems and economic
capability, should be seen.
The question of language is to me a secondary issue, in the sense that there
could be several languages within an autonomous region. In other words, the
criterion of history refers nothing more to the temporal processes that link
together ecological capability, cultural viability and economic capability of
the region. That is an important consideration in response to the query of
Commissioner Padilla as to the distinction between autonomy and merely
decentralization of power. There has to be sufficient authority at the regional
level to see to it that this viability is, in effect, realized.
Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: In view of the fact that over 25 Commissioners have already
interpellated, Commissioner Maambong said he will set an example and
would demand
only five minutes to interpellate.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Maambong is
recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, I will try my best to set an example
but it depends really on the answer to my question. First, my question is on
the
creation of political subdivisions.
I notice that in Section 1, the term barrios is used. I was wondering
whether we could realign this term barrios because this has created a lot of
confusion. In all the laws that we have, for example, in the Local Government
Code Batas Pambansa Blg. 337 we used the word barangay. In P.D.
No.
1508, establishing a system of amicably settling disputes at the barangay
level, we used the word barangay, as well as in all other presidential
decrees
and laws. But, probably, the Committee can address itself to this problem
later on.
MR. NOLLEDO: I would like to answer that, Mr. Presiding Officer. Our
Committee has decided to change barangay into BARRIO because ancient
documents,
titles, surveys, even names of schools still carry the word barrio. The
Gentleman is only talking of decrees and statutes passed by the Batasang
Pambansa. They can easily be changed. But I think barangay is just a Marcos
invention. The real and original term is balangay.
So, we recommend to the Commission to please revert, for valid reasons and
also for sentimental reasons, to the word barrio.
MR. MAAMBONG: I am open to the suggestion of the Committee.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you.
MR. MAAMBONG: But I just want to recall that in my study of history, we used
to refer to the smallest political unit of our country as balangay which is
closer to barangay. Anyway, let us just leave that point.
I will go to the other problem on political subdivisions and I am referring to a
political subdivision not mentioned in the present configuration of the
provision. I am talking about subprovinces which appear to be in limbo.
exclusive
charges and contributions, and in Section 8, we talk about exclusivity of
local taxes and the share in the national wealth. Incidentally, I was one of
the authors of this provision, and I am very thankful. Does this indicate local
autonomy, or was the wording of the law changed to give more autonomy to
the local government units?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes. In effect, those words indicate also decentralization
because local political units can collect taxes, fees and charges subject
merely
to guidelines, as recommended by the league of governors and city mayors,
with whom I had a dialogue for almost two hours. They told me that
limitations
may be questionable in the sense that Congress may limit and in effect deny
the right later on.
MR. MAAMBONG: Also, this provision on automatic release of national tax
share points to more local autonomy. Is this the intention?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, the Commissioner is perfectly right.
MR. MAAMBONG: My last point is an issue which is very close to the heart of
our Floor Leader. We have here a provision in the 1973 Constitution, Article
XI, Section 4 (1), which indicates the independence of highly urbanized cities
in relation to the province. This independence is also indicated in
Section 15 of the Local Government Code, and in Section 165 of the same
Code. I would like to point out also that in the case of Ceniza vs. COMELEC ,
L-52304, decided on January 28, 1980, the issue was:
. . . whether the prohibition imposed on voters of highly urbanized cities from
voting in provincial elections subvert the Principle of Republicanism by
depriving them of the right to participate in government through the exercise
of the right of suffrage.
The Supreme Court emphatically said, No, that is not a violation, because
provinces have no jurisdiction over highly urbanized cities. Considering this
particular provision of the 1973 Constitution, together with the provisions of
the Local Government Code and this Supreme Court decision in Ceniza vs.
COMELEC, is the concept on component cities and highly urbanized cities no
longer acceptable in the present configuration of the Article an Local
Governments?
MR. NOLLEDO: That will be the implication because we did not reproduce in
either of our reports Section 4 (1). Therefore, in highly urbanized cities, while
these form part of the province, the people should be allowed to vote for the
elective officials of the province. That is what Commissioner Rama wants to
MR. SARMIENTO: Were the people of these places consulted when this draft
article on autonomy was formulated? What was their response?
MR. BENNAGEN: There have been ongoing consultations in the region as well
as consultations in Mindanao. For instance, when two Members of the
defunct
Batasang Pambansa filed proposals for regionalization, there were already
consultations even then, and since then more intensive, more
comprehensive
consultations have been conducted by various groups, professionals and
sectoral organizations. As of the last count, there have been more than
12,000
signatories or thereabouts endorsing the idea of the Cordillera autonomous
region. It cuts across various sectors and it cuts across the various existing
political units.
MR. SARMIENTO: In other words, these people are supportive of this idea?
MR. BENNAGEN: Definitely. But that does not preclude other consultations
later on.
MR. SARMIENTO: What about the Bangsa Moro autonomous region? We were
given a copy of a draft constitution by a group of Muslim students,
academicians,
etc., who said that the Bangsa Moro region shall comprise the provinces of
Palawan, Tawi-Tawi, Sulu, Basilan, Zamboanga del Sur, Zamboanga del Norte,
North
Cotabato, Maguindanao, South Cotabato, Sultan Kudarat, Lanao del Sur,
Lanao del Norte and Davao del Sur, including the cities of Iligan, Cotabato,
Marawi,
General Santos, Zamboanga, Pagadian, Dipolog and Dapitan. May I ask
Commissioner Alonto if the people of these places were consulted when this
Article on
Autonomous Regions was formulated? What was their response?
MR. ALONTO: That is a very good question, but I cannot actually tell you now
what are the provinces included because that is within the province of
Congress. In this report of the Committee, Congress will have consultation
with the elected officials of the different provinces and cities and
municipalities in the area. The provinces that were recited are the same
provinces that were included in the negotiation between the government of
former
President Marcos and the Moro National Liberation Front. All those 13
provinces were included in that negotiation. But after the negotiation, when
they
came out with the Tripoli Agreement of 1976, Mr. Marcos unilaterally
We hear the assertions for sovereignty and autonomy from ethnic, cultural
and religious groups, specifically from the Bangsa Moro and the Cordillera
people. I have no quarrel with that; in fact, I am fully supportive of that.
However, for all of its rhetoric, a claim of autonomy for all of the regions
as provided for in Sections 9, 10, and 11 is fraught with a lot of danger to the
existence of the State. In fact, it may be more counterproductive than
productive.
We have not yet learned how to vitalize a local government in the context of
the Philippine politics. Regionalistic problems remain unresolved. The basic
problems of poverty, education and welfare are so perverse that the
traditional modes and approaches to these problems are seriously being
questioned. All
serious, sane, and prudent attempts to solve this kind of problem would call
for more centralization than fragmentation. It is my fear that this bold step
that the Committee is taking borders on constitutional adventurism.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes. I am happy that Commissioner Aquino is making those
observations because there is no adventurism; we are merely opening the
way towards
declaring the different regions in the Philippines autonomous, in addition to
the Cordilleras and Muslim Mindanao. I think the Commissioners fears are
groundless because the Committee has not decided that those should be the
steps to be taken. We are merely opening the avenue towards Congress
setting up
more autonomous regions. Suppose Congress does not set up because
Congress was convinced by the observations of Commissioner Aquino, then I
have no qualms
about it; I have no objection against it. That is why the Commissioner should
say more in discouraging Congress from setting up other autonomous
regions.
But to picture the fact that the Committee has recommended the setting up
of autonomous regions other than the Cordilleras and Muslim Mindanao in
explicit
terms, I think, is gratuitous. We are merely opening the way, giving more
leeway to Congress to do that. I think this is our duty to the nation because
of
the possibility that later on declaring the Cordilleras and Muslim Mindanao as
autonomous regions would have beneficial effects and Congress, perhaps,
may
be inspired or urged to set up more autonomous regions. The hands of
Congress will be tied if we do not make Section 9, more or less, flexible.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer, I cannot seem to come to terms with the
position of the Committee. If that is the intention of the Committee, what
then
is the justification for the unwarranted libertinism in Sections 9 and 10?
MR. NOLLEDO: Mr. Presiding Officer, I object to the words unwarranted
libertinism. We are giving Congress a leeway.
MS. AQUINO: I was just proceeding from the position of the Committee as the
Gentleman has articulated.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, that is true. We are giving merely a leeway to Congress,
otherwise, we can easily state here that autonomous regions should refer
only to
Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras. If I did not say that this provision is
flexible as to open an avenue towards formation of autonomous regions,
perhaps
the controversy between us would never arise. In fact, if I did not say that, I
think the Commissioner cannot even imply from that.
MS. AQUINO: Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: There are two more interpellators, and with a little bit of luck we
will be able to move to the period of amendments.
I ask that Commissioner Tan be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Tan is recognized.
SR. TAN: Mr. Presiding Officer, I have a short question that needs a short
answer.
There is sometimes the paranoia that such moves for autonomy are
motivated by minority dominant groups. Has the Committee found a gauge
that would
determine if this move of the Cordilleras is genuine, historical and social
aspirations of the majority? Is the official plebiscite adequate? Is it not too
late?
MR. NOLLEDO: Please do not ask us to give a brief answer.
MR. BENNAGEN: Let me give a brief answer. Yes, for both the Cordillera and
the Bangsa Moro regions to the extent that we are aware of the nature of the
consultations.
provinces and
cities highly frustrated and bitter against the national government. I believe
that it is only through effective decentralization, where political powers
are equitably dispersed, that this nation will attain progress. The unitary
system has failed in the Republic of the Philippines because of
decentralization.
MR. VILLACORTA: Just a very brief rejoinder, Mr. Presiding Officer. There are
two kinds of decentralization and these two concepts are recognized in
public
administration: political decentralization and administrative decentralization.
I think what the Honorable Nolledo is referring to is administrative
decentralization and no one quarrels with him on that point. But we also
understand that there are communities that require not just administrative
decentralization, but also political decentralization. I think many, if not most
of us, are willing to grant that to Muslim Mindanao and to the
Cordilleras, but not to the other regions. Our national problem is
fragmentation we are severely fragmented as we are, culturally,
psychologically,
linguistically.
MR. NOLLEDO: It is only through fragmentation that this country will succeed.
Quote me anywhere and I will debate with the Gentleman on that when we
have
the time.
MR. VILLACORTA: But may I also hear the reaction of Commissioner
Bennagen.
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes. I was supportive and I still am supportive of the general
provision on granting autonomy at some future time within the overall
principle of autonomy as an effort to correct the centuries or years of
injustice. I have in mind, for instance, the other tribal groups in Mindanao,
which
at some future time might evolve into some kind of an autonomous area. It
does not have to be a province, a district or some other groups sharing the
same
characteristics already mentioned. We go by the principle of autonomy as
enunciated in a paper by Prof. Albert Blaustein, entitled Constitutional
Protections For Indigenous Peoples. A proposal is with the International
Center for Constitutional Studies at Athens, which says: In developing the
constitutional rights of indigenous peoples, the following must be studied,
and these are mentioned in the spirit of a proposal:
1) Autonomy Autonomy is the constitutional term of the art for
institutional arrangements granting a degree of freedom to a recognized,
racial,
religious, linguistic, ethnic, tribal or cultural group to order its own affairs. It
is closely aligned with principles of self-rule and
self-determination.
In answer to the Gentlemans question on what conditions do the rights of
indigenous peoples warrant independent statehood, a federal structure or
autonomous status, I think it is in this sense that it speaks of opening the
possibilities for some future neglected areas to evolve into some kind of
autonomy.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: We have reached the end of the long list of registered speakers.
And before somebody stands up, I move that we close the period of
sponsorship
and debate on the Article on Local Governments.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Is there any objection? (Silence) The
Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I move that we proceed to the period of
amendments on the Article on Local Governments and Autonomous Regions.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Is there any objection to the motion
that we move to the period of amendments? (Silence) The Chair hears none;
the
motion is approved.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
MR. RAMA: In order to recharge our energies, I move that we suspend the
session for a few minutes.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): The session is suspended.
It was 4:38 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 5:11 p.m. the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): The session is resumed.
R.C.C. NO. 55
Wednesday, August 13, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
At 9:43 a.m., the Vice-President, the Honorable Ambrosio B. Padilla, opened
the session.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The session is called to order.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Everybody will please rise to sing the National Anthem.
Everybody rose to sing the National Anthem.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Everybody will please remain standing for the Prayer
to be led by the Honorable Vicente B. Foz.
Everybody remained standing for the Prayer.
PRAYER
MR. FOZ: Almighty God, give us the light to write a Constitution the people
will know and like, neither too long nor too short but good for them. Give us
the strength to carry on with humility though often we get carried away
when we push our ideas too hard, and say words we do not really mean but
hurt our
fellow workers. Give us the time to reflect even as we rush our work to meet
some crazy deadline, mindful that more than stringing together words and
phrases, we write history and bind our people; that is, if they accept it. But
Lord, please make them do. Amen.
ROLL CALL
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will please call the roll.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Abubakar
Present *
Rosario Braid
Present
Alonto
Present *
Brocka
Present
Aquino
Present
Calderon
Present
Azcuna
Present
Castro de
Present
Bacani
Present
Colayco
Present
Bengzon
Present
Concepcion
Present
Bennagen
Present *
Davide
Present
Bernas
Present
Foz
Present
Garcia
Present *
Reyes de los
Present *
Gascon
Present
Rigos
Present
Guingona
Absent
Rodrigo
Present
Jamir
Present
Romulo
Present
Laurel
Present
Rosales
Present
Lerum
Present *
Sarmiento
Present *
Maambong
Present *
Suarez
Present
Monsod
Present
Sumulong
Present
Natividad
Present *
Tadeo
Present
Nieva
Absent
Tan
Present *
Nolledo
Present *
Tingson
Present
Ople
Present
Treas
Present
Padilla
Present
Uka
Present
Quesada
Present
Villacorta
Present
Rama
Present
Villegas
Present
Regalado
Absent
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none;
the motion is approved.
APPROVAL OF JOURNAL
MR. CALDERON: Mr. Vice-President, I move that we approve the Journal of the
previous session.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none;
the motion is approved.
MR. CALDERON: Mr. Vice-President, I move that we proceed to the Reference
of Business.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none;
the motion is approved.
The Secretary-General will read the Reference of Business.
REFERENCE OF BUSINESS
The Secretary-General read the following Communications and Committee
Report, the Vice-President making the corresponding references:
COMMUNICATIONS
Communication from Mr. Jose C. Laureta of 105 Paseo de Roxas, Makati,
Metro Manila, recommending that Section (7) 2 of Proposed Resolution No.
531 be
deleted, and that the question whether the advertising industry should be
nationalized be deferred and be left for determination by the legislative body.
(Communication No. 528 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on General Provisions.
Letter from Mr. Emilio Y. Hilado, Jr. of P.O. Box 199, Bacolod City, suggesting
among others the following: (1) that each provision as finally passed by
the Committee be published in full in the major daily newspapers; (2) that
provincial governors and municipal mayors be encouraged to conduct public
hearings on each provision as approved by the Committee; and (3) publish
each provision as it is finally passed by the Constitutional Commission.
(Communication No. 529 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Steering Committee.
One hundred forty-one letters from students in Silang, Cavite, all seeking to
include in the Constitution the following proposals: (1) a No-U.S. Military
Bases Agreement; (2) an anti-nuclear power plant; (3) the promotion of
Philippine sovereignty over our natural resources; and (4) a No-U.S. or any
foreign
intervention on Philippine affairs.
(Communication No. 530 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of
Principles.
Communication from the Philippine Social Science Council, Inc., Don M.
Marcos Avenue, U.P., Diliman, Quezon City, signed by its Chairman, Carolina
G.
Hernandez, and thirteen other officers and members, endorsing favorably
the proposal to grant regional autonomy to areas and populations with
common
historical, geographical, cultural, linguistic and ethnic characteristics.
(Communication No. 531 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Local Governments.
Letter from Ricardo Cardinal Vidal, Archbishop of Cebu, expressing his deep
esteem and appreciation for the sacred task of writing a Constitution for the
country, enclosing therewith a copy of the 1979 Pastoral Letter of the
Philippine Hierarchy on the Life of the Unborn Child, which may be of help in
the
deliberations of the Constitutional Commission.
(Communication No. 532 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Steering Committee.
Position Paper of Siguion Reyna, Montecillo and Ongsiako containing the
following: (1) Advertising agencies are not mass media; (2) No public policy
is
offended by the non-nationalization of advertising agencies; (3) Foreign
owners have nothing to do with the content of advertisement and, hence, do
not
impose their own culture on us; (4) The existing constitutional provision on
mass media is adequate to promote the purpose envisioned by the proposal;
and
(5) The nationalization of advertising agencies is best left to the wisdom of a
legislature, which positions have been adequately discussed therein.
No. 534, as amended. I think this was distributed yesterday. The second
paragraph
of page 2 states: The State shall promote the principle of shared
responsibility between workers and employers and the preferential use of
voluntary modes
in settling disputes including conciliation. The modification is on the
following words: instead of the words and the enforcement of, it should
read AND
SHALL ENFORCE. So, the refinement is a substitution of the phrase and the
enforcement of by the words AND SHALL ENFORCE.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the proposed substitution?
(Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is approved.
MR. MONSOD: The second one is on page 4, on urban land reform and
housing, second to the last sentence of Section 9, where it says It shall
provide
(promote). I have discussed this with the proponent of the amendment,
Commissioner Davide, and the word should be PROMOTE and not provide
because the
State shall not provide the employment opportunities but shall promote
employment opportunities.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the proposed substitution of
the word provide for PROMOTE?
MR. MONSOD: PROMOTE instead of provide, Mr. Vice-President.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Yes, PROMOTE instead of provide.
Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is
approved.
MR. MONSOD: Thank you, Mr. Vice-President.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Vice-President, there will be some clarifications also to be
stated by Commissioner Tadeo regarding the same Article.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tadeo is recognized.
MR. TADEO: Mr. Vice-President, meron lang po akong ilang paglilinaw tungkol
sa mga magbubukid dahil mayroong ilang tanong ang mga peryodista na
hindi ko
kayang sagutin at may kalabuan. Naging mabilis ang pagpasok ng mga
amendments noong tinatalakay natin ang agrarian and natural resources
reform. Ang tanong
necessarily mean, therefore, that it does not follow that the tenant can be
immediately ejected or evicted by the small landowner.
MR. TADEO: Salamat po. Kasi ito yung isang mahalagang tanong sa akin na
hindi ko masyadong masagot din kaya nilinaw ko lamang kung anong ibig
sabihin
nito. Ang ibig sabihin ay sinusunod nito yung Republic Act 3844 na
sinusugan ng Republic Acts 6389, 6390 at P.D. No. 27.
MR. BENNAGEN: Dagdag lang doon, Mr. Vice-President.
MR. RAMA: May I ask that Commissioner Bennagen be recognized.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bennagen is recognized.
MR. BENNAGEN: I think in the deliberations of the Committee, that should
also be qualified in terms of just share of the fruits of the land. That is an
additional qualification.
MR. TADEO: Ito na lang, isang paglilinaw na pinakahuling tanong. Itong The
State shall further provide incentives for voluntary land sharing, ano ang
ibig sabihin nitong incentives? Tinatanong din kasi ako at hindi ko gaanong
maipaliwanag. Pero mayroon pang isang paglilinaw. Bukod doon sa
incentives,
anong ibig sabihin ng voluntary land sharing? Ang pagkakaunawa namin sa
voluntary land sharing ay ganito: kung halimbawa ay mayroon kang
sampung
ektarya, puwede mong sabihin sa mga magsasaka na akin na itong lima at
maghati-hati na kayo roon sa lima. Ang ibig naming sabihin ay nilalabag nito
ang
principles of agrarian reform. Ang ibig bang sabihin nito ay hindi lalabagin
ang principles of agrarian reform at iyung kanyang karapatan sa kanyang
lupang
binubungkal? Kasi ayaw naming makita na maging loophole ito sa karapatan
ng nagbubungkal sa lupa kung sasabihin ng panginoong maylupa, Sige,
kung mayroon
kang three hectares na sinasaka sa akin, ibibigay ko na sa iyo yung one
hectare, bibigyan ko ng title, pero ibabalik mo sa akin yung two hectares.
Kaya
gusto naming liwanagin ito para sa ganoon kung magtatanong sila ay
maipaliwanag kong maigi ito. Noong Linggo, binaha ako ng mga magbubukid
upang ipaliwanag
ko mismo itong mga naipasa ng Con-Com tungkol sa agrarian reform.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Vice-President, I ask that Commissioner Monsod be recognized
to make the explanation.
I believe that the intent of the Committee here is that these three factors
need not always be cumulative, and the reason for this is, we want to cover
situations where a family with 10 children, for example, has only, say, 50
hectares; and even if the limit is 25, there may be equity considerations for
allowing that family to transfer to the 10 children five hectares each rather
than subject it to agrarian reform.
These are situations that we cannot foresee, but Congress can certainly look
into these things.
MR. TADEO: Mr. Vice-President.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tadeo is recognized.
MR. TADEO: Ang ibig ko lang sabihin ay puwedeng magawa iyon kung walang
tenant involved o regular pa ang workers involved.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Vice-President.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: The body is now ready to vote.
MR. JAMIR: Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Vice-President.
MR. RAMA: Commissioner Jamir would like to be recognized.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Jamir is recognized.
MR. JAMIR: May we know which of the two opinions the one given by
Commissioner Bengzon and the other given by Commissioner Bernas
should be accepted by
the Commission?
MR. BENGZON: Mr. Vice-President, I have just conferred with Commissioner
Bernas and we have decided to submit the matter to the floor. When we
discussed
this in the Committee and on the floor, we were always laboring under the
impression that just compensation meant the definition as articulated by
the
Supreme Court prior to P.D. No. 76. But Commissioner Bernas mentioned that
there was this interpretation of fair market value as articulated in P.D. No.
76. And it seems that according to the records, this definition was not
challenged, so we have to have this thing clarified.
MR. BENGZON: There is no doubt that we have to read this term just
compensation within the context of the Article on Social Justice which would
make it
easier for the disadvantaged to acquire the land. Precisely, if the farmer is
only able to afford so much, that is when the State comes to the aid and
subsidizes it. In this manner the situation will not be to the disadvantage of
the landowner. So, there should be equity on both sides. We are not forcing
the farmer to pay the landowner the value of that property even beyond his
means. Whatever the farmer can afford, so be it, but at the same time,
whatever
is the difference between what the farmer can afford and what is just
compensation, which is equitable to the landowner, the State must come
around and
provide that. So, there is no conflict insofar as the concept is concerned.
What gives confusion is the definition of just compensation and the
intention
of the Committee is not to adopt the definition of President Marcos under P.D.
No. 76 as interpreted by the latest Supreme Court decision.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Vice-President, may I ask that Commissioner Aquino be
recognized.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Vice-President, the manifestations of Commissioner
Bengzon on the matter of the interpretation of just compensation is correct
insofar as
it pertains to the settled usage of just compensation referring to the power
of eminent domain for public use. The matter obtaining now is that which
has
reference to the agrarian reform mandate of the Constitution which has
clearly delineated its objectives in favor of the bias for the landless farmers.
This clearly involves a third party, primarily to the interest of the landowner
and the State, in which case, if there is any perceived conflict between
the jurisprudence that is being cited by Commissioner Bengzon, this is best
resolved in the context of the understanding that the settled jurisprudence
that he is referring to pertains to the public use on the powers of eminent
domain of the State. If there is any conflict at all between what he cited and
what is being settled now in this debate, it should be resolved in favor of the
clear mandate of the Social Justice provisions.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Vice-President, I ask that Commissioner Bernas be recognized.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The Chair recalls the statement of Commissioner
Concepcion that if we use a term in the Constitution, it should have a uniform
or the
same meaning, because it is dangerous to use the same term and have one
meaning in one Article and another meaning in another.
So, this is just compensation to the landowner. It seems that the issue is: Is
just compensation the fair market value or is it just compensation under the
presidential decree of President Marcos, based on the tax declaration,
whichever is lower?
It seems that we have discussed this before and that just compensation
means just compensation as decided by many decisions of the Supreme
Court. And it
cannot make reference to the presidential decree of the former regime which
is not just compensation because it refers to whichever declaration is lower.
MR. RAMA: May I ask that Commissioner Bernas be recognized, Mr. VicePresident?
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bernas is recognized.
FR. BERNAS: It is true that when one phrase appears in a constitution, we
should try to give it the same meaning as much as possible. But I think what
we
are entering into here is really something new just compensation for
purposes of land reform.
I would like to discuss this in the context of the three inherent powers of the
government; namely, the police power, the power of taxation and the power
of eminent domain. When the State exercises any one of these three powers,
it involves always some loss on the part of the citizen. When it exercises
police power, it can involve the destruction of property without
compensation. When it exercises the power of taxation, again, the citizen,
the taxpayer,
incurs some loss because he has to pay a tax. When the State exercises the
power of eminent domain, no matter how much we say that it will be just
compensation the market value in effect and in reality, the owner never
really gets the value of what the market forces dictate. It is a necessary
contribution which a citizen must give to society precisely because society is
valuable.
In this particular case, what we are trying to do is work out a formula for
determining just compensation in the context of agrarian reform, which is for
the benefit of the underprivileged. And the starting point we have is the
formula given under President Marcos. If the assessment or the tax
declaration,
whichever is lower, is not challenged by the owner, then that is the just
compensation. But supposing it is challenged by the owner and then the
Supreme
Court says, In fact, it is not just compensation, then what happens? The
state makes up for the difference. But I think what we are saying is, in a
situation where the state cannot make the difference because the state does
not have the money, then we are authorizing the state to impose on the
owner
the duty to make the sacrifice of accepting less than what is normally known
as the market value.
MR. BENGZON: Mr. Vice-President.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: I can see now the problem of Commissioner Bernas. In the
event that the state is unable to make the difference between what a farmer
can
afford and what is just for the landowner, then I am not saying that the state
cannot proceed to implement the land reform.
FR. BERNAS: All right.
MR. BENGZON: What I am saying is that the state must look for ways and
means in order to compensate the farmer. If it cannot pay cash, it can pay in
bonds.
FR. BERNAS: We are not in disagreement then, if that is the understanding.
MR. BENGZON: In other words, I am not saying that because the state cannot
afford to make up the difference, then land reform cannot be implemented.
No, I
am not saying that. What I am saying is that there should be established just
compensation. And just compensation should be defined as it would be
equitable to the landowner. As to the manner of payment, that is another
question, because if the state cannot afford to pay cash for the difference,
then
it can certainly look for other ways and means by which it can compensate
the landowner.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
MR. RAMA: Mr. Vice-President, may I ask for a suspension of the session for
two minutes?
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Pursuant to the motion of the Floor Leader, the session
is suspended for a few minutes.
OPERATION OF EXPORT-ORIENTED
INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES,
Proposed Resolution No. 401, introduced by Honorable Tadeo, Suarez,
Quesada, Brocka, Jamir, Bennagen, Sarmiento, Villacorta, Gascon, Garcia and
Aquino,
entitled:
RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A
SEPARATE ARTICLE ESTABLISHING THE FRAMEWORK FOR A NATIONALIST,
SELF-RELIANT, AND PROGRESSIVE
ECONOMY FOUNDED ON GENUINE INDUSTRIALIZATION GUIDED BY THE
PRINCIPLES OF NATIONAL SELF-DETERMINATION AND EQUITABLE SHARING,
Proposed Resolution No. 412, introduced by Honorable Rosario Braid,
entitled:
RESOLUTION LIMITING THE PRACTICE IN THE PHILIPPINES OF THE VARIOUS
PROFESSIONS TO FILIPINO PROFESSIONALS,
Proposed Resolution No. 432, introduced by Honorable Maambong, Ople,
Natividad and de los Reyes, Jr., entitled:
RESOLUTION LIMITING THE PRACTICE OF ANY PROFESSION TO FILIPINO
CITIZENS SAVE IN CASES OF RECIPROCITY TO ALIENS OF ANOTHER COUNTRY
UNDER CONDITIONS
PRESCRIBED BY LAW,
Proposed Resolution No. 453, introduced by Honorable Gascon, entitled:
RESOLUTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF OUR ENVIRONMENT AND THE
PRESERVATION OF OUR NATURAL RESOURCES,
Proposed Resolution No. 528, introduced by Honorable Guingona, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION AN ARTICLE TO
RESTRICT INSTANCES WHEN THE STATE MAY ENGAGE IN BUSINESS
ENDEAVORS,
has considered the same and has the honor to report them back to the
Constitutional Commission of 1986 with the recommendation that attached
Proposed
Resolution No. 496, prepared by the Committee, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION AN ARTICLE ON
NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY,
be approved in substitution of Proposed Resolution Nos. 10, 12, 16, 22, 46,
47, 63, 89, 122, 211, 213, 219, 288, 309, 317, 368, 369, 374, 375, 378, 388,
389, 401, 412, 432, 453, and 528 with the Honorable Villegas, Tadeo, Bacani,
Bengzon, Jr., Bennagen, Foz, Gascon, Monsod, Natividad, Ople, Romulo,
Sarmiento, Suarez, Uka, Villacorta, Davide, Jr., de los Reyes, Jr., Azcuna,
Nolledo, Guingona, Aquino, Brocka, Tan, Tingson, Jamir, Calderon, Alonto,
Maambong, Rama, Treas, Rosario Braid, Padilla, Quesada, and Garcia as
authors thereof.
Respectfully submitted:
(SGD.) BERNARDO M. VILLEGAS
Chairman
Committee on National Economy and Patrimony
PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 496
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION AN ARTICLE ON
NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY
Be it resolved as it is hereby resolved by the Constitutional Commission in
session assembled, To incorporate the National Economy and Patrimony of
the new
Constitution, the following provisions:
ARTICLE ____
National Economy and Patrimony
SECTION 1. The State shall develop a self-reliant and independent national
economy. The goals of the national economy are a more equitable
distribution of
income and wealth, full employment of human, physical and technological
resources, and a sustained increase in the amount of goods and services
produced by
the nation for the benefit of the Filipino people, with priority to the welfare of
the poor. In the attainment of these goals, all economic sectors shall
be given optimum opportunity to develop and a broader-based ownership of
private enterprises shall be encouraged.
SECTION 2. Since the use of property bears a social function, all economic
agents in the private sector shall contribute to the common good. Individuals
and private groups shall be given freedom to establish and operate economic
Proposed
Resolution No. 533, prepared by the Committee, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE ARTICLE ON NATIONAL ECONOMY AND
PATRIMONY A PROVISION ON ANCESTRAL LANDS,
be approved in substitution of Proposed Resolution Nos. 375 and 378 with
the Honorable Villegas, Tadeo, Bacani, Bengzon, Jr., Bennagen, Foz, Gascon,
Monsod, Natividad, Ople, Romulo, Sarmiento, Suarez, Uka, Villacorta, Tingson
and Treas as authors thereof.
Respectfully submitted:
(SGD.) BERNARDO M. VILLEGAS
Chairman
Committee on National and Patrimony
PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 533
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE ARTICLE ON NATIONAL ECONOMY AND
PATRIMONY A PROVISION ON ANCESTRAL LANDS
Be it resolved as it is hereby resolved by the Constitutional Commission in
session assembled, To incorporate in the Article on the National Economy
and
Patrimony of the new Constitution the following provision:
ARTICLE ____
National Economy and Patrimony
SECTION 1. The State, consistent with the provisions of this Constitution,
shall guarantee the rights of indigenous communities to their ancestral lands
to
ensure their economic and social well-being and shall consider indigenous
customary law governing proprietary rights in determining the ownership
and
extent of the ancestral domain. The ancestral lands shall be held in trust by
the indigenous community for the benefit of their future generations.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Vice-President, I move that Commissioner Villegas be
recognized for his sponsorship speech.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Villegas is recognized.
Singapore, in which production for export was given the highest priority
because of the paucity of natural resources and/or the small size of the
population.
Equal opportunities for all economic sectors to develop are guaranteed by
the Constitution. The use of the word optimum suggests sufficient flexibility
for policy-makers whether in the executive or the legislative to decide
on the appropriate balance, say, between agriculture and industry at any
stage
of our development process.
Section 1 ends with an elucidation of the objective of equity in the
distribution of wealth by articulating the ideal of a broader-based ownership
of
private enterprises.
MR. BENNAGEN: Mr. Vice-President.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Let the Chairman finish first.
MR. BENNAGEN: I think because he wants to proceed to the second section,
he is through with the first section. My question has to do with the first
section.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Is the Gentleman through with the first section?
MR. BENGZON: This is the period of sponsorship.
MR. BENNAGEN: I am sorry.
MR. VILLEGAS: Section 2 presents the twin principles on which a humane
economic society is to be based: the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity.
The
first principle is the philosophical route of people power: what can be
performed efficiently and competently by individuals and private groups
should not
be absorbed by higher bodies, least of all, by the State. The role that must
be played by the state is a subsidiary one. It only intervenes when private
initiative is helpless because of the complexity or magnitude of the problem.
The principle of solidarity more honored in the breach in the Philippines
requires individuals and private groups to deliberately contribute to the
common good in the performance of their daily tasks. This principle clashes
with
the assumption of laissez-faire economics which overly glorifies free
enterprise as the road to economic prosperity for all. Experience has shown
that
MR. BENNAGEN: In any case, I think in due time we will propose some
amendments.
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes. But we will be open to an improvement of the
phraseology.
MR. BENNAGEN: Yes.
Thank you, Mr. Vice-President.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Is there any other interpellator?
MR. RAMA: Mr. Vice-President, it is the general sentiment of the body that the
period of interpellations should be limited to two sessions morning and
afternoon. This is also the sentiment of the Chairman of the Committee on
Rules, so I move that this sentiment be approved by the body, that the
interpellation should be limited to two sessions.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the motion that the
interpellations on this Article be limited to two sessions?
MR. BENGZON: Mr. Vice-President.
MR. RAMA: Commissioner Bengzon would like to be recognized.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: It would not really be fair both to the Committee and to the
Commissioners if we apply this motion this morning because we already lost
two
hours. I mean, the Committee has already lost two hours. So, I suggest that
perhaps we start this rule, if ever, beginning this afternoon.
MR. RAMA: I accept the amendment.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Anyway, we proceed with the interpellations. There
might not be as many interpellators as sometimes we expect. We might be
able to
terminate the period of interpellations within or early tomorrow morning.
Why do we not just continue the interpellations now and then consider the
motion
this afternoon, in case we find that there are too many interpellators?
MR. RAMA: That is fine, Mr. Vice-President. I ask that Commissioner Nolledo
be recognized to interpellate.
particular
region, or in the light of the entire country?
MR. VILLEGAS: The term large-scale usually refers to very capital-intensive
activities like, for example, petroleum mining, copper mining, et cetera. It
refers to the requirement for capital.
MR. NOLLEDO: Is capital the only factor that should be considered or is it the
economic importance? If an entity, for example, will export products that
will contribute to the national economy, will the Commissioner consider that
large-scale also?
MR. VILLEGAS: Definitely, yes.
MR. NOLLEDO: In Sections 3, 9 and 15, the Committee stated local or Filipino
equity and foreign equity; namely, 60-40 in Section 3, 60-40 in Section 9,
and
2/3-1/3 in Section 15.
MR. VILLEGAS: That is right.
MR. NOLLEDO: In teaching law, we are always faced with this question:
Where do we base the equity requirement, is it on the authorized capital
stock, on
the subscribed capital stock, or on the paid-up capital stock of a
corporation? Will the Committee please enlighten me on this?
MR. VILLEGAS: We have just had a long discussion with the members of the
team from the UP Law Center who provided us a draft. The phrase that is
contained
here which we adopted from the UP draft is 60 percent of voting stock.
MR. NOLLEDO: That must be based on the subscribed capital stock, because
unless declared delinquent, unpaid capital stock shall be entitled to vote.
MR. VILLEGAS: That is right.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you.
With respect to an investment by one corporation in another corporation,
say, a corporation with 60-40 percent equity invests in another corporation
which
is permitted by the Corporation Code, does the Committee adopt the
grandfather rule?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes, that is the understanding of the Committee.
I do not see any proposal on the matter in this committee report. May we
know why? Were these rejected by the Committee or were these referred to
another
committee?
MR. VILLEGAS: They were referred to the Committee on General Provisions.
MR. DE LOS REYES: So, they were not totally rejected but referred to another
committee?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Was the referral with a favorable endorsement as to
whether to adopt them or to be completely silent about them?
MR. VILLEGAS: Commissioner Rosario Braid will answer the question.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rosario Braid is recognized.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: To set the records straight, I am afraid those proposals
were never sent nor referred to our Committee. So they must have been lost
on
the way.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Thank you.
MR. VILLEGAS: We will be willing to entertain amendments on the specific
issue.
MR. DE LOS REYES: I thank the Chairman of the Committee, the Floor Leader
and the Vice-President.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: May we know the next interpellator?
MR. RAMA: Commissioner Rodrigo would like to be recognized.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: Mr. Vice-President, just a question or two to Commissioner
Bennagen regarding Committee Report No. 32.
The last sentence of this report reads:
The ancestral lands shall be held in trust by the indigenous community for
the benefit of their future generations.
MR. BENNAGEN: This seems inconsistent because when the previous part
speaks of proprietary rights, it includes those whole range of rights which I
mentioned earlier but still within the framework of that particular community.
MR. RODRIGO: Thank you very much.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Vice-President, I would like to ask the Committee a few
questions.
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rama is recognized.
MR. RAMA: Section 14 states: The State shall regulate or prohibit
monopolies when the public interest so requires. I have heard the Chairman
say that
this would not prohibit the State to set up monopolies for the common good.
MR. VILLEGAS: That is right.
MR. RAMA: I was thinking, for instance, of the procedure or the system in
Japan where tobacco is the monopoly of the State and serves substantially
the
common good and its revenues form a substantial part of the budget of the
Japanese government.
Therefore, the monopoly on tobacco is a desirable monopoly; first, it is
hazardous to health; and second, the State converts this kind of industry into
something that benefits the country. On the other hand, although the
statement has been made by the Chairman that this would not prohibit the
State from
setting up monopolies, the second sentence in Section 14 seems to
contradict that statement because it states: No combinations in restraint of
trade or
unfair competition shall be allowed. It is addressed to both the State and
the private sector. So, does the Commissioner think that there should be
some
kind of a phrase here that would allow the government or the State to set up
monopolies that would serve the common good?
MR. VILLEGAS: The second sentence is interpreted in the context of the
antitrust legislation or the jurisprudence on antitrust legislation, for example,
in
the United States, to the extent that combinations in restraint of trade or
unfair competition actually prejudice the consumers and the people. Then
that
is where the law comes in. But precisely, there are certain monopolies which
actually favor the consumers because of the economies of scale since we do
not
have unnecessary duplication of resources. However, these types of
monopolies have to be regulated.
MR. RAMA: But this will not prohibit the State from setting up monopolies for
the common good?
MR. VILLEGAS: It will not.
MR. RAMA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Vice-President, may I ask that Commissioner Tingson be recognized.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tingson is recognized.
MR. TINGSON: May I ask the Chairman of the Committee some questions?
MR. VILLEGAS: Gladly.
MR. TINGSON: Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, we Filipinos are
very much concerned about our denuded forests so much so when experts
say that
within the next 10 years or less, we might become a Sahara Desert here in
the Philippines. Has the Committee at all considered the possibility of, say, a
ten-year or twenty-year logging ban on endangered forest lands, except
probably for building materials that we might need for domestic purposes in
our
country? Has the Committee considered that?
MR. VILLEGAS: Definitely. In fact, the provision on Section 5 is all about the
forest limits being determined by law and not being diminished. Actually,
there is an additional category of national parks which would not even permit
any logging whatsoever in perpetuity. So that is definitely the spirit of
Section 5.
MR. TINGSON: Our sad experience is that when something like this is left for
the implementation by Congress or by the lawmaking body, then a good
number of
politicians with self-aggrandizing purposes would work against the welfare of
our country and this has actually happened. I am just wondering if it would
not be better for us to state a certain period here, upon ratification of this
Constitution, that there will be a complete logging ban on endangered forest
lands, say, 10 years or so. Would the Committee consider an amendment
along that line?
MR. DAVIDE: Thank you for that information. I will go to another point. Insofar
as fisheries is concerned, it is provided in the proposed Section 3 that
the legislature may by law allow small-scale utilization of natural resources
by Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming in rivers, lakes,
bays and lagoons. Must this be construed to be subject to the preferential
rights we had earlier granted to the marginal fishermen?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes.
MR. DAVIDE: Section 11 touches on the formation, organization, or regulation
of private corporations. As worded it will now read: The Congress may, by
general law, provide for the formation organization, or regulation of private
corporations. In both the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, the language used
was
shall not, except by general law. May we know the difference?
MR. VILLEGAS: Actually, after discussing this specific section with the UP Law
group, we were open to going back to the old statement.
MR. DAVIDE: We have to go back to the old statement, otherwise it would be
interpreted to mean that these corporations can be organized by whatever
means.
MR. VILLEGAS: That is right. Commissioner Suarez can clarify this.
MR. SUAREZ: Mr. Vice-President, when this matter was discussed with the
members of the UP Law Center, precisely, the point raised by the
Commissioner was
taken up. It could mean that there will be a proliferation of corporations
which may be violative of this particular Section 11.
MR. DAVIDE: Another point is that government-owned or controlled
corporations can no longer be organized under that general law. So,
government-owned or
controlled corporations under this present proposal will have to be organized
by means of special charters?
MR. SUAREZ: That is right.
MR. DAVIDE: And also their subsidiaries? Or may subsidiaries of governmentowned or controlled corporations be organized under the general corporation
law?
MR. SUAREZ: In the matter of subsidiaries, no; under the general corporation
law.
the 1973 Constitution. So, we will not grant perpetual right to a particular
entity.
MR. SUAREZ: What we are saying is that under Section 15, we are dealing
with public utilities. There may be a point to what the Commissioner is
bringing
up, but that was the sense that was elevated in the committee level.
MR. DAVIDE: Finally on Section 14. There is no qualification anymore as to
the nature of the monopoly, unlike that in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions
where
private monopolies are the ones prohibited. But in Section 14, the word
private no longer appears. May we know the justification of the Committee
because
I remember that the Committee, in answer to a question of Commissioner
Rama, admitted that the government may still have a monopoly.
MR. SUAREZ: That is right.
MR. DAVIDE: But here, with the deletion of the word private, it would mean
that neither private nor public entity can have monopoly.
MR. VILLEGAS: No. The Commissioner should please take a look at the two
verbs regulate or prohibit. When the word regulate was inserted, that
means
that there can be monopolies as long as they are regulated.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, they may be allowed but regulated. But when it comes to
prohibition, because the State is given an option, it can either be absolute
prohibition or partial prohibition in the sense that that is part of regulation?
MR. VILLEGAS: That is right.
MR. DAVIDE: When the Committee deleted the word private, does it mean
that government can be prohibited to engage in a monopoly?
MR. VILLEGAS: Definitely yes, because there were so many cases under the
Marcos regime where certain government monopolies were completely
against public
interest and, therefore, there should have been a prohibition against those
kinds of government monopolies.
MR. DAVIDE: If the idea is really to promote the private sector, may we not
provide here that the government can, in no case, practice monopoly except
in
certain areas?
MR. VILLEGAS: No, because in the economic field there are definitely areas
where the State can intervene and can actually get involved in monopolies
for
the public good.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, we have provisions here allowing such a monopoly in times
of national emergency.
MR. VILLEGAS: Not even in emergency; for the continuing welfare of
consumers.
MR. MONSOD: May we just make a distinction? As we know, there are natural
monopolies or what we call structural monopolies. Structural monopolies
are
monopolies not by the nature of their activities, like electric power, for
example, but by the nature of the market. There may be instances where the
market has not developed to such an extent that it will only allow, say, one
steel company. Structural monopoly is not by the nature of the business
itself. It is possible under these circumstances that the State may be the
appropriate vehicle for such a monopoly.
MR. DAVIDE: Thank you very much, Mr. Vice-President, members and
Chairman of the Committee.
MR. VILLEGAS: Thank you.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Vice-President, I ask that Commissioner Colayco be
recognized.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Colayco is recognized.
MR. COLAYCO: Thank you, Mr. Vice-President.
I would like to ask some questions on Section 8, page 4. Under this section,
the President shall recommend to Congress an integrated and coordinated
approach to national development with prior consultation with public
agencies and the private sector. May I know to what particular persons or
professions
the phrase private sector refers?
MR. VILLEGAS: May Commissioner Monsod answer that.
MR. MONSOD: I guess that should be read in the context of the different
private sectors that have an interest or relevance to the plan involved. Let us
say
that it is the industrial plan of the government, then there should be capital,
labor, suppliers and so on. I guess this should be read that people without
any interest in or relevance to that plan should not be consulted.
MR. COLAYCO: I hope Commissioner Monsod will not consider this question
personal. Would the Commissioner have any idea on whether the decision of
Minister
Solita Monsod regarding importation was reached after consultation with the
private sector, especially with the businessmen?
MR. MONSOD: As far as I know from reading the papers, the appropriate
consultations were made with the sectors that are affected by such policies.
MR. COLAYCO: But the Commissioner will notice that Minister Concepcion,
whose ministry is directly affected by the policy, is against it. I wonder if he
was consulted here.
MR. VILLEGAS: I can assure the Commissioner that he was consulted.
MR. COLAYCO: The Chairman mentioned the National Economic and
Development Authority as an independent planning agency of the
government. I suppose that
decision was formulated by the NEDA, of which Minister Monsod is the head.
Am I correct?
MR. MONSOD: I believe that the word independent here, as we answered
Commissioner Azcuna, was meant to be independent of the legislature
because the NEDA
under the present law is under the Office of the President.
MR. COLAYCO: Yes. In other words, the members of that agency are
appointed by the President?
MR. VILLEGAS: That is right.
MR. MONSOD: Yes.
MR. VILLEGAS: The President heads the NEDA.
MR. MONSOD: The President is the Chairman of the NEDA.
MR. COLAYCO: Yes. Section 10 of the committee report recommends that the
majority of the central monetary authority be appointed from the private
sector.
My question is addressed to both the Chairman and Commissioner Monsod:
Would the Committee advise this composition with reference to the NEDA?
Section 1 defines very clearly the goals of our economy and the preferences.
I would like to highlight line 13 which says:
. . . with priority to the welfare of the poor. In the attainment of these goals,
all economic sectors shall be given optimum opportunity to develop and a
broader-based ownership of private enterprises shall be encouraged.
Does such provision provide for a democratization of access to natural
resources? It is a known fact that if we provide openness to opportunities,
those
who have more tend to get more, but those who have less tend to
accumulate less because of the competition involved where the stronger
always gets better
off than the weaker. So in that context, do we have any assurances of some
form of a democratization of access to natural resources whereby the
weaker, let
us say, entrepreneurs, small businessmen, etc., will have greater
opportunities to avail of the provisions in this section?
MR. VILLEGAS: I think the answer to the question is yes. First of all, the
very title of one of the sections of the Article on Social Justice is
Agrarian and Natural Resources Reform, and so, definitely it is in the spirit
of the whole Constitution that we want wider access to the natural
resources. In addition, the specific mention of small-scale utilization of
natural resources and cooperative fish farming in Section 3 would definitely
be
in the spirit.
Does Commissioner Suarez, who was responsible for this omnibus provision,
have additional comments?
MR. SUAREZ: I think that is the thrust of this particular section.
MR. GASCON: Will the Committee, perhaps, entertain a proposal to include
such a term as democratization in the proper time?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes, we will, definitely.
MR. GASCON: My other question is with regard to page 2, Section 3,
beginning on line 25 which says:
The President with the concurrence of Congress, by special law, shall provide
the terms and conditions under which a foreign-owned corporation may
enter
into agreements with the government . . .
MR. BENGZON: Unless they are of such proportions such that they would
paralyze government service.
MR. GASCON: How will a takeover by the State operate? Will former owners
be compensated for their losses?
MR. VILLEGAS: No, this is only temporary, so there is no need to transfer
ownership. Only the operation will be taken over, which precisely is the
reason
for such a takeover. Directed operation shall be only for the duration of the
state of emergency.
MR. GASCON: During the period of taking over by the State, will there be
compensation for the owner who will be deprived?
MR. VILLEGAS: If they are prejudiced, definitely yes. No one can be deprived
of private property without just compensation.
MR. GASCON: Section 10 says: The Congress shall establish an independent
central monetary authority. What is the definition of independent here?
Does
this mean that independence should mean free from the dictates of foreign
and local interests? And does it also imply that the monetary authority will
pursue a nationalist self-reliant cause for the common good?
MR. VILLEGAS: Independence applies to all undue control or influence.
MR. GASCON: Whether it be from local capital interest or foreign interest or
even the State or the government?
MR. VILLEGAS: That is right; from the executive.
MR. GASCON: Thank you.
My final question is with regard to Section 15, lines 19 to 20, page 5, which
reads: . . . under the laws of the Philippines at least two-thirds of whose
voting stock or controlling interest is owned by such citizens.
This refers to public utility, is that correct?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes.
MR. GASCON: And we know for a fact that the primary concern of public
utility is the interest of the common good. Is it possible to increase ownership
from
MR. NATIVIDAD: I understand that because I was there. However, here we are
establishing a very primordial duty of the government that of a central
monetary authority, and yet we are putting it in the hands of a majority of
the private sector. I was just asking for an explanation because, to my mind,
it seems a little bit incongruous. Usually, the private sector is only
represented, but in this case, they are in the majority.
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes, but this is also in the spirit of always taking into account
the sectors that are affected by a certain policy, and there will always be
the Governor of the Central Bank who will be definitely protecting the
governments point of view.
MR. NATIVIDAD: But he is going to be the presiding officer, and the majority
can vote him down. I believe that the government should retain control of
government function and not abdicate it in favor of the private sector
because this is a primordial duty of government.
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes, that is right.
MR. NATIVIDAD: During the hearing, this was at the back of my mind. I am
one of the authorities on this provision. But it is a little bit different from
what we filed. I am asking this clarificatory question because I can conceive
of a situation in the future where a hostile private sector might throw a
monkey wrench on our monetary policies.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Vice-President.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: There is a good distinction between fiscal and monetary
policies because a monetary policy is more an accommodating rather than
initiating
function. It is the fiscal policy that does that. I believe the Committee, in
putting in this provision, had in mind to reduce the direct control and
interference in the Monetary Board, for example, of the Ministry of Finance or
people who are directly involved in the executive function of government. As
it is now, there are five government ministers out of the seven members and
there would be an imbalance because the Monetary Board may be
completely
subservient to the fiscal or budgetary requirements of government. That
could distort the system. So we felt that there was a need for independence
in the
monetary function in order to balance the situation, although the monetary
function may not be completely able to balance this, if the fiscal function is
very active.
Mr. Chairman and the members of the Committee, I have read through all the
sections proposed in this Article, but I am still looking for something which I
believe concerns most of us that of using our own materials and our own
manufactured goods. In short, I am referring to what we called the NEPA
we use
our own goods, our own materials, and our own labor.
I understand that even Marlboro, although produced here and still called
Marlboro, is paid a certain amount for royalty, as is Coca-Cola and
Pepsi-Cola. In China, they use Coca-Cola but they use another name for it
and, therefore, are free from paying royalties to the Coca-Cola company. The
same
holds true with Pepsi-Cola. I wonder if at this point we can introduce in this
Article the possibility of using our own goods, our own materials, our own
labor. In Japan, one hardly sees any goods labelled after the Western
countries. All these are named after the Japanese goods.
In short, let us be a little bit nationalistic in this matter, because I feel that
our country can produce more and can make more if we become conscious
of
using our goods. Take, for example, corn. At this period of the year, we have
plenty of corn produced. And yet, we already have certain importations
already being planned for some time in the middle of September to October.
This is true with the fish meal used in the production of our feeds for
livestock, chicken and cows. We have plenty of meat, yet we are prone to
import.
I wonder if we can introduce in this Article what we call NEPA or the use of
local goods, materials locally manufactured and the use of local labor. We
may add a section if the Committee will permit us.
Thank You.
MR. SUAREZ: Mr. Vice-President, may we request that Commissioner Monsod
be recognized to answer the query of Commissioner de Castro.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Vice-President, I believe that the first sentence of Section 1
covers the principle that Commissioner de Castro wanted to enunciate
The
State shall develop a self-reliant and independent economy. With respect to
the enabling legislation on specific activities, including the legislation on
labeling and brand names, those are already details that perhaps should not
be covered by the Constitution. But I shall ask Commissioner Romulo to
explain
that in more detail.
Thank You.
MR. MONSOD: We will await the Commissioners amendment.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Vice-President, I ask that Commissioner Garcia be
recognized.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Garcia is recognized.
MR. GARCIA: Thank you, Mr. Vice-President.
I would like to make general remarks with reference to Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 9
and 10. First of all, may I say that I consider this Article on National
Economy and Patrimony crucial and important. In fact, I believe that the
Article on Social Justice in a sense cannot be realized unless the Article on
National Economy and Patrimony shares the same vision. And, therefore, I
am making my remarks in that context, hoping that this Article can provide
the
thrust, the environment so that the social justice direction can be realized.
At the same time, I want to make an admission. It was only yesterday
evening that we were told to tackle this Article on the National Economy and
Patrimony. I would have wished that I had sufficient time to do further study
and research on this very important Article. Since I did not have sufficient
time, I asked the Floor Leader regarding the number of interpellators. I was
told there was only just one more or two. I thought it was important that I
should at least lay some general questions. Nonetheless, I want to make an
admission that I feel there is a need for further research on this matter.
Anyway, the two major questions that I have in mind are these. As to the
entire Article, I asked myself how we can work towards more economic
democratization, so that the Article on National Economy and Patrimony can
truly safeguard the provisions that we have worked out very carefully and
systematically in the Article on Social Justice.
I find that there are certain areas here where this entire question can be
posed. Do they really lead towards the furthering and deepening of economic
democratization? For example, if we look at Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 9 and 10, we
will notice that there is a strong stress on the move towards private
initiative, the private sector, the private groups. I am wondering whether the
preference, as pointed out by the Chairman of the Committee, for the private
group or the private sector has contrast with the previous experience of the
public; whether it could also admit of a differentiation between private and
social. In other words, the distinction should not be only between private and
public but also between private and social. Initiative should not just be
left to certain individuals or to those who within the free enterprises could be
the strong monopoly group, but there must be a greater regard for the
social groups or the social sectors in society which normally are excluded
from the economic distribution system. In fact, there is a certain definition
given in Section 1, but I am wondering whether in the last sentence, when
one speaks of a broader-based ownership of private enterprise, that would
include
a mixed economy with the private enterprise and a social sector composed
of cooperative ventures and aggrupation of large communities like, for
example,
the peasant groups and the labor groups that we spelled out in the Article on
Social Justice and finally the state sector. A proper combination of these
three sectors and a recognition of the interplay of their working together
could bring forth a more just and economic democratization process.
However, I
feel there is a strong preference given to the private sector in this entire
Article.
The other question is: How does one ensure a greater protection of the
national interest? The first sentence reads: The State shall develop a selfreliant
and independent national economy, and yet one has still to find provisions
for greater protection. How do we intend to realize this? Is there a rational,
comprehensive direction or vision of how one creates a self-reliant
independent economy? Is there a priority? Are there economic and national
priorities
that will safeguard independent development? I seem to miss these in the
Article. Such perhaps provides a lot of opening, a lot of flexibility. We have to
consider this in the Third World context where there is unequal and uneven
relationship between strong nations and weak nations, also especially
considering our phase of development when there is a need to put a lot of
stress on social justice. This economic prioritizing, I think, is very important
to ensure precisely that we can develop, independent of other factors and
forces that are sometimes ranged against our national interest.
I would like to look deeper into this and with more detail, and perhaps
suggest in what manner those sections that I mentioned can be
strengthened. May I
refer you to Sections 9 and 10, particularly lines 13 and 14 of Section 9. With
regard to reserving certain areas of investment to citizens of the
Philippines, I was wondering whether we can specify and say in a determined
manner, so as to reserve traditional priority areas to Filipino interest. I
think that could perhaps be clarified and, in fact, strengthened, so that we
can defend Filipino interest in priority areas.
and Patrimony. We should not look at the various articles piecemeal, but
should interrelate them especially these two articles I have referred to.
Then I would like to reiterate what I said this morning, that we want it very
clear on record that the word private is not limited to profit-making for
business groups. Precisely, we have taken into account the importance of
relating private to social or common good causes by making sure that the
word
private here is interpreted to include cause-oriented groups, cooperatives,
nongovernmental organizations, precisely any grouping that is not part of the
government sector. So, there is really no disagreement on this emphasis on
the social reorientation for the private group, and that is exactly why Section
2 opens with the statement that the use of property bears a social
function, and that all economic agents, whether they belong to the profitmaking
sector or the nonprofit-making sector, should contribute to the common
good. If that can be improved, definitely we would welcome some
suggestions.
Then that leads to the statement that the so-called private representation in
the Monetary Board can very well include nonprofit organizations, whether
they represent the labor sector or the farming sector, and that we will leave
it to Congress to decide who the so-called private representatives in the
Monetary Board should be. We are not thinking only in terms of bankers or
members of the profit-making sector when we say that the majority of the
members
of the Monetary Board come from the private sector. I am very glad
Commissioner Garcia gives us an opportunity to reiterate this. We can have
members of
the Monetary Board representing the labor sector, the farming sector, or
other sectors that Congress may decide. That is why we are leaving it open
to
Congress to decide on this representation.
MR. BENNAGEN: Mr. Vice-President.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bennagen is recognized.
MR. BENNAGEN: Thank you, Mr. Vice-President.
I am a member of the Committee, and for the benefit of Commissioner
Garcia, I did remember that I suggested the term mixed economy to
describe the range
of economic subsystems within the overall economy of Philippine society to
include those that were already mentioned, including private communal
state-owned. But it was the feeling of the other members of the Committee
occasions, the State or the public sector can come in. What I am trying to
say
is that there is a third and very important sector which we have to enlarge if
we are going to make economic democratization a reality, and that is the
social sector the social sector being the association of a great majority in
this country. Basically, these are the associations of workers, peasants,
low-income earners who can come together and perhaps be themselves the
creators of wealth. This is also a very important area. There can be property
with
the social sector in command, in control rather than either the State or the
individual entrepreneur.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Vice-President, may I just ask a question?
Can we put this in operational terms?
MR. GARCIA: Yes.
MR. MONSOD: Let us talk about a steel company. Let us say that in case of
invasion or in case of war, the steel company is now managed by a group
listed in
the stock market and which has a broad-based ownership. In times of war,
the State says that this is an emergency and we would like to take over this
industry because production, not profit, is important. Now, where does the
third sector come in?
MR. GARCIA: Since that is a very vital industry with such strategic nature and
character, then it should be in the hands of the State. In fact, I am very
doubtful whether a steel industry could be given to one family, like the
Jacinto family, rather than be in the hands of the State.
Let us take a newspaper, for example. Should a newspaper be in the hands
of one family or the State? I would say neither.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Vice-President, let us take the example we had earlier
because it is a company that should be in the hands of the State. In his
previous
statement, the Gentleman was referring to a third sector other than the
State . . .
MR. GARCIA: Yes.
MR. MONSOD: . . . or private enterprise even if it is broad-based in the stock
market. In the specific situation we were talking about, how does the third
sector enter into the picture as a preferred mode in order to make sure that
that company is run for the common good?
MR. GARCIA: The third sector, the social sector as a preferred mode, could
only be envisioned within a certain set of circumstances. In other words, it is
not for every enterprise. There are some strategic and vital industries that
cannot be under its control or under its leadership. But there are areas, for
example, the shoe-making industry in Marikina or a newspaper publishing
industry. Perhaps, rather than it be under the control of an individual
entrepreneur who will own it or a family or the State, why not a social sector
like a cooperative of newspapermen or of writers and other people who work
in that newspaper or the shoemakers themselves, banding together, be
made the cooperative owner to provide room for this sector as another
engine for
economic development in this area?
MR. MONSOD: Perhaps, if we expand the second sentence of Section 2 in
order to accommodate the cooperatives, maybe we can say individuals and
private
groups, SUCH AS, OR INCLUDING COOPERATIVES, and so on. Is this what the
Commissioner means because the Committee, in its deliberations, took into
consideration the different forms or the different types of organizations
within private groups? The Chairman mentioned that private groups or
individuals need not be profit-making. These private groups or individuals
need not be a corporation nor a big business. If the Commissioner wants
some
explicit mention of certain types of organizations in order to highlight the
social sectors he is talking about, the Committee would be happy to
entertain
suggestions in that regard, Mr. Vice-President.
MR. GARCIA: Actually, I am not sure whether this is simply a language
problem or a matter of phrasing. I feel there should be some effort to include
in the
vision of this Article a recognition of the social sector as a partner and one of
the priority areas in our national development. Really, I am not sure.
Does the Commissioner think this is only a language problem? Can we
accommodate this sector by a change in phraseology of the section or
should this be
part of the vision of this Article?
MR. MONSOD: If we can address the questions squarely, when the
Committee formulated this Article there was a very distinct preference for
private
initiative. If the Commissioner is saying that the section should have a
different orientation, that it should talk about socialism or socialization of
factors of production or assets, then that is a different thing altogether. I
think the concept of the Committee was that private groups should include
collective organizations and cooperatives. But in fairness to the
the Committee for purposes of determining its intent and of the Commission
later with respect to some of the major provisions.
Section 1, lines 7 and 8, states: The State shall develop a self-reliant and
independent national economy. I do not know whether in constitutional
literature these terms self-reliant and independent correspond to certain
well-established meanings. The Committee cannot be referring in any case to
self-reliance and independence in the context of economic autarky.
MR. VILLEGAS: No. As I said in my sponsorship speech this morning, that is
not what the Committee means.
MR. OPLE: Perhaps, the most conspicuous change in economic history in
modern times is the great interdependence according to which national
economies are
now linked together to a vital and often fickle global economy. Is that not
correct?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes.
MR. OPLE: And the most strikingly successful economy is in our own part of
the world where those who early on recognize this major discontinuity as,
some
economists call it, the arrival of an era of global interdependence say that
what happens in one part of the world, let us say, when the OPEC meets in
Vienna, can actually exert a direct impact within 24 hours on the
pocketbooks of workers in the Philippines. Would that be correct?
So there is no intention here to speak of an economy in isolation in the name
of self-reliance and independence.
MR. VILLEGAS: No, Mr. Vice-President.
MR. OPLE: I bring this up because certain contrasts in fundamental
perspectives might be involved. Earlier in a committee meeting, I put this
question to a
distinguished economist, who is the Chairman of the Committee on National
Economy and Patrimony, on why 20 years ago we had a higher per capita
income than
Korea, Taiwan and Japan. Our engineers built the runway in Seoul; we were
considered an emerging economic Cinderella of Asia and the Pacific, and the
potentials of an import-substituting economy got exhausted because we
turned inward and, in effect, nourished some companies that enfranchised
themselves
in a small domestic market with low volumes and high mark-ups so that, in
effect, the consumers were penalized ultimately in terms of having to buy
shoddy
goods at exorbitant prices. And, in the meantime, some of these countries to
our north Japan, Korea and Taiwan turned outward and competed for
their
fair share of emerging global markets, with the result that today, Korea and
Taiwan earn more than $30 billion from their export strategy compared to $5
billion of the Philippines, even if we put all of our exports together, including
copper, coconut oil, sugar, handicrafts and all goods. Korea owes the
banks about $40 billion while the Philippines $26 billion, but the banks still
queue at the door of the Korean companies; whereas, we are a basket case
in
the international economy. Is that not correct?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes.
MR. OPLE: So I wanted to make sure that there is no hermit-like retreat into
our own economy and no act of shutting our eyes to opportunities in the
global
economy with this term self-reliant and independent economy.
Earlier, Commissioner Monsod, in replying to Commissioner Garcia, said that
productivity is the major concern of this Article, as distinguished from the
redistributive justice in the Article on Social Justice. I look in vain for any
reference to productivity as a national policy in this Article.
Productivity is not mentioned a single time throughout this Article. Will the
Committee, therefore, at the proper time consider a section on productivity
as a national policy which, of course, will also be established in the context of
shared rewards for all those engaged in the effort of production? I would
also remind the Chairman of the Committee that in the course of the debate
on the Article on Social Justice I explicitly asked whether or not this
Committee would consider absorbing the overflow from one of the sections
in the Article on Social Justice about the State owing protection to our own
citizens in terms of the marine wealth of our territorial waters which should
be reserved exclusively to the exploitation by Filipino citizens, especially
the small fishermen.
MR. VILLEGAS: We would welcome an amendment to that effect, Mr. VicePresident.
MR. OPLE: Thank you very much, Mr. Vice-President.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Vice-President, I ask that Commissioner Quesada be
recognized.
general welfare because in the past, general welfare had been used by
the majority to inflict certain injustices on the minority. General welfare
means the greatest good for the greatest number. So, often, people who
belong to the marginalized sector are systematically left out.
As I said earlier, the term common good is a phrase in social philosophy
which is defined as a social order which enables every single individual and
society to attain fullest development economically, politically, culturally and
spiritually. So when we talk about economic privation, common good is
more appropriate. We have seen in the Article on Social Justice that we have
to provide for the marginalized sectors.
MS. QUESADA: I notice that at one point, the Commissioner substituted
common good for the word public interest. Is this the general term of
reference
then?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes.
MS. QUESADA: Is this a theological concept?
MR. VILLEGAS: It is a philosophical concept.
MS. QUESADA: I understand this has been based on the policy of the Vatican
II.
MR. VILLEGAS: Even before the Vatican II.
MS. QUESADA: Even before Vatican II?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes, that is right.
MS. QUESADA: In this particular Article, what would be the parameter of
having arrived at the term common good?
MR. VILLEGAS: In every decision we make in the economic sphere, we must
consider the welfare of everyone. We cannot be very summary in dismissing
the
interest of special groups just to promote the good of the majority, although
in the field of economics, as in politics, the public interest sometimes may
require a decision in favor of the majority. This is the reason public interest,
in certain situations, can actually mean the common good.
MS. QUESADA: Let us take the case of the people of Cordillera. Would the
Commissioner say that the common good of these people was served when
the Chico
Dam was constructed?
MR. VILLEGAS: In that particular case, not necessarily. Precisely, we have
provisions in the Article on Social Justice to make sure that the rights of
indigenous tribes are more seriously considered in public works projects.
MS. QUESADA: Also, in the case of the construction of the Pantabangan Dam
when a lot of inhabitants of Nueva Ecija were actually displaced and
dislocated,
would the Commissioner say that the common good was served?
MR. VILLEGAS: Definitely not, if there is evidence that the welfare of these
indigenous tribes has been completely neglected without any fair treatment.
MS. QUESADA: So, as a nation, how would we relate to this concept of
common good?
MR. VILLEGAS: By precisely always considering the welfare of everyone in a
decision. It does not mean that we cannot make decisions for the good of the
majority but we must not be completely oblivious to the good of the minority.
We must provide some ways and means of resettling individuals who may be
displaced because of the power of eminent domain. As we very well know,
there is the power of eminent domain, but we cannot just say that we could
not care
less what happens to those who are dislocated because that would be
against the common good.
MS. QUESADA: So the Committee would not be using the parameters of
economic growth?
MR. VILLEGAS: Definitely not because economic growth is not the only
objective of the Article on the National Economy, as very clearly stated in
Section 1.
MS. QUESADA: When we say development, we ask the question of for
whose development.
MR. VILLEGAS: Exactly.
MS. QUESADA: I suggest we again use simple terms because I am thinking of
how I could explain this to the laymen like farmers, workers, and the urban
poor,
so that they would realize that, indeed, this Article on National Economy and
Patrimony does not conflict with the other Articles that we have been
working
out very conscientiously. In simple terms, would the Commissioner then say
that the component of this common good can be expressed in parameters,
like the
equitable distribution of income, etc.?
MR. VILLEGAS: Exactly, it is the first goal.
MS. QUESADA: Would the parameter that there is conservation of this
income, that we keep this income so that it does not get away from us, that
it remains
in our country, also apply in this particular concept of common good?
MR. VILLEGAS: The phrase which says goods and services produced by the
nation for the benefit of the Filipino people is supposed to capture the
concept,
Mr. Vice-President.
MS. QUESADA: Would the third parameter that there is full employment of
income to create our wealth and produce capital goods be covered in this
particular
definition?
MR. VILLEGAS: Actually, that is one of the answers to Commissioner Oples
query about self-reliance. To the extent that we have resources and we have
domestic savings, we should not rely on outside help. We should only rely on
outside help once we have exhausted all our possible resources.
MS. QUESADA: So the Commissioner has expressed in a way the philosophy
of Sections 1 and 2 of this particular Article, which does not appear in either
the
1935 or 1973 Constitution.
MR. VILLEGAS: That is right, Mr. Vice-President.
MS. QUESADA: The next question I would like to ask is: What was the
rationale behind the transposition of the different sections? I notice that in
the
Article on National Economy and Patrimony, the section, for example, that
refers to NEDA which is denominated as Section 1 in the 1973 Constitution is
now
Section 8; Section 2 is now Section 14.
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes, that is right. We thought that the order followed in the
committee report is more logical. We found the 1973 Constitution with NEDA
introducing the whole Article very inappropriate because we do not even
know what the goals of the economy are. Introducing immediately an
economic
planning agency is not even an indispensable part of managing the economy.
MS. QUESADA: So in Section 2, page 1, line 19, which states all economic
agents in the private sector, it appears that we are giving a lot of leeway for
the private sector to take the lead in the development sphere. There are
some concerns about the private sector being covered in the Article to
include not
only the local private sector but also the foreign private sector. Is that right?
MR. VILLEGAS: There is no intention to do that in this specific provision. In
fact, the intention here is to include cooperatives, cause-oriented groups
and non-profit-making organizations as part of private sector, but there was
never any intention to explicitly include the foreign sector. But definitely
to the extent that there is, for example, the 40-60 provision on exploration of
natural resources, the foreign groups can be included.
MS. QUESADA: So it does not exclude big foreign businesses.
MR. VILLEGAS: It does not.
MS. QUESADA: The 1973 Constitution used the words service contracts. In
this particular Section 3, is there a safeguard against the possible control of
foreign interests if the Filipinos go into coproduction with them?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes. In fact, the deletion of the phrase service contracts was
our first attempt to avoid some of the abuses in the past regime in the use
of service contracts to go around the 60-40 arrangement. The safeguard that
has been introduced and this, of course, can be refined is found in
Section
3, lines 25 to 30, where Congress will have to concur with the President on
any agreement entered into between a foreign-owned corporation and the
government involving technical or financial assistance for large-scale
exploration, development and utilization of natural resources.
MS. QUESADA: Thank you. Does the Commissioner not think that Section 9
on page 4 somehow runs in direct contradiction with Section 1 which
provides for the
development of a self-reliant and independent national economy?
MR. VILLEGAS: May I know in what sense?
MS. QUESADA: Section 9 appears to open the economy to the unhampered
participation by foreign investment in almost all areas of economic activity
while
empowering the legislature to establish certain areas of investment as
recommend
to Congress and implement an integrated and coordinated approach to
national development.
I do remember that in one of the committee meetings, I proposed the
inclusion of labor and peasant organizations under the private sector to
make sure that
the private sector here refers not only to men in business and industry but
also to representatives of labor and peasant organizations. I think this is a
very important innovation in implementing integrated and coordinated
development programs. The President is obliged to consult not only with
government
agencies but also with the private sector, which in this new context includes
labor and peasant organizations. In this respect, we build even into the NEDA
planning process consultations with sectoral organizations.
With respect to the bigger isms mentioned by Commissioner Tan, I would
like to refer these to the economic philosopher who is the Chairman of the
Committee.
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes. Although anyone is entitled to his own views on how to
run the economy, whether to decolonize, industrialize or do something about
it, I
think it is more subject to the discussion that should lead to legislation
because there are many issues involved, like the extent of foreign control
and
of the industries we would like to develop. Should we put up 11 major
projects as against small and medium-scale industries? Should we accent
agriculture?
Those are all very debatable issues that are better left to Congress to
legislate. The Committee was of the opinion that going into those policy
issues
would clutter the Constitution.
SR. TAN: But if it is important, it would not clutter.
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes, it is an important empirical question which is very
difficult for us to settle right now because of our limited time and resources.
SR. TAN: My only feeling is that we have been following this during the past
years and now we have more paupers than we have ever had before. What is
written here is really good, but if we do not put something definite like what
we did in the Article on Social Justice which took us so many days, we will
have the same banana. But I appreciate all the efforts of the Committee.
MR. MONSOD. Mr. Presiding Officer, this morning, I think the same question
was asked, and the sense of the Committee was that central planning may
be
necessary at this time, but it may not be necessary later on. Since we are
framing a Constitution that is going to be valid for a long time, the
Committee
felt that the reference to planning as the central theme of the Article on
National Economy and Patrimony may not be appropriate. It may be needed
now but
it may not be needed later, particularly in the context of our directions that
there should be less government, that there should be more reliance on
private initiative, including not only individuals and business enterprises, but
also nongovernmental, cooperatively collectivist organizations and the
like. That is the reason the provision on NEDA was not put in Section 1 but in
later sections, Mr. Presiding Officer. So it is not the intention of the
Committee to downgrade planning, especially at this time when it may be
needed.
MR. FOZ: But just the same, even if the economy has progressed, and in
whatever stage the national economy finds itself in, there has to be some
kind of
central planning by the State or the government.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, there are many kinds of planning, like
total planning and indicative planning. In fact, the Committee considered the
possibility that later on, as the economy is more developed, what we may
only need is a council of economic advisers which may not include a
centralized
planning function.
So we are leaving the Constitution more flexible so it can attune itself to the
needs of circumstances.
MR. FOZ: Is that the reason the draft Article provides that the President, after
consultations with the appropriate public agencies and the private sector,
shall recommend to Congress and implement an integrated and coordinated
approach to national government? Will the burden of drawing up and
carrying out the
approach, the social and economic plans for the nation, now fall on the
shoulder of the President?
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, the planning agency is under the Office
of the President, and the introduction and recommendation of the economic
program is primarily an executive function. This is merely a recognition of the
executive function.
We also came to other situations in the Article where it would be a matter of,
say, forest and aquatic resources, and we asked ourselves: Why is it that
in these other sections the Ministry of Natural Resources is not mentioned?
Why is it that in the section on taxes and tariff, the Ministry of Finance is
not mentioned? So we arrived at the conclusion that these are all executive
functions and, therefore, to put things in the proper perspective, the
Ministers are really subsumed in the term President who are his alter egos.
MR. FOZ: In the Committees view, what exactly should be the relationship
between the National Economic and Development Authority and the Office of
the
President? Will the President be the chairman in the conception of the
Committee?
MR. MONSOD: Right now, the President is the Chairman of the National
Economic and Development Authority.
MR. FOZ: I still have some other questions to ask of the Chairman of the
Committee, but I am just not ready at the moment. If I will be given a chance
to
pose them tomorrow I would like to make that reservation.
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes.
MR. FOZ: Thank you.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, I ask that Commissioner Sarmiento be
recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): Commissioner Sarmiento is
recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: I am a member of the Committee, but I would like to make
a few comments and clarifications.
I share the concern of many of our colleagues that the Article on Social
Justice and even the Bill of Rights, without economic justice, economic
Filipinization, economic democratization and even industrialization and
protectionism, will be useless provisions in our Constitution.
Somebody said, and I quote:
The security and defense of the State, as well as social justice, are illusory
objectives as long as the economy is without a strong industrial base. Even
a Bill of Rights is meaningless to a people in hunger. Mans survival depends
the Monetary
Board, which is very unhealthy.
I believe some of my colleagues in the Committee have some other remarks.
MR. MONSOD: I think some of the objectives of industrialization mentioned
by the Commissioner are really quite valid objectives. I just want to ask the
Commissioner whether or not the government is the proper vehicle for this.
And, perhaps, if the Commissioner can show the record of the government
with
respect to the management of business enterprises and even to functions
that are inherent in government, the government is unable to deliver
services and
goods that are properly within its functions efficiently. How can we now
additionally impose on the government the task of having a direct hand in
industrialization by owning and managing state enterprises in industry? Mr.
Presiding Officer, I am willing to be corrected if we can show the good
performance of the government.
MR. VILLEGAS: I will just supplement the remark about State intervention.
Actually, in one of our committee meetings and I am sure Commissioner
Villacorta can attest to this the Committee even moved to delete some
references we made to our neighboring countries that succeeded in
industrialization
because it was Commissioner Villacortas judgment, which we accepted, that
a lot of these countries Korea, Taiwan and the other countries achieved
high
levels of growth at a tremendous human cost dictatorship, authoritarian
leadership which is actually the tradeoff that we are now trying to address
very squarely. We cannot use our neighboring countries 100 percent as a
model precisely because we are now trying to balance human and economic
rights.
MR. OPLE: Mr. Presiding Officer, I do not think that any moral proprium
attaches to the name private sector or private capital, especially when
this is
understood in the context of the ambitions of our own people to become
successful entrepreneurs. There is some historical context to this. I still recall
the philosopher Karl Marx when the Industrial Revolution was emerging in
Europe, which moved him to say: This is the greatest liberative force that
mankind has ever known. And that was the first of the stages of national
capitalism based on certain values, like self-denial and frugality. We will
remember that the book by R. H. Toni connects the emergence of
mercantilism and capitalism to the Calvinist values, which means hard work
is great in the
sight of God, and the rewards of hard work are also great in the sight of God.
But I think the most prosperous societies on earth are those that have
successfully combined State activism or State intervention with the
unmatched dynamism of private initiative, which is a fact that cannot be
controverted. We might say something about the defects of such societies,
but if we look at the scale of assessments in the United Nations based on the
per
capita incomes of nations, about 70 percent of all the contributions to the
United Nations and to the multilateral aid program come from these
societies. I
am not an apologist for the sins of capitalism, but I think Filipino capital, as I
understand it and this is the context in which we are describing the
private sector, ought to be given the recognition and the encouragement
that it deserves. After all, there is no question that private initiative is the
engine on which we shall depend, until the form of government changes, for
the development of our country and the generation of wealth that can be
equitably shared among Filipinos.
At present, there are nonperforming assets worth P200 billion in the
government portfolios, and that is the reason we resort to debt and equity
swap which
are a kind of desperate strategy for us to get rid of these nonperforming
assets of government corporations a monument to the waste and,
perhaps, to the
corruption of a certain form of State intervention in the economy. That is the
reason I do not feel the Committee should apologize for the accent that is
being placed on the role of Filipino entrepreneurs in the development of their
own country under this Article on National Economy and Patrimony.
Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. VILLEGAS: Let me react to Commissioner Oples statement. We would
welcome any amendment probably to restore references to indigenous small
and
medium-scale entrepreneurs in the Philippines. I think in this way we can
definitely make the meaning of private sector even clearer.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I just add that if one were to look at
the economic crisis of the past three years, I think he will note that the
corporations that went down the drain faster were government corporations.
In fact, what sustained the economy during these three years were the small
and
medium-scale enterprises both in the formal and informal sectors of this
country. This is the base upon which we can build on.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, I ask that Commissioner Bennagen be
recognized.
and Patrimony hindi lamang para sa Cory government kundi pati na sa mga
susunod pang pamahalaan. Hindi ako naniniwalang kailangan nating iasa sa
legislature ang pagpapalakas ng Article on National Economy and Patrimony.
Nakita natin ang naging problema sa Article on Social Justice tungkol sa
agrarian reform. Ano ang tinatawag nitong loopholes? Kapag inalis ang by
law sa pariralang The State shall by law, ito ay magiging The State shall
undertake. Inuutusan na ng pamahalaan ang Kongreso at maaaring
magsagawa na agad ng expansion ang Ministry of Agrarian Reform. Subalit
hindi maaaring
magsagawa ang Ministry of Agrarian Reform ng ano mang programa tungkol
sa agrarian reform; hihintayin pa nito ang Kongreso. Ang pariralang shall by
law
ay mayroong positive at negative aspect. Kung ang bumubuo ng Kongreso ay
landlord at comprador class, magkakaroon ito ng negative aspect. Magiging
mabuti
lamang ang shall by law kung ang bumubuo ng Kongreso ay pro-people.
Kaya hindi ako sang-ayon na iasa natin ito sa legislature. Dapat, bilang
supreme law,
ang Saligang Batas ang mag-uutos sa Kongreso; hindi ang Saligang Batas
ang aasa sa Kongreso.
Napakahalaga ng Article on National Economy and Patrimony sapagkat ito
ang take-off stage ng national recovery. Kailangan dito ang isang malakas na
seksiyon tungkol sa national industrialization. Sa palagay ko naman, ang
Committee on the National Economy and Patrimony ay bukas sa isang
malakas na
seksiyon sa national industrialization.
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes, as we told Commissioner Ople, we, in fact, encourage an
amendment introducing that provision which refers to industrialization. So, I
hope the Gentleman can coauthor the amendment.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, I ask that Commissioner Aquino be
recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: I fully appreciate the Committees efforts to define in the broad
stroke some kind of a thrust for the Article on National Economy and
Patrimony but maybe I was expecting more. I had hoped that instead of just
motherhood concepts of self-reliance in economic development, there is an
urgent
need for us to address the imperatives of setting up a definitive mandate,
cutting through the bull, and addressing and defining precisely a specific
industrial policy.
States where they are stuck with overproduction in agriculture. So, we felt
there should be some flexibility as far as that is concerned.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer, if only I would be allowed to reply briefly.
I will have no quarrel with Commissioner Monsod on that matter. In fact, I am
not willing to go to that extent of specifics; I am only saying that we might
as well clearly define the framework of industrial growth here, and that is
possible in terms of defining what we perceive to be a historical solution to a
historical problem. We do not have to go into the mechanics that would
require specific data management or programming.
MR. MONSOD: We would be willing to accept some amendments or
suggestions in that regard. Essentially the issue is really the mix of the
private and public
sector participation in the economy.
MS. AQUINO: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): Commissioner Bennagen is recognized.
MR. BENNAGEN: Let me try to get into the discussion in relation to the way
we are reacting to the nature of the State or even its modes of intervention.
It would seem to me that we have not gone beyond the character of the
State during the Marcos years and that we have failed to make a shift in
paradigm
even after the political revolution of February. In the Marcos years we did
have a dictatorship which was an alliance of a fraction of the political elite
and a fraction of the economic elite. I would like to think that that alliance
was dismantled during the February uprising and that we are moving on into
a
new alliance where a broader range of private sector organizations or
groups, individuals, cause-oriented groups, civic organizations are involved;
meaning, we already have a wider range of participants in both the political
and economic exercises to warrant the explosion of some kind of creativity in
the economic sphere that was absent during the Marcos years.
Earlier I indicated that during the Marcos years, there was a lot of distortion
in the process of capital accumulation. I would like to think that those
distortions have been minimized, if not eliminated, and we are now prepared
to have an alliance between the government and the wide range of private
sectors. There should be no resistance to the exploration of viable
relationship between government and this whole range of private
participants.
Justice.
This is precisely the kind of ultimate objective, the vision of an ultimate
objective and framework. That is all.
I was actually going to propose just as we did in the local government, if the
Commissioner feels that this could help us to come together, to put our
thoughts together and work this thing out thoroughly. After all the
interpellations, we could go to a caucus as we did the last time and hammer
out the
ideas because I am afraid this is not just a matter of semantics. It is really
trying to find but if, upon putting all of our different ideas together, we
can come up with an Article that would truly serve, for a long time, the
upliftment and recovery of our economy and our people. Can we come to a
caucus
together and discuss these ideas and find out what is the real sentiment? We
are not simply debating on the proper wording but on an ultimate vision.
Thank you.
MR. MONSOD: Can the Commissioner give us an idea? Maybe he can write it
out or have a presentation to the Commission on the process of development
that he
has in mind?
MR. GARCIA: I was thinking that perhaps we can come together in a caucus
and discuss what kind of economy we really want to have in the future. Let
us sit
down together, face each other and talk. Maybe after all the interpellations,
we can discuss it. I think we will really save time because we will not be
just amending the different words.
MR. MONSOD: No, Mr. Presiding Officer, what we need are other options that
what the Committee feels are the path or process of development that would
be
appropriate for the country. What we need is an explanation of the other
options available to us.
MR. GARCIA: What I am proposing actually is this: We could come together
and perhaps some of us could propose some alternative ideas. Actually, if
the
Gentleman will look at the minutes of his own committee, he will find that
there have been many ideas expressed already. It is just a matter of putting
them together in a far more integrated fashion.
MR. BENGZON: We would like to start off with the Gentleman. Maybe he
could just write down his ideas and give them to us, and then we can get into
a
caucus. So, we will have a starting point because if we get into a caucus
without any concrete ideas or other options, then we will just be using the
committee report as the basis.
MR. GARCIA: All right, I accept the invitation of the Gentleman. I would like to
invite every single Commissioner here who may have his own ideas
regarding
this point. How can we open the economy so that other social sectors could
become more active participants and enjoy the benefits of economic
recovery? How
can this be pushed? I feel we can enrich this by this kind of participation.
MR. BENGZON: In the meantime, we can continue the various interpellations
we have.
MR. GARCIA: Yes, precisely. My proposal is that after all the interpellations,
we go back to the Article on Local Governments. Is that correct?
MR. BENGZON: No, I was told that under the schedule that we have we are
going back to the Article on Local Governments on Friday morning because
we still
do not have copies of the new report of the Committee
MR. MONSOD: We are willing to ask the Chair if we can have a caucus
tomorrow for this purpose. That might be a good idea.
MR. GARCIA: I would like to suggest this. Let us try to finish all the
interpellations, as we did with the Article on Local Governments, and then we
can
come together and talk.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): May the Chair suggest that during our
merienda recess, Commissioner Garcia and the others talk with the members
of the
Committee on the possibility of having a caucus either this afternoon or
sometime tomorrow.
MR. OPLE: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: Mr. Presiding Officer, I think this morning, on motion of the
Chairman of the Steering Committee, the body approved a proposal that we
devote two
quote a critique by different scholars from several parts of the world who
evaluated the development strategies in Third World countries.
It states:
If development means obtaining and securing the basis of life for the
masses, the worlds population, if it is to increase emancipation of oppressed
people, classes, and marginalized social groups, if it is to aspire to the
creation of a just, nonexploitative and mutually beneficial social order for the
free development of each individual condition and for the free development
of all, then clearly, developmentalism cannot be the answer. Human and
social
development for all can only mean the necessary transformation of the
worlds system into a different social order aimed at a different mode of
production
and a different form of society.
If we could only support this movement even in an evolutionary way towards
South-South cooperation, towards the production of appropriate technology,
appropriate consumption and production style so that we would not be
overdependent on the North, I think it is this kind of vision that I would like to
see
expressed in a development philosophy. We should then move forward,
unleashing all the creative forces of our society towards this direction of
freeing
ourselves from the exploitative international order which has produced an
environment that favors investment of transnational capital and other
inequitable
relationships between the North and the South. I would like to see a provision
which shows the need for short-term and medium-term as well as long-term
strategies which will work towards full sovereignty in the economic sector.
Thank You.
MR. VILLEGAS: We would welcome an amendment to that effect.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: I ask that Vice-President Padilla be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): The Vice-President, Commissioner
Padilla, is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
conditions as may be provided by law. But I found that this proposal was not
even considered by the Committee whether or not it has any merit.
MR. VILLEGAS: It was considered, Mr. Presiding Officer. In fact, there was full
deliberation; we had a number of people from the various sectors the
export-oriented sector, real estate sector and the Committee decided,
although there was no consensus, that it was not an indispensable ingredient
in
attracting foreign capital. But we would leave it up to the body to decide, if
the Gentleman likes to introduce an amendment.
MR. PADILLA: Mr. Presiding Officer, the prohibition is with regard to aliens
acquiring public agricultural lands. But the prohibition has been extended to
prohibition to acquire private land. If we must encourage foreign investments
and attract foreign investors, especially in the manufacture and export of
products that are export-oriented which may be not only dollar-saving but
dollar-earning and we always say we want economic development does
not the
Gentleman agree with me that this second exception or another exception to
the general rule that private lands are to be reserved exclusively to citizens,
to which I agree, can be followed to attract foreign investments and foreign
industrial enterprises, especially in the manufacture of goods for export and
using as much as possible local materials and necessarily local labor?
MR. SUAREZ: Precisely, the points raised by the Gentleman this afternoon
were taken up in connection with the public hearings conducted by his
Committee.
We remember an English gentleman who presented his situation very
forcefully in the way the Vice-President is presenting it now. One of the
answers given
was the fact that all of these enterprises could flourish and prosper under a
lease agreement. In other words, there was no necessity for that exporter,
who is a foreign investor, to own the land on which the industry will be
established or set up. That was one of the proposed solutions to correct the
situation, a long-term lease without getting involved in the matter of
ownership. The examples were also given in the case of the EPZA or of
industrial
operators wherein certain portions of the EPZA estate were being leased to
companies like Ford Philippines, Mattel and Globe Textile Manufacturing.
They
did not have to own the land on which their industries were set up,
notwithstanding the fact that their industries were, indeed, export-oriented.
But at
any rate, at the proper time, with all the necessary limitations regarding the
area, we in the Committee would be pleased to entertain the proper
amendment.
MR. PADILLA: The lease of industrial lots for long term is not a sufficient
incentive for foreign investors. Moreover, the owners of industrial lots may
not agree on a long-term lease with fixed rentals. However, the fear of
acquiring or owning a limited industrial lot where the manufacturing plant is
established is not serious, for the lot and its buildings are permanent,
immovable real estate which the foreign investor cannot take away, and
such land
improved by these industrial buildings and plants remain as assets of the
country. With regard to lease under long term, some believe that the
prohibition would include not only title or ownership of land but holding land,
which may not be the naked ownership but also the right of use, like the
usufruct or in lease. If lease is on a long-term basis, maybe 25 years
renewable by another 25 or even 99 years, for all practical purposes, that is
like
owning the land. It is not exactly correct to say that all foreign investors are
happy in a continuing lease when their foreign investments, the dollars
they bring in, may not only be used for the plant but also for the acquisition
of a specific, limited industrial lot, which will encourage foreign
investments and the manufacture of industrial goods especially if they are
export-oriented.
We always talk of the State, the private sector and the social aspect. What
will develop this country is creating wealth, producing additional goods and
services. I have heard our friend Commissioner Tadeo mention so many who
are out of work workers, farmers and others. They look for work but they
cannot
find work. Many invoke and rely on the State. The State can help by giving
incentives to the private sector for the production of additional goods and
services. But we cannot really expect social benefits or more distribution of
the benefits of wealth unless we first produce wealth, unless we first
increase our productivity.
The State or the government has never been successful in the operation of
private business. The so-called government-owned and controlled
corporations have
usually been financial failures. The government may only be justified if it
enters into pioneer fields of enterprise which the private sector cannot enter
into, but never for the State to engage in business in competition with
private business.
We must realize that we cannot remove the profit motive in business,
whether it be agriculture, industry or commerce. There must be an incentive
for
investment and there must be a reasonable expectation of profits. These
profits should be shared not only by the owner or capital but also by the
workers
or labor.
If we do not have additional industrial enterprises, we will continue to have
numerous and growing armies of unemployed. Unfortunately, the workers
cannot
help themselves; they need industrial entrepreneurs, usually called the
captains of industries who not only have capital but also experience and
vision to
enter into business enterprises with some risks of loss. That is, in my opinion,
the real approach to a growing national economy.
Mr. Presiding Officer, many think right away of State control or a just share of
workers when we refer to the underprivileged to share in the benefits.
Well and good. But we cannot share the benefits unless we first produce
those benefits. In my opinion, the greatest factors for the production of
wealth
for increased productivity are the entrepreneurs, the private sector, under
the principle of free enterprise and, we must admit, profit motive, subject, of
course, to the regulatory power of the State for the common good.
So, instead of speaking about an ideal society, we have to be more
pragmatic and realistic such that, as according to the Cory government, the
first thrust
is agriculture. Very good, because we must satisfy the needs of our people,
our growing population, and after agriculture will be a certain amount of
industrialization. Maybe Filipino domestic capital cannot undertake big
ventures. That is why we should encourage small-and middle-size
enterprises. But if
we have an opportunity for greater investments by foreign capitalists I am
not an advocate of multinationals but the principle of investments for more
production more economic benefits can be shared by all the elements of
society.
Thank you.
MR. VILLEGAS: I thank the honorable Gentleman.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, I ask that Commissioner Brocka be
recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Rev. Rigos): Commissioner Brocka is recognized.
MR. BROCKA: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
So, it seems that the phrase common good is a good excuse to neutralize
whatever fears some sectors of society feel regarding the implementation of
these
particular Articles.
I am bringing that up because I would like to ask the Committee once and for
all to give a definition of common good. I do not expect that answered now
perhaps tomorrow or some other time. But I think it would be good if we are
clear insofar as the definition of common good is concerned. Probably, we
can
use the Article on Social Justice as framework, because in the original Article
on Social Justice, there were phrases like social justice is the moral,
cultural, political, economic imperative. However, they were taken out
completely.
So, for the peace of mind of most people who want some clarity on this, I
would ask the Committee to come up with a definition of the common
good.
Secondly, I am in receipt of a correspondence that just arrived today and I
went through it when Commissioner Aquino stood up and spoke about the
Article
on National Economy and Patrimony not being clear or not being brave
enough to come up with a definite policy or industrial policy, call it what you
want.
I was reading this particular correspondence I do not know if the other
Commissioners have it signed by well-known businessmen, some of whom
I know
from the parliament of the streets, containing a proposed constitutional
provision which makes sense to me. It is a proposed constitutional provision
on
industrialization, economic protectionism and Filipinization of the economy,
and it reads:
The State shall promote the full and rapid industrialization of the economy to
generate mass employment. For this purpose, the State shall adopt, among
others, a policy of direct and indirect protectionism that will preserve and
ensure the domestic market for local industries, as well as for agricultural
and other sectors of the economy. The State shall at all times ensure that the
economy is under the control of Filipinos and that industries so vital to
national security do not fall under the control of non-Filipinos.
I would like to follow up what Commissioner Tan said earlier. As I said, when I
read this, it makes sense, although I am not very clear on what
protectionism means in all these things. The reason I read this is for the
Committee to enlighten us on this particular proposed constitutional
provision
being proposed by a group of businessmen.
Whether the Committee wants to adopt this or not, I would like to know why,
since some of the members of the Committee on the National Economy and
Patrimony are well-known economists and I suppose this was submitted by
economists also probably of a different persuasion, a different outlook and a
different perspective.
I would like to request the Committee on the National Economy and
Patrimony to discuss this proposal so that laymen like I and others would
understand. I
realize that I am being very naive and very simplistic about this. But I hear
talks from people from the IMF and the World Bank and people from the
other
side, and being a layman, I am completely confused. They speak of
Filipinization. Definitely it sounds good to me, and I think I agree because
their
reasons make sense.
On the other hand, people from the IMF and the World Bank insist on foreign
capital because our economy is in such dire state. So, as a layman, I am
completely confused; would it be asking too much if I ask the Committee to
discuss the principles or policies being recommended here? I suppose if an
explanation is given, it will not only be for me but for many other laymen and
people who are confused about the IMF, World Bank and the school of
Lichauco
or of Constantino. I have read all these and, frankly speaking, I am very
confused. As a Filipino, I am for the Filipinization of the economy.
Commissioner
Garcia suggested that we have a caucus. Probably we can confront the
problem and discuss it once and for all. In this way, we do not talk in
whispers and
say that somebody is a member of the IMF and World Bank, one is a
nationalist and has a tendency of being socialistic or communistic, like when
we were
deliberating on the Article on Social Justice. So, for the enlightenment of
laymen and people who are confused about the kind of industrial or
economic
policies that we will put in the Constitution, may I reiterate that we take
these up in a caucus. As I said, I am terribly confused at the moment.
Thank you very much.
MR. VILLEGAS: Thank you very much, Mr. Presiding Officer.
To answer the first question of the Gentleman, I will reiterate the answer I
gave to Commissioner Quesada. The common good is defined by the
Committee as
a social order which enables every single member of a society to attain his
or her full development, economically, politically, culturally and
spiritually. So, that is the definition of the common good that we have in
the record. As I told Commissioner Quesada, we can actually substitute
public interest and general welfare, especially in this specific Article on
National Economy and Patrimony because there are situations in the
economic
sphere when the wishes of the majority can be legitimately followed as long
as we do not completely ignore the welfare of the minority. We do not have
to
use the common good repetitively in the specific Article. Some people
want to introduce certain amendments.
On the second point that the Gentleman raised, we would not want to speak
for the group about their definitions of protectionism and all the other words
that they used. They were the ones who made the recommendation and I
think it would be presumptuous of the Committee to speak for whoever
wrote that
specific letter.
MR. BROCKA: I am not asking that the Gentleman define it, but I would like to
find out what he thinks about it as a businessman or economist, or whether
he
is for or against it, and what his reasons are. That is what I am asking for; I
am not asking for his own definition. I do not think I can invite the
proponents to come here and explain but the Gentleman, as businessman
and economist, knows what they are talking about; I do not. So, I would like
to ask
how the Gentleman feels and thinks about it and why. Is it good for the
economy? What are the implications if this is adopted? I think I am speaking
for
the enlightenment of the rest of the Commissioners as far as this is
concerned.
Thank you.
MR. VILLEGAS: Gladly, we can always give the Gentleman several hours of
lecturing on these issues. This is really a very important illustration of what I
was trying to communicate to Commissioner Aquino that the moment one
tangles with these issues, he is literally bordering on legislation. Whether or
not
we should follow the wishes of the IMF and the World Bank, whether or not
R.C.C. NO. 56
Thursday, August 14, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
At 9:49 a.m., the Vice-President, the Honorable Ambrosio B. Padilla, opened
the session.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The session is called to order.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Everybody will please rise to sing the National Anthem.
Everybody rose to sing the National Anthem.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Everybody will please remain standing for the Prayer
to be led by the Honorable Jose C. Colayco.
Everybody remained standing for the Prayer.
PRAYER
MR. COLAYCO: Dear Lord and Heavenly Father, when we assumed office on
June 2, 1986, we solemnly swore to perform our task of framing a new
constitution
that will embody the ideals and aspirations of our people, and guarantee the
enjoyment of our peoples freedom from tyranny and oppression for
generations
to come. We were then eager and able to do what had to be done. It has
been more than two months now since we made that promise. We reaffirm it
now.
The task is tremendous, but we have not spared study, time and diligence to
accomplish what we have set out to do. In the process, some of us, including
Your humble servant, are beginning to falter and to fall behind. Others have
had to drop back out of strain and sheer fatigue and exhaustion. Our spirit is
faltering; our health weakening. We need Your help.
We beseech You, dear Lord, restore our energy and rekindle our spirit, so that
we can carry on and resume our assigned task to its final and successful
completion. Amen
ROLL CALL
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will call the roll.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Abubakar
Present *
Natividad
Present *
Alonto
Present
Nieva
Absent
Aquino
Present
Nolledo
Present *
Azcuna
Present
Ople
Present *
Bengzon
Present *
Padilla
Present
Bennagen
Present
Quesada
Present *
Bernas
Present *
Rama
Present
Rosario Braid
Present
Regalado
Absent
Brocka
Present *
Reyes de los
Present *
Calderon
Present
Rigos
Present
Castro de
Present
Rodrigo
Present
Colayco
Present
Romulo
Present
Concepcion
Present
Rosales
Present
Davide
Present
Sarmiento
Present *
Foz
Present
Suarez
Present
Garcia
Present *
Sumulong
Present
Gascon
Present *
Tadeo
Present
Guingona
Absent
Tan
Present
Jamir
Present
Tingson
Present
Laurel
Present
Treas
Present
Lerum
Present *
Uka
Present
Maambong
Present *
Villacon
Present
Monsod
Present *
Villegas
Present
APPROVAL OF JOURNAL
MR. CALDERON: Mr. Vice-President, I move that we approve the Journal of
yesterdays session.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none;
the motion is approved.
MR. CALDERON: Mr. Vice-President, I move that we proceed to the Reference
of Business.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none;
the motion is approved.
The Secretary-General will read the Reference of Business.
REFERENCE OF BUSINESS
The Secretary-General read the following Communications and Committee
Report, the Vice-President making the corresponding references.
COMMUNICATIONS
Communication from Mr. Geronimo A. Carreon of 263 Turingan Street,
Santiago, Isabela, proposing that teachers should not be compelled to
perform election
duties; civil service employees should be on equal footing with the military
personnel when it comes to retirement; age limit should be required of
candidates for president and vice-president, among others.
(Communication No. 538 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Steering Committee.
Communication from Rev. Paul B. Marx, O.S.B., of 418 C Street, N.E.,
Washington, D.C. 2002, saying that if abortion is legalized, it becomes a
primary
means of birth control; some people will not even bother with the use of
contraception; young people will have increasing irresponsible sexual
intercourse
because they know they can always get rid of it, but expressing the hope
that the new Constitution will contain protection for the unborn from the
moment
of conception.
(Communication No. 539 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
enshrinement of
health as a basic human right; (2) nationalization of the drug industry; (3)
creation of peoples congresses and sectoral consultative committees to
enshrine peoples participation in policy and decision-making processes of
the State; (4) prioritization of health and other social services; (5) enactment
of laws to promote better mother-child health; and (6) respect for the right of
privacy between patients and doctors, among others.
(Communication No. 543 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Social Justice.
Letter from Mr. Leandro I. Verceles, Suite 612/614 Manila Hilton, United
Nations Avenue, Manila, submitting, in behalf of the Philippine Council for
Foreign Relations, Inc., proposals in respect to some provisions of the
proposed Constitution, specifically on foreign military bases in the
Philippines.
(Communication No. 544 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of
Principles.
Letter from Mr. Elly Velez Pamatong of Room 600, VIP Building, 1140 Roxas
Blvd., Ermita, Manila, submitting his suggestions on Declaration of Principles
for consideration by the Constitutional Commission.
(Communication No. 545 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of
Principles.
Resolution 67-68 of the Sangguniang Panlungsod of Butuan City, signed by
City Mayor-Designate Guillermo R. Sanchez and other city officials,
expressing
support to the approved resolution of the Committee on Amendments and
Transitory Provisions, fixing the term of office of President Corazon C. Aquino
and
Vice-President Salvador H. Laurel for a period of six years counted from
February 25, 1986.
(Communication No. 546 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions.
Constitution a provision obliging the State to protect the life of the unborn
from the moment of conception.
(Communication No. 551 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of
Principles.
COMMITTEE REPORT
Committee Report No. 38 on Proposed Resolution No. 540, prepared by the
Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION AN ARTICLE ON
TRANSITORY PROVISIONS,
recommending its approval in substitution of Proposed Resolution Nos. 111,
120, 129, 137, 149, 214, 241, 254, 262, 285, 294, 348, 67, 362, 427, 443,
458,
461, 462, 463, 464, 473, 474, 475, 476, 483, 484, 485, 487, 490, 492, 494,
503, 527 and 529.
Sponsored by Hon. Suarez, Ople, Padilla, de Castro, Foz, Maambong, de los
Reyes, Jr., Tingson, Lerum, Sarmiento and Tan.
Cosponsored by Hon. Natividad, Jamir and Davide, Jr.
To the Steering Committee.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED
RESOLUTION NOS. 496 and 533
(Article on National Economy and Patrimony and
Provision on Ancestral Lands)
Continuation
PERIOD OF SPONSORSHIP AND DEBATE
MR. RAMA: Mr. Vice-President, I move that we continue the deliberations on
the Article on National Economy and Patrimony.
in the discussion of this very vital aspect which would affect the rest of
the provisions that we will introduce in this Constitution.
So while we respect the opinion of the members of the Committee, we feel
that a broad participation of all these sectors should be allowed in the
discussion of so vital an issue as the Article on National Economy and
Patrimony. There has been a representation made that tomorrow if this body
would be
so open enough to hear them, various groups from the private sector
businessmen, consumers, labor, and many others would be coming here. I
think it is
our responsibility to respond to them.
If we had spent some time listening to the proponents of the pro-life when
they struggled or lobbied and made representations for the right of the
unborn
child, I suppose that this issue would have been just as important to be given
due consideration. We feel that we are being rushed into finishing an
article which will affect the future of our country. We agree that we have
economists here, but as Commissioner Brocka suggested yesterday, we
would like
to have a free discussion on this Article because most of us are not
economists. We would like to have these two perspectives or points of view,
if this
body would be so broadminded enough to respond to this representation.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Mr. Vice-President.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner de los Reyes is recognized.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Mr. Vice-President, actually, the report of the Committee
on the National Economy and Patrimony was just an insertion because what
was
really scheduled is the report of the Committee on Local Governments which
was interrupted because of certain questions raised during the plenary
session.
Inasmuch as the report of the Committee on Local Governments is ready,
and I have asked its Chairman who said that he is raring to sponsor the
reformulated
report of the Committee on Local Governments, I join Commissioner Quesada
in moving that we take up first the scheduled report of the Committee on
Local
Governments.
MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Vice-President.
sent their suggestions regarding national economy? I would like to know the
meaning or the mechanics of this question.
MS. QUESADA: Mr. Vice-President.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Quesada is recognized.
MS. QUESADA: If the Commissioner has read the papers today, for the first
time in the history of the Philippines, a broad coalition of various sectors in
our society met at the historic Club Filipino. There is such a growing ferment
in these sectors about the direction to which the national economy of our
country will be decided on in this Constitution. Many of us feel that the
various sectors have not been given broad participation in the discussion of
the
national economy. It is true that there were various committees and
representations made during the public hearings; still we feel that in
comparison with
the way the Committee on Social Justice conducted its hearings, we as a
body have not really gone through hearing all the important points that need
to be
considered on this very vital area.
So, these sectors have made representations to come here tomorrow and
this constituent body will be converted into a big committee to hear them,
whether
here or outside, so that we can be enlightened on the various aspects that
we need to consider as we finally make our amendments and our decisions
on the
national economy. So like what we did for certain groups, like the Pro-Life
Movement and others, when we sat and heard them, we hope that this
coalition of
pro-Filipino, pro-industrialization and pro-decolonization of our economy
would also be given time to be heard by all of us, not just by a committee
but by
all the Members of the Commission.
That is the reason behind the request for a postponement so that we
cannot be accused of really having pushed through in a hurry to finish this
particular Article in comparison with the other articles which took us about a
week.
MR. RODRIGO: I would like to seek for more clarification because the only
motion that I heard was to postpone the consideration of the Article on
National
Economy and Patrimony for tomorrow. It appears that it is not only to
postpone the consideration but to convert this body into a committee of the
whole and
to listen to the different sectors which have proposed certain amendments.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The motion has been sufficiently discussed. Shall we
submit it to a vote?
MR. RODRIGO: Mr. Vice-President, there is a compromise proposal, an
amendment which I think is reasonable. I think we should act on that first.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Vice-President.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
MR. RAMA: May I move that we suspend the session for two minutes to
discuss the compromise.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.
It was 10:19 a.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 10:29 a.m., the session was resumed.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Vice-President, there was some kind of a meeting of the minds
and they decided that we finish first the interpellations, after which we would
decide what to do next.
Before we proceed with the interpellations, I would call on Commissioner
Monsod to clarify certain points.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Does Commissioner Alonto want to be recognized first?
MR. ALONTO: Could I be recognized after Commissioner Monsod?
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: I just want to clarify certain points that were raised here. First,
that there were no exhaustive hearings by this Committee. I believe that
the facts and the records will bear me out that there were very exhaustive
agreed that we will not take up the Article on Local Governments on Friday
because that is the meat of the plea of Commissioner Alonto?
MR. SUAREZ: I think there is merit in that suggestion. However, I have here
with me the memorandum of the Chairman of the Steering Committee where
he sets
August 18 and 19 for the continuation of the discussion on Committee Report
Nos. 24 and 32 on the Article on National Economy and Patrimony. In other
words, even under this schedule, there is no need to terminate the
discussions on the Article on National Economy and Patrimony and,
hopefully, the caucus
would be productive of results insofar as the scheduling of discussions is
concerned.
Thank you.
MR. BENGZON: Yes, all I am asking is that we do not take up the Article on
Local Governments on Friday. Then we can discuss the rest during the
caucus.
MR. SUAREZ: How about this afternoon?
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Alonto is recognized.
MR. ALONTO: Thank you, Mr. Vice-President.
I merely want to add something that would make the Constitutional
Commission realize that our request for not putting up the report of the
Committee on
Local Governments tomorrow is due to what we call in Islam as Yaum ul Nahr
or the Day of Sacrifice the most important religious holiday in the Muslim
world. Because of that, we, as Muslims could not attend to other work except
to celebrate that day. That is why we requested the postponement of the
deliberations on the Article on Local Governments from Friday to Saturday.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the motion to postpone or
transfer the discussions on the Article on Local Governments from Friday to
Saturday? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Vice-President, the motion to continue and finish the period of
interpellations has already been approved. I ask that we continue the period
of interpellations now.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: That is why I have been asking the Chairman and the
Committee members to take the front seats for any further or additional
interpellations from other Members of the Commission.
MR. VILLEGAS: Will the members of the Committee join me here in occupying
the front table?
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Vice-President.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: This committee report was signed by all the members of the
Committee and, therefore, may I ask that the other members of the
Committee join us
at the table in front.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: May the other members of the Committee join the
Chairman.
Mr. Floor Leader, are there any further interpellators?
MR. RAMA: There were some reservations but the parliamentary situation is
that the Chairman of the Committee on the National Economy and Patrimony
is
supposed to answer pending questions in the last session. So, I ask that
Commissioner Villegas be recognized.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Villegas is recognized.
MR. VILLEGAS: This is in response to the very meritorious request of
Commissioner Brocka yesterday for me to give a very brief technical
explanation of
some terms used in specific proposals that we have received from different
groups. I fully sympathize with the noneconomists in the Commission who
really
have been given very short time to prepare to respond to specific technical
issues that are being raised. If the Commissioner would bear with me, I
would
like to literally deliver a short lecture on economic terms since there are
words and phrases that we will have to grapple with like protectionism,
import liberalization, national industrialization and industrial policy. It is
understandable that lay persons would want, first of all, to have
simple definitions of these terms. There were also requests for a more open
presentation of specific issues on which we may be able to vote either in
caucus or during the period of amendments. That is also the intention of
these introductory remarks to delineate the issues that came from
yesterdays
period of interpellations. In a way, I am also responding to the implication of
Commissioner Brockas statement that there should be complete mental
honesty, as we say in Spanish, cuentas claras. So, let us not have hidden
agendas, so to speaker in this Article.
Let me first comment on the apprehensions expressed by a number of
interpellators yesterday about the frequency with which the words private,
private
enterprise and private individual appear in the Article. I checked the
number of times the words State or government, or President or
Congress
appear, and I can assure the body the number of times that the word State
is mentioned is about five times that the number of times the word private
is
mentioned.
First of all, I would like to say that the majority of the members of the
Committee are unabashedly in favor of an economy that is propelled mainly
by
private individuals private groups or nongovernmental agencies. So the first
issue that is very easy to delineate is: Do we want an economy that is
propelled mainly by an activist State or do we want an economy that is
propelled mainly by the private sector? Definitely, the spirit of the committee
report is that we want an economy that is propelled mainly by the private
sector and there is absolutely no hidden agenda about the specific
statement.
It is very clear that in all the public hearings and in the Committee meetings,
although there were always dissenting opinions, there was a categorical no
to the following forms of economy:
1. State capitalism This is a form of economy in which although
recognizing that the means of production can still belong to private
individuals the
government decides to take over a lot of economic activities from food
distribution like KADIWA, to steel mills, to all types of goods and services,
such
as had occurred during the Marcos regime. This is a form of economy that
has been clearly repudiated by this committee report we do not want
state
capitalism. We do not want the State to get into all types of to
paraphrase Commissioner Aquino, economic adventurism economic
activities in which
it is not competent.
Another issue that was brought up during the period of interpellations was
the question of national industrialization. That is one of the magnificent
obsessions of this coalition that we are willing to listen to and, I must repeat,
we have time and time again listened to in the past public hearings. As I
must say also in fairness to some members of the Committee, they were
given all the chances to explain what they meant by national
industrialization.
This is just to elaborate on what I answered Commissioner Aquino about a
specific point. Pardon me for sounding pedantic but let us make sure that we
understand the word industrialization.
In order to understand the word, we must understand that there are several
sectors of the economy and one of these is called the primary sector which is
involved in either agriculture, fisheries or mining. Anything that has to do
with the growing of raw materials is called primary. Every country that has
enough agricultural resources starts with a situation where anywhere from
60 to 80 percent of the labor force is involved in hand-to-mouth existence,
producing raw materials just for day-to-day survival.
As the income of that nation increases, and it is able to provide sufficiently
for its most basic necessities which have to do with food and clothing and
shelter which are basically taken from the so-called primary sector or the
raw material sector then the secondary sector called manufacturing
starts
becoming predominant, both in the share of the labor force and in the value
of the product that is produced by the whole nation. Strictly speaking,
industrialization is the increasing predominance of the secondary sector
called manufacturing in both the labor force and in the value of the goods
and
services produced in the economy.
Then there is the tertiary sector which is the sector that produces services
from education to banking, to health services, to insurance all those
phases
of the economic life in which tangible goods are not produced but intangibles
called services, which also expand, as agriculture and manufacturing, are
only auxiliary to both agriculture and manufacturing.
To update the body with the latest terminology, there is now the so-called
quaternary sector which produces services which have absolutely nothing
to do
with helping agriculture or manufacturing. It is not a handmaid to either
agriculture or manufacturing.
What is this sector? This is the sector that is becoming very predominant in
every industrialized country. It includes tourism the arts, and all other
intangibles which people who earn $10,000, $12,000, or $13,000 per capita
increasingly spend their money on. For example, they travel all over the
world
buying art collections. That is what we call the quaternary sector.
It is obvious in the experience of all modernized countries that
industrialization in itself is not a fetish nor an idol that has to be worshipped
on the
economic altar. It is just one stage of the development process. As we get
individuals to earn more and more, they go from primary to secondary, then
to
tertiary and finally, to quaternary.
That is the background behind the reluctance of the majority of the members
of the Committee to start singling out sectors in a constitution that should
last for centuries. The moment we single out the second sector called
manufacturing, which is industrialization, then we have to say, Therefore,
30 to
50 years from now we should accent the service sector.
Incidentally, in the United States, the service sector is already the
predominant sector. More than 40 percent of the labor force is in services. It
is no
longer in manufacturing, and that is increasingly the case in Japan.
And so, this is the reason we have been very careful not to build into our
Constitution some very legitimate short-term and medium-term concerns of
this
coalition. These phrases, short-term, medium-term long-term, were
used by Commissioner Rosario Braid yesterday. And I must respectfully
disagree with
Commissioner Rosario Braid that we cannot incorporate into a constitution
short-term, medium-term and long-term. Otherwise, we will not know where
to stop.
The phrase industrial policy which was used by a number of interpellators
yesterday is also fraught with dangers. Let me cite the following:
Item 1. Stalin was obsessed with an industrial policy to industrialize at any
cost. In the name of state militarism, he actually had millions of small
Russian farmers called kulaks liquidated because they refused to cooperate
with his industrial policy.
Item No. 2. Mao Tse Tung had his great leap forward, again following an
industrial policy to get China to industrialize at any cost. That violated
human
rights galore because the Chinese were forced to go through years and years
of starvation since their leader, Mao Tse Tung, and the other members of the
Communist Party were so obsessed with the great leap forward.
It is very dangerous to talk about forcing through a certain policy as regards
which sector to favor at any given time.
Commissioner Bennagen yesterday used the phrase non-market forces
when he was referring to crony capitalism. When we start constitutionalizing
which
sectors to encourage, we are completely forgetting that what should
determine which sector should be given attention to at any given time is the
market,
not some high-and-mighty planning agency, or a state corporation that will
say we have to do this and we have to do that.
That is the detailed background about why there was hesitation to start
mentioning sectors. That is why we agreed, and that was the work of a team
led by
Commissioner Suarez, to have that omnibus provision which states that all
economic sectors shall be given optimum opportunity to develop. We
thought that
was a better phrase rather than singling out a specific sector. But as I said
yesterday, as long as we can avoid the risk of forcing through
industrialization, at an opportune time, I am willing and I am sure the
members of the Committee would be willing to entertain an amendment
that could
mention industrialization but always in tandem with other economic sectors.
Then there is this very open question on the role of foreign investors.
Actually, this is in response again to an interpellation, the first one of
Commissioner Bennagens, when he questioned the phrase undue foreign
control. In this world of interdependence, the moment we are
interdependent on all
the other parts of the world, control is always relative. To a certain extent, we
are controlled, whether we like it or not, by those who supply us with
petroleum, those who lend us money and those who provide our babies with
indispensable milk. That is why in the Committee meetings, it was decided
that we
should expurgate from the Constitution phrases like foreign domination,
foreign control and neo-colonialism because they sound self-flagellating.
They are very indicative of an inferiority complex, and those were the words
used by the Committee members. They were fully discussed, and we decided
that
we would remove such phrases as foreign control, neocolonialism, et
cetera because we do not put those negative things in a constitution for then
we
would sound foolish.
It is very clear that we need foreign investment. There is no question about
that and that is the stand of the Committee. It is a supplement to domestic
savings. Now, to go beyond that motherhood statement, domestic savings
today in the Philippines are in the worst state we ever had in our postwar
history.
During the last 20 years, we could invest 30 percent of our national income
or what is called GNP. Out of that 30 percent, only 25 percent was raised
by
Filipinos; the 5 percent had to be borrowed and that is why we went on a
borrowing spree. Does the body know what is the state of investment now in
the
Philippines after the devastation wrought by the last regime? Instead of 30
percent we can invest only 15 to 18 percent, and out of that, most of it has
to
be literally squeezed from the domestic sources because as we very well
know, our international credit standing is very bad. That is why it is very
clear
that for many years to come we will need foreign capital to supplement
domestic savings in order to help the millions and millions of Filipino people
who
are unemployed, underemployed and those who are below the poverty line.
So when we say we need foreign capital, it is not to fatten the pockets of the
rich. It is to provide opportunities for the millions of people who are looking
for work.
And, finally, let me just explain this. I am sure the body will end up more
confused and I am not saying this with a condescending attitude. As I
mentioned
to Commissioner Romulo in private, the issue of import liberalization, for
the information of those who have not been following economic literature,
has
been debated over the last 200 years. What is this issue of import
liberalization and what is the related concept of protectionism which
Commissioner
Brocka found very intriguing?
As I said, when we were just beginning our process of development, the
majority or 60 to 80 percent of our people are in agriculture. We are
producing
merely food products and raw materials. We have very little manufacturing.
other.
I am listening to them, and I still continue to listen to them. But these types
of debates should better be left to the halls of Congress and not to
Commissioners who do not have either the expertise or the time to actually
decide, at a given period of our economic history, who is right the coalition
or the government ministers who are in favor of import liberalization.
I am not, in any way, taking sides in this specific presentation. So this is, as I
said, a short economic lecture, and I must beg the bodys indulgence
because I really inflicted this group with a professorial stance. However, that
was the request of Commissioner Brocka. Now, we are open for
interpellations.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: May I ask that Commissioner Ople be recognized.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: Thank you, Mr. Vice-President.
The most topical of the subjects covered by Commissioner Villegas brief but
sweeping presentation I congratulate him for condensing several volumes
worth of expertise in just a few minutes is all about import liberalization.
This is, of course, part of the structural adjustment prescription of the
International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, is it not?
MR. VILLEGAS: It does not have to be part, in fact; it can be done completely
independent of what the World Bank and the IMF people tell us.
MR. OPLE: Yes, but the IMFs coercive power helps not so long the political
will of governments otherwise incapable of, let us say, choosing a painful
step
of import liberalization.
MR. VILLEGAS: I must say this: Get some help. But let me just say that, as
early as 1964 to 1965, more than 20 years ago, Gerry Sicat, who was then a
professor of the UP School of Economics, and John Power, too, wrote
voluminous tracts and essays saying we have to liberalize imports. We have
to get the
economy on an export-oriented track. That was the opinion of a group of UP
people.
MR. OPLE: Even among the objectors Commissioner Villegas will have to
agree let us say, our friends in the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and
Industry,
aspect to consider is this: perhaps, people should look into these companies
which
ask for protection. I was fortunate to have been a member of the private
sector task force in the past two months, and I would like to say that many of
these companies in fact, all of the companies we questioned as to whether
they were unprofitable during the last three years did not provide their
financial statements. We found out, for example, that the SPPP Production
which produces phosphate used for detergents had its most profitable year
in
history in 1984, and that it was operating at a 93-percent capacity. The SPPP
charged that they cannot compete with the dumping prices here, which were
provided by the foreign affiliate of the 40-percent foreign owner of that
company.
If we take a look at the tire industry, it is the same thing. It is profitable and
has never lost money. The glass industry has been under protection for
20 years and has been asking for another 10 years of protection because
they did not invest in economic and efficient facilities over the past two
years.
They bragged they could have invested, but somehow the money
disappeared. Now they want protection because they again want to have
profits and savings out
of the consumers money in order to put up this new facility that will enable
them to be competitive. This company is owned by a crony.
We can go on and on on this question of protectionism and nationalism, but I
would like to make one last point. Mention was made that this plan is
dictated
by the World Bank and the IMF. That is not true. The plan was formulated by
Filipinos. As a matter of fact, it is a complete framework to which IMF objects
because part of that framework is selective repudiation of foreign debt.
Thank you.
MR. OPLE: Mr. Vice-President.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: I think there should be a good number of such cases where
companies continue to invoke protection and probably lie to the government.
A good
number of these are multinationals. But I think that is for the government to
deal with, especially when they tell lies to government agencies. But I think
what I would like to be able to foresee is precisely that awkward transition.
When we have so much overcapacity in our industry, so many thousands are
being laid off and then we get hit with import liberalization. But I also agree
constructive and
responsible and set in parameters that take account the major thrust of the
Committees proposals be acceptable?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes.
MR. OPLE: Does Commissioner Villegas think this can find a place at the
proper time?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes. My tentative reaction is that the tenor of the proposal is
acceptable. My immediate reaction is to clarify what the Gentleman means
by
national industrialization, because we know very well that some people use
national to mean nationalized.
MR. OPLE: National industrialization here is used in the generic sense.
MR. VILLEGAS: Is it Filipino-oriented?
MR. OPLE: Yes. It is national industrialization in the sense that when we do
attain industrialization, it will be seen that we did not discriminate against
any part of the country, whether in terms of locating physical plants or in
providing jobs or benefits or distributing the benefits flowing out of it. It
is in that sense that national is used here.
MR. VILLEGAS: I said the proposal looks acceptable. We just have to make
sure that each word is well explained.
MR. OPLE: I am glad that the Committee agrees that we should set forth
some strategic visions for the future in terms of our economic aspirations as
a
nation. These are not attempts to make laws but to set visions. I understand
from the Floor Leader that there will be a caucus.
MR. RAMA: Yes, Mr. Vice-President.
MR. OPLE: If that is correct, I thank him for nagging me about a caucus, so
that I can leave the other matters I had hoped to present to the Committee
in
that forum.
Thank you, Mr. Vice-President.
MR. VILLEGAS: Thank you.
outlines of its economic structure. The alternative society we want must have
an economy which embodies the following three central objectives:
1. Self-reliant development of the nations productive forces geared to satisfy
the needs of our people;
2. Filipino control of the economy; and
3. Economic democracy towards social equity.
I will very briefly explain each point.
1. Self-reliant development of productive forces Two processes are crucial
in the building of a genuinely self-reliant national economy: agrarian reform
and development on the one hand, which we worked at in the Article on
Social Justice, and nationalist industrialization on the other. The former
provides
for the freeing of productive forces locked up in antiquated patterns of feudal
land ownership and, as explained earlier on the floor, sets the stage for
the more rational, efficient and equitable exploitation of the nations
agricultural resources. In this process, the State extends necessary technical,
financial and other support services to farmers; promotes the shift from
emphasis on production for exports to the primacy of production for local
basic
needs; and provides for greater linkage between the agricultural and
industrial sectors, encouraging, among others, the local processing of
agricultural
products.
Nationalist industrialization builds on the surplus generated in the
agricultural sector, provides inputs to further enhance agricultural production
and
absorbs the work force released from the latter. The process involves the
promotion of an indigenous, scientific, technological and entrepreneurial
base
that will harness the full productive capacities of our people and be capable
of producing basic goods and services for the majority of our population. By
this, the following are implied: greater reliance on local resources as inputs
for our production needs; measures to protect our industries from undue
competition from foreign enterprises and imported products; a de-emphasis
on export-oriented production towards prior production for local consumption
needs; and, finally, the promotion of backward linkages in our industrial
sector, meaning, the establishment of capital goods industries that will
further
enhance our productive capacities.
This is a modest contribution; I know there are others who may have other
ideas and we should welcome this.
I would like to thank the Chair for being very kind in providing me these few
minutes.
MR. VILLEGAS: Thank you very much.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Vice-President.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Vice-President, a member of the Committee would like to
make a response. I ask that Commissioner Bennagen be recognized.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bennagen is recognized.
MR. BENNAGEN: Thank you, Mr. Vice-President.
I am a member of the Committee but I would like to say a few words in
relation to what may be a change in the committee report arising from the
approval of
the Article on Social Justice and the submission of a report on the Declaration
of Principles.
In the deliberations of the Committee, there was originally the idea of
describing the economy as mixed in the way that we mentioned yesterday,
and in
order to recognize the complementarity of efforts of the private sector
individuals, cause-oriented groups, civic organizations and other private
organizations and not necessarily individual big businessmen. However, in
the Article on Social Justice as well as in the Article on Declaration of
Principles and State Policies heavy demands would be made on the State. If
we do not underscore the reciprocal relationship of the State and the private
sector we may not be able to provide the adequate and appropriate
mechanism for the expected response to the social justice provisions, as well
as those in
the Declaration of Principles.
At this point, I must say that I am impressed by the brief discourse of the
Committee Chairman, although I must hasten to add that for all its brevity, it
caricatures the contours of the economic systems that are in existence
worldwide. That is expected from such a brief discourse but it glosses over
the
adaptations that have been made by various economies, especially those
that have chosen a more autonomous path of development, not necessarily
according to
the classical models of capitalism or socialism.
My view is to be more historically specific, as enunciated partly by
Commissioner Garcia, that we must be able to examine the historical
conditions that
have brought us to where we are now and make the necessary adjustments.
We must be able to examine carefully the changing character of the social
structure
and the appropriate partnership between the private sector and the State or
government. I do not think that privatization, in the way that it has been
described as if it were a matter of either or, will be sufficient to respond to
the provisions in the various articles that I have already mentioned. I
am saying, therefore, that there is a need to revise in massive terms many of
the provisions so that some internal consistency will be arrived at, and I
hope to be able to make some contribution in the caucus towards the
attainment of this kind of internal consistency that is demanded by the
seeming
contradictory articles that have so far been submitted.
Thank you, Mr. Vice-President.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Vice-President.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Quesada be recognized for the clarifying
question.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Quesada is recognized.
MS. QUESADA: Mr. Vice-President and members of the Committee: First of all,
I would like to preface my submission by saying that when I do express my
opinions, it is an expression not only mine but of the people who would like
to speak through us. I have always maintained that the dialogue with the
people is a continuing process; that it is not only after we have gone through
a series of public hearings that we close the doors to a continuing kind of
representation. So, when I bring forth some opinions, it is not only mine but
that of the people who would like their voices also heard through this humble
Representation. When I said this, it was with the apprehension that the
Constitution we are making, particularly on this provision on national
economy,
might not truly be reflective of the aspirations, the needs and the interests of
these particular sectors who will be affected by what we finally write.
That is why when we finally amend and approve these provisions, we hope
that we shall have really given the full realm of discussions, not only among
ourselves but among the people who want to be heard. I made that earlier
presentation of the peoples position not to disparage the points of view or
the
perspectives of the members of the Committee who felt slighted because I
said something about the people who had this pro-Filipino protection and
pro-national industrialization set forth in a different kind of tone. But it was
not mine personally; I was only expressing a point of view that was
relayed to us during a breakfast forum where we just came from, and that is
why I was speaking with the kind of sentiment they wanted the body to hear.
That is why I moved for that kind of opportunity for tomorrow because I did
not want this discussion to end up just today without the benefit of a public
representation. But, anyway, what they would like to ask is: How does this
Article on National Economy and Patrimony really assure the protection of
the
Filipino interest? They said that we have publicly assured them that the
Constitution is going to be pro-people, pro-God and pro-Filipino. And they felt
that it is in this Article where we can truly express this pro-Filipino interest.
So, I would like now the Committee to tell me in laymans terms how I can
tell a worker, a peasant, a small businessman or even the big Filipino
businessmen how this particular Article will protect their interest, without
having to refer to Sections 13, 14, 15 or all the sections. What are these
fundamental principles that are carried here that will assure them that we
have the interest of the Filipinos first and foremost when we shall be
approving
this particular Article? I would want to relay this again in order to relieve their
apprehension that it might not be for their interest. I think that is
the kind of assurance we must give them because they are going to be the
ones who will ratify or reject this particular Constitution and it might be this
particular Article which they feel will not be serving their interest. That is how
I would like to be assured in a few non-technocratic economic terms.
MR. VILLEGAS: Mr. Vice-President, first of all, against whom do we protect the
interest of the Filipino people? That is the first question. And who may
abuse the interest of the Filipino people? It could be certain individuals who
may misuse natural resources and may expropriate natural resources for
their
own selfish use. So what is the provision that will protect that? It is the
provision on the adherence to the regalian doctrine the idea that the State
is there to protect the interest of Filipinos, and is the one that owns all the
natural resources and will have a lot of controls in the way those natural
resources are going to be used and exploited. As suggested by
Commissioner Bennagen, the cultural minorities, in one specific provision
here, will be able
to hold ancestral lands and have priorities to specific use of the lands. So
that would be one interest that can be protected. Second, the people should
be
protected against the selfish foreigners who may come here to exploit in
contrast with the other foreigners who are not selfish and who may be here
to help
out against those who are exploitative. There are provisions that will limit
their control of Filipino enterprises, depending on what the whole
Commission
will finally decide.
What about protection in general? We are assuring the fullest liberty for
every single Filipino to undertake economic enterprises that would lead to
their
livelihood, so there will be no interference from the State as regards their
putting up small and medium-scale enterprises, their going into small farms
and their getting together as cooperatives in order to help one another.
These are probably the best guarantees for the full flowering of liberty in the
economic field without the oppressive Big Brother trying to dictate what
economic activities we should enter into.
MS. QUESADA: Thank you.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Vice-President, the last interpellator is Commissioner Tadeo. I
ask that he be recognized.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tadeo is recognized.
MR. TADEO: Mr. Vice-President, gusto ko lang pong ipaalam ang aking
posisyon bilang Vice-Chairman ng Committee on the National Economy and
Patrimony.
Totoong napakaselan para sa isang magbubukid na ang mga kasama niyay
hindi lamang economist kung hindi lawyer-economist pa. Kaya makikita
ninyo iyong
kahirapan sa deliberation pa lamang. Sa simula pa lamang ng deliberation ay
ipinasok ko na ang national industrialization at iyan ay alam ng bumubuo
ng
Committee. Dito sa Article on Social Justice, ipinasok ko rin ang national
industrialization. Ibig kong ang aking magiging posisyon ay nababatay
mismo sa
national situationer na tinalakay ng anak ng kagalanggalang nating VicePresident, si Alexander Padilla. Ito ay natutunan ko kay Alex nang talakayin
niya
sa isang symposium ng promotion ng Church Peoples Rights and Response
ang kanyang posisyon tungkol dito sa ating national economy and patrimony.
Sinabi ni
papers
which I think are relevant to the discussion of the Article on National
Economy and Patrimony. But the information that I received is just a set of
preliminary findings. This has to do with the economic and technical
assistance program between the United States and the Philippine
government. I think
this is the so-called Quirino-Foster Agreement or Memorandum of
Agreement, which I was told has been the basis of U.S. Government
assistance to the
Philippines.
I said that this is just preliminary information. On the basis of the available
information that I have, this agreement is one-sided in so many provisions
in favor of the United States, particularly the United States Agency for
International Development. Many provisions are said to be onerous to the
point of
being exploitative. But in connection with this, I would like to go deeper into
this but at the moment, I would like to find out if the Committee is
amenable to accepting some kind of an amendment that will authorize or
direct the government to review existing multilateral or bilateral economic
and
technical agreements and programs with foreign governments with a view to
doing away with those which imposed onerous conditions on the Philippine
Government supposedly to obtain foreign assistance and also to retain
others which actually redound to the benefit of the country. Would such an
amendment
fit into the Article on National Economy and Patrimony?
MR. VILLEGAS: The President, through the NEDA, has the responsibility of
safeguarding the economic interests of the nation. If the Gentleman thinks
that he
would like to expand that specific reference to the NEDA and its role,
including this type of watchdog task, I think we will entertain a specific
amendment.
MR. FOZ: I have drafted a proposed amendment which I would like to take up
with the Committee at the proper time.
Thank you.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
MR. RAMA: Mr. Vice-President, I move that we suspend the session so we can
go into a caucus until two-thirty this afternoon.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.
democracy towards social equity. The first statement is very clear a selfreliant development of the nations productive forces geared to satisfy the
needs of our people. This is elucidated in the first section. What I would like
to concentrate on is the second point Filipino control of the economy.
What specific provisions would assure for such, if this is embodied in the
proposed Article?
MR. VILLEGAS: All the provisions that limit the participation of foreigners, for
example, to 40 percent in natural resources, according to the present
committee report, to only one-third in public utilities, and in other areas
where the Congress can decide to limit the ownership to 100 percent Filipino
there is that provision in one of the sections which give Congress the power
to decide on investment areas. If the Gentleman will recall, we even removed
the word traditional in order to give greater leeway to Congress to decide
on the areas to be Filipinized. Then definitely on land use, Filipinos have
priority and foreigners have tremendous limitations in the way they can take
advantage of agricultural lands.
MR. ROMULO: Mr. Vice-President, if I may also add. There are also present
laws that further regulate foreign ownership. The Board of Investments, for
example, regulates any investment beyond 30 percent for a foreigner;
foreigners cannot come in beyond 30 percent without the explicit permission
and
approval of the Board of Investments; retail trade is reserved by law to 100percent Filipino; finance companies must observe the 70-30 setup, and so
on.
We really have so many laws requiring the majority control to be in the hands
of Filipinos, quite apart from what we have stated in the Constitution. The
Investment Code has further regulations with regard to majority Filipino
equity. It is relaxed only in the case of pioneer and preferred, in those cases,
the foreigner starts to disinvest after the eleventh year until he becomes the
minority. All of these must be taken into account.
MR. GASCON: With regard to Section 9, I asked some questions on it
yesterday, but I would like to be further clarified. Section 9 reads:
The Congress shall reserve to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or
associations at least sixty percent of whose voting stock or controlling
interest is owned by such citizens or such higher percentage as Congress
may prescribe, certain areas of investments when the national interest so
dictates.
Are there areas of investment significant to our development efforts that
only foreigners can provide?
MR. VILLEGAS: As far as I know, there are very specific guidelines about
foreign investments promulgated by such agencies as the Board of
Investments
(BOI). There is even the Foreign Investment Code passed by Congress. The
lawyers may be able to say more about the implementation.
MR. GASCON: I would like to be clarified particularly on the conditions to
foreign investments, if there are any?
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Romulo is recognized.
MR. ROMULO: There are, in fact, complaints that the conditions are too rigid
and, indeed, too complicated rather than that there are plenty of loopholes.
Let us begin with what is called permissible investments. Beyond 30
percent in this category, you have to go to the Board of Investments for
permission
to invest. The Board of Investments has to decide whether that particular
permissible investment tends to monopolize or is contrary to any of our
announced
policies or laws, or whether it will enter a field that is already fully exploited
by Filipinos. So there are already three safeguards.
For other types of investments, Book I of the Investment Code applies. This is
where there is the so-called pioneer and nonpioneer, preferred and
nonpreferred investments. The rules are very specific again as to what is
classified as pioneer investments. There is an IPP (Investment Priority Plan)
issued by NEDA every year which determines what particular industries are
considered pioneer and which particular industries are under preferred.
There are
also incentives given the investor under each category. As I say, if it is a
pioneer investment, initially it can be owned 100 percent by a foreigner. But
after the eleventh year, the foreign investment starts to divest so that by the
twentieth or, at the latest, the twenty-fifth year, he must become a
minority he will own only 40 percent. The same thing happens with regard
to preferred investments. The difference between preferred and pioneer
investments lies in what the preferred investment gets by way of incentives.
That is practically the whole package. In the Export Processing Zone, for
example, where 100-percent foreign ownership is allowed, the only activity
undertaken is of processing raw or semi-raw materials for export. More or
less,
those are the total investment packages. I think that when they say one is
able to justify any foreign investment under these laws, it is not correct. On
the contrary, my own experience is that a great many investment laws are
so rigid that, in fact, desirable investments are disallowed.
MR. GASCON: With regard to the EPZA, are there steps being taken towards
greater Filipinization since the Gentleman said that at this point in time it is
100-percent foreign-owned?
MR. ROMULO: No, because it is meant to precisely attract foreign processors
to come in. Filipinos can also invest in the Export Processing Zone, but it is
not meant primarily for Filipinos. The idea is precisely to attract foreign
processing firms and, therefore, create jobs for Filipinos.
MR. GASCON: Has such a program, in the past years, been successful or
beneficial to the economy?
MR. ROMULO: I think it has not been as successful as expected because it
was not properly conceived and implemented. They now run into competition
against
other foreign processing zones which are far more efficient and attractive. In
fact, I would say that many of the firms in EPZA are closing down.
MR. VILLEGAS: Just to present economic statistics in the ASEAN, I think the
statement the Gentleman quoted is contradicted by the evidence that
over the
last 10 years foreign investments in the Philippines has grown very, very
slowly. Actually, over the last three years, foreign investments have been
declining in contrast with Malaysia and Indonesia, not to mention Singapore.
So the statement that it is easy to invest in the Philippines is contradicted
by the facts.
MR. GASCON: Line 22 of Section 3 states:
. . . The Congress may by law allow small-scale utilization of natural
resources by Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming in rivers,
lakes, bays, and lagoons.
Hypothetically, does this provision suggest that priority in the utilization of
natural resources shall be granted to large establishments? Does the phrase
may by law allow small-scale utilization mean that if it does not allow by
law, that priority is given to large establishments?
MR. VILLEGAS: No, I do not think the implication is there.
MR. GASCON: Does the provision suggest that since Congress may allow
cooperative fish farming by law, cooperatives in aquaculture are not to be
given
primary consideration?
MR. VILLEGAS: No, I do not think it means that. This was just an attempt to
operationalize the preferential option for the underprivileged, to make
special
mention of it, because historically natural resources in this country have
been exploited by capital-extensive groups.
MR. GASCON: With regard to the basic objectives of equity and efficiency,
economic efficiency is defined as the utilization of the minimum necessary
amount
of resources to attain a desired outcome. Clearly, equity is not antagonistic
to this notion. In fact, equity may be a major cause of demoralization among
laborers and the poor, resulting in inefficiency. Efforts towards greater equity
can, in fact, inspire greater productivity on the part of labor and the
poor when they realize that their efforts are being rewarded on a level at par
with that of others in society, knowing that the segment of society remains
idle and others are in luxury because of the inequitable distribution of wealth
and access to opportunities.
Are equity and efficiency necessarily divorced or do they go together, just for
purposes of discussion?
MR. VILLEGAS: In fact, they should go together in this first section of our
Article. If the Gentleman will notice, the first goal mentioned is equity.
MR. GASCON: In the Gentlemans opinion, what are the steps that we should
take towards achieving efficiency in our economy? Would it probably be
providing
for greater equity?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes.
MR. GASCON: So, what should be the primary goal in the beginning?
MR. VILLEGAS: In the Article on Social Justice, I think we have a lot of very
clear-cut guidelines on how to make small farmers more productive through
land reform, for example.
MR. GASCON: I thank the honorable Chairman of the Committee.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Vice-President.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: I ask that Commissioner Jamir be recognized.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Jamir is recognized.
MR. JAMIR: Mr. Vice-President, I have a very simple request to the Committee.
May all the others concerned and I be enlightened as to the exact meaning
of mixed economy?
MR. VILLEGAS: I will attempt an answer, and the other members of the
Committee can supplement my answer.
A mixed economy is an economy where economic activities are in the
hands of private individuals, whether they be single proprietorships,
partnerships,
corporations, cooperatives, without any prejudice to the possibility of the
state also operating economic enterprises that are considered vital for the
common good. So, this has to do with the way economic enterprises are
owned and operated. A mixed economy is one that admits of both
possibilities
economic enterprises in the hands of private individuals and economic
enterprises in the hands of the state. As to which specific blend is chosen in
a very
particular period of a nations history will depend on circumstances. As
Commissioner Monsod was saying, government expenditures as a source of
investment
for establishing economic enterprises are extremely limited right now
because as we very well know, as we go through from one social justice
provision to
another, we need billions and billions to give health services, to even
subsidize the expropriations of land, et cetera. After the government tries to
implement the Article on Social Justice, the government will be bankrupt.
Therefore, we just have to leave the establishment of economic enterprises
to
private individuals.
MR. MONSOD: May I just add two principles that we thought would be very
useful in determining whether government should go into a particular
activity or
not. The first is that before government goes into activities that are not
purely government functions, it should first prove that it can do those
activities efficiently which are its appropriate functions. That is the first
principle. Until then it should not go into other activities. It must first
efficiently perform those that are appropriately government functions
garbage, police, customs, et cetera, before it goes into the production of,
say,
bicycles.
The second principle is that the government should not go into activities
which the private sector can do more efficiently. It may regulate such
activities, if these are monopolies; it has the power of regulation and police
power, if necessary. But it should not engage in activities that the private
sector can perform more efficiently.
MR. BENNAGEN: Mr. Vice-President.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bennagen is recognized.
MR. BENNAGEN: I would like to answer the question on what mixed
economy is in historical perspective. This arises from an understanding of
the classical
model of the development of economies from an alleged primitive communal
type that eventually develops into a slave type, then to a feudal type, then
to a
capitalist type, and socialist and so on. These are ideal types in the sense
that they are pure economic organizations or economic systems.
Unfortunately,
this is not the case in the real world. It is not the case that all economies
undergo this kind of evolution, particularly in the case of Third World
countries whose economies have already been distorted by all sorts of
historical experiences as well as by the current influences of all sorts of
economic
models. We are saying, therefore, that the development of economies, in
terms of these ideal types, is already foreclosed. This means that we cannot
develop as a pure capitalist type, nor can we develop as a pure socialist type
for a number of reasons. Even in the present Philippine economic context, we
have a full range of economic subsystems from subsistence economies that
characterize Negrito societies to a kind of communal organization as in some
cases
of the Lumad of Mindanao and the Cordilleras of Northern Luzon. These are
subsystems within the overall national economic system, in addition to all
those
economic systems that were discussed earlier both by Commissioner Monsod
and Commissioner Villegas.
In other words, in the real world of Philippine economy, there are various
ways of harnessing the resources of nature and human groupings to meet
the needs
of an evolving society. It is important that we examine the precise
interrelationships of all these economic subsystems within Philippine society,
and the
interrelationship of this total national economy with the rest of the world. At
present, it would be a mistake to speak of a pure economic system in the
Philippine context or in a tribal society or even in the case of advanced
capitalism or of socialism. It would be a mistake to think in terms of pure
types. This is why in the early stages of our deliberations in the Committee,
tremendous.
UNCTAD has made estimates of costs of technology transfer compared with
the gains which show that developing countries have not gained much.
MR. VILLEGAS: We will welcome an amendment. At the moment, we do not
have a phraseology in mind.
MR. MONSOD: Perhaps we might also add that we would like to see
provisions to that effect. The provision has to be harmonized with the
sentiments already
expressed in this body against foreign investments. You cannot have your
cake and eat it, too. We have to balance these different interests and we
must
also devote a large part of our own domestic resources. In many countries,
2.0 percent or more of the gross national product is appropriated for
research.
That is a political decision as well as a budget decision to put money in
appropriate technology and not just transfer technology from other
countries.
May I go back to another point which the Commissioner raised earlier about
like-minded states developing common interests for terms of trade? I think
we
have to be a little careful not to constitutionalize international cartelization.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Lastly, regarding multinationals, we have to live with
the reality that they are in our midst. They can accomplish many positive
things
but, at the same time, we are distressed that there are not enough
regulatory measures. We need measures that would ensure that the Filipinos
can bargain
from a position of strength as evidenced by the problems effected by Dole
and Del Monte plantations in the fruit industry.
In Malaysia, Kenya and Indonesia, multinational companies are regarded in a
more positive light because they have initiated such schemes as nucleus
estates
the Felda and Feltra. Our multinational corporations like Sime Darby or
San Miguel and other local corporations could help anchor small landholdings
by
providing the needed production input in partnership with government.
Can the Commissioner provide some more schemes in the scenario of how
we can live with the reality of the presence of multinationals and yet be able
to
develop survival schemes, develop ways by which partnership can be forged
with government, and so forth? In this way we can inform everyone that we
have
short-term tactics for survival. But we should be working towards the goals of
independence and sovereignty. In short, we have to face the reality now, and
work out a way by which we could meet the economic problems of the
country, yet keeping our primary goal in mind.
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes, I think that can also be inserted in the last phrase of the
amendment I referred to coming from Commissioner Ople: FOREIGN
INVESTMENTS
DETERMINED TO BE NECESSARY TO THE COUNTRYS ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT MAY BE WELCOMED ON EQUITABLE GROUNDS WITHIN THE
FRAMEWORK OF A NATIONAL POLICY OF
SELF-RELIANCE AND INDEPENDENCE. The Commissioner may also want to
introduce some refinements for her concepts to be incorporated.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Thank you.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Vice-President.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: I ask that Commissioner Quesada be recognized for
additional questions.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Quesada is recognized for additional
interpellations.
MS. QUESADA: Mr. Vice-President, I would like to have some clarification on
Section 2, starting on line 21 of page 1 to page 2, which states: subject
always, however, to the duty of the State to promote distributive justice and
to intervene when the common good so demands.
My understanding of distributive justice is justice that would have
preferential option for the poor. This is what I understand when we talk about
the
common good that the common good would actually be to the most
number of people who are deprived and disadvantaged. So, I was wondering
why there is a
need to add the phrase to intervene when the common good so demands.
Is this not redundant to the term promoting distributive justice?
MR. VILLEGAS: There are positive ways of promoting the shift to justice,
which has nothing to do with intervening. There are specific cases when
intervention is necessary, and I think it precisely strengthens the power of
the State to come in and actually prejudice specific sectors to be able to
help the poor. If we will just say promote distributive justice, it is not strong
enough.
MS. QUESADA: So, actually, this is related to distributive justice and
common good here does not refer to any other.
MR. VILLEGAS: As the Commissioner said, it refers to the 70 percent of
Filipinos who are living below the poverty line.
MS. QUESADA: So, the Gentleman thinks that this has to be strengthened. It
has to be explicitly stated that we are intervening for the common good
because
we would lice distributive justice to be really implemented.
MR. VILLEGAS: That is right.
MS. QUESADA: Thank you.
MR. MONSOD: May we just add that Section 2 must be read together with
Section 1 because Section 1 provides that priority be given to the welfare of
the
poor. This is a continuous idea in Sections 1 and 2 and in other sections of
the Article.
MS. QUESADA: Yes, thank you.
MR. BENNAGEN: For further clarification, Mr. Vice-President.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bennagen is recognized.
MR. BENNAGEN: I think this was also discussed rather briefly yesterday in
relation to the first sentence of Section 2. As formulated, it seems to be
highly
voluntaristic on the part of the private sector to contribute to the common
good, which is why we said that at certain points the Constitution mandates
the
State to intervene when there is need for distributive justice. In other words,
it does not leave the private sector alone to do what it wishes even at the
expense of distributive justice.
MS. QUESADA: Thank you.
Through a review of the 1973 Constitution, I gather that Section 3 of this
Article actually covers Section 8 and Section 9, Article XIV of the 1973
Constitution; is that right?
MR. VILLEGAS: No, Mr. Vice-President, if the Commissioner reads the next
sentence, it states:
Such activities may be directly undertaken by the State, or it may enter into
co-production, joint venture, production-sharing agreements with Filipino
citizens.
So, we are still limiting it only to Filipino citizens.
MS. QUESADA: I am glad to understand that then. On Section 7, may I know
why in this particular instance, on line 29, there was a specification on the
size
of property; that is, not to exceed an area of 1,000 square meters. In the
1973 Constitution, it was stated: as the Batasang Pambansa may provide.
What
was the rationale behind explicitating this in this particular provision?
MR. VILLEGAS: It was the majority opinion, although there were some people
who dissented, that we should even be more restrictive. However, we would
welcome any amendment to going back to the 1973 version.
MS. QUESADA: I just want to find out if this is an improvement instead of a
retrogression.
MR. VILLEGAS: It depends on the point of view. Some people think it is an
improvement; others, a retrogression.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I give my comments?
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: The Committee is divided in this issue of whether the
property should be limited to 1,000 square meters. But lately we have been
receiving
comments and feedbacks from groups that this should be expanded because
there are many Filipinos who want to invest in the Philippines. But I think this
matter should be left to legislation for Congress to decide. They are in a
better position to find out what should be the exact size or area which
Filipinos who lost their citizenship can acquire as property.
MS. QUESADA: Going back to Section 3, the section suggests that:
The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources . . . may
be directly undertaken by the State, or it may enter into co-production, joint
venture or production-sharing agreement with . . . corporations or
associations at least sixty percent of whose voting stock or controlling
interest is
owned by such citizens.
Lines 25 to 30, on the other hand, suggest that in the large-scale exploration,
development and utilization of natural resources, the President with the
concurrence of Congress may enter into agreements with foreign-owned
corporations even for technical or financial assistance.
I wonder if this first part of Section 3 contradicts the second part. I am raising
this point for fear that foreign investors will use their enormous
capital resources to facilitate the actual exploitation or exploration,
development and effective disposition of our natural resources to the
detriment of
Filipino investors. I am not saying that we should not consider borrowing
money from foreign sources. What I refer to is that foreign interest should be
allowed to participate only to the extent that they lend us money and give us
technical assistance with the appropriate government permit. In this way, we
can insure the enjoyment of our natural resources by our own people.
MR. VILLEGAS: Actually, the second provision about the President does not
permit foreign investors to participate. It is only technical or financial
assistance they do not own anything but on conditions that have to be
determined by law with the concurrence of Congress. So, it is very restrictive.
If the Commissioner will remember, this removes the possibility for service
contracts which we said yesterday were avenues used in the previous regime
to
go around the 60-40 requirement.
MS. QUESADA: Section 10 states, and I quote:
The Congress shall establish an independent central monetary authority, the
majority of whose governing board shall come from the private sector, which
shall provide policy direction in the areas of money, banking, and credit.
Is my understanding correct that the Committee is leaving it to Congress to
define the criteria on who become members?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes, Mr. Vice-President, as long as it is independent of the
executive, that is our constitutional mandate. We want to avoid that situation
where the ministers from the executive branch systematically dominate the
Monetary Board which actually leads to a lot of excesses in spending.
MS. QUESADA: Is it possible, when the proper time comes, to qualify the
private sector to insure that even in this Constitution we are already
protecting
Filipino interests? Private sector could mean people sitting in this very
important governing board of the Monetary Authority but who might not be
protecting the interests of the Filipinos. Is that not possible?
MR. VILLEGAS: We will welcome suggestions on how to ensure that Congress
will really take into account the interests of all in the private sector.
MS. QUESADA: We would not want to give Congress the ultimate
responsibility to define. But should we not, at this point when we have the
chance to define
just who this private sector is, define it so that we can qualify it to mean that
the private sector would refer to those primarily carrying Filipino
interests?
MR. VILLEGAS: Does the Commissioner think of an adjective like private
Filipino sector?
MS. QUESADA: Yes.
MR. VILLEGAS: There would be no quarrel with that qualification.
MS. QUESADA: Regarding Sections 12 and 13, I take it that these two
sections address the mode of participation and control by the State of
economic
enterprises, particularly vital industries, during periods of external
aggression and other national emergencies. In this respect, does the
Gentleman not
think that it is necessary to define vital industries to eliminate any
ambiguity in the exercise by the State of this power when the eventuality
arises?
MR. VILLEGAS: No, this was fully discussed in the Committee and the
decision was that the word vital is so dependent on changing
circumstances that we
would actually be tying the hands of the State if we start enumerating what
are vital now. What may be vital tomorrow may not be vital now. So, I think it
would also be presumptuous of the Constitutional Commission to actually
define what will be vital forever.
MS. QUESADA: On the proposed Section 15, is it the understanding that part
of the intent of this particular section precludes the intervention of
foreign-vested interest in the actual operation and management of public
utilities either as an officer, employee or consultant? Would this not be
unduly
constitutionalizing dummies?
MR. VILLEGAS: No, in this specific section we are limiting the participation in
equity to one-third and there is no mention of any other control that they
can have.
MS. QUESADA: So, there is no safeguard at all that those who would get into
these corporations or associations may actually be dummies?
MR. VILLEGAS: I think that will now have to be enforced by Anti-Dummy Law
and all sorts of legislation. It is very difficult to see all the loopholes in
the Constitution. For the information of the Commissioner, there is an AntiDummy Law.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: All the provisions limiting foreign ownership in different
enterprises are all subject to the same danger where there are Filipinos who
allow
themselves to be dummies of foreigners, and it is very difficult to guard
against that. But the Anti-Dummy Law should take care of those cases
because
there are both civil and criminal penalties or sanctions for allowing oneself to
be a dummy of foreign interests.
MS. QUESADA: Should there not be some kind of provision here that would
penalize Filipinos who act as dummies?
MR. MONSOD: That is already in the Anti-Dummy Law, and we would get into
very detailed legislation because there are also different intensities or
difficulties or degrees of being a dummy. We would have to go into quite a bit
of detail if the Commissioner wants to go into that. Or we can put a general
statement that Filipinos who allow themselves to be dummies of foreign
interests shall be dealt with by law.
MS. QUESADA: Something like what Commissioner Ople said about dual
allegiance being dealt with in accordance with law.
MR. MONSOD: Yes, we would welcome any suggestions the Commissioner
may have along those lines in order to reflect the intent of this Commission.
MS. QUESADA: Thank you very much, Mr. Vice-President.
MR. MONSOD: Thank you.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
growth
leads to so much injustice.
MR. TINGSON: Within the purview of what the Gentleman is saying, would he
welcome friendly foreigners to lend us their technical expertise in helping
develop our country?
MR. GARCIA: Part 2 of this proposal, Filipino control of the economy, in fact,
says that the entry of foreign capital, technology and business enterprises
into the national economy shall be effectively regulated to ensure the
protection of the interest of our people.
In other words, we welcome them but on our own terms. This is very similar
to our position on loans. We welcome loans as long as they are paid on our
own
terms, on our ability to pay, not on their terms. For example, the case of Peru
is instructive. They decided first to develop and grow, and were willing to
pay only 10 percent of their foreign exchange earnings. That, I think, is a
very commendable position given the economic situation of a country such
as
Peru. The Philippines is a similar case, especially when we realize that the
foreign debt was made by a government that was bankrupt in its desire to
serve
the people.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Vice-President, I think we have to make a distinction that it
is not really realistic to say that we will borrow on our own terms. Maybe we
can say that we inherited unjust loans, and we would like to repay these on
terms that are not prejudicial to our own growth. But the general statement
that we should only borrow on our own terms is a bit unrealistic.
MR. GARCIA: Excuse me. The point I am trying to make is that we do not
have to borrow. If we have to borrow, it must be on our terms. In other words,
banks
do not lend out of the goodness of their hearts. Banks lend to make a profit.
MR. TINGSON: Mr. Vice-President, I think the trouble in our country is that we
have forgotten the scriptural injunction that the borrower becomes a slave
to the lender. That is the trouble with our country; we have borrowed and
borrowed but we forget that we become slaves to those who lend us.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Vice-President, we do not have to borrow. But we have to
have domestic savings, or we should be willing to be taxed by the
government for
government expenditures because there are very few ways by which we can
raise funds for investment.
MR. TINGSON: Yes, I appreciate that. I thank Commissioner Garcia very much.
I have only one more question to ask the Committee. On page 5 of the first
part of the committee report, the following proposed resolutions can be
found:
Proposed Resolution No. 412, introduced by Honorable Rosario Braid,
entitled: RESOLUTION LIMITING THE PRACTICE IN THE PHILIPPINES OF THE
VARIOUS
PROFESSIONS TO FILIPINO PROFESSIONALS; and Proposed Resolution No.
432, introduced by Honorable Maambong, Ople, Natividad and de los Reyes,
Jr., entitled:
RESOLUTION LIMITING THE PRACTICE OF ANY PROFESSION TO FILIPINO
CITIZENS SAVE IN CASES OF RECIPROCITY TO ALIENS OF ANOTHER COUNTRY
UNDER CONDITIONS
PRESCRIBED BY LAW. Since the Committee did take cognizance of these
resolutions, I suppose the Committee is in sympathy with the idea in these
resolutions
although I cannot find specifically where it is stated in the report. Am I right
to say that?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes, when it was discussed yesterday, although the intention
of the Committee was to send it to the Committee on General Provisions. It
seems
it never got there; it got misplaced. So, what we suggest is that at the
appropriate time some amendments be introduced which we will entertain.
MR. TINGSON: Filipino doctors in America are trying their best to have the
U.S. change their regulations so that they, too, can have reciprocity there. If
we ask it from another country, would there not be a corresponding response
on our part to also give the same privilege to the countries that offer such
reciprocity to us?
MR. MONSOD: I think we have to realize that sometimes we are in a very
poor bargaining position. Also, the situation may not be the same in both
countries.
In our country, we may need to put more limitation than they would in theirs
for the common good.
MR. TINGSON: I understand.
MR. BENGZON: May I also add that, perhaps, we would already be treading
into legislation at that particular point.
MR. TINGSON: I just wanted to find out. Thank you very much.
the Philippines. We have not established that kind of parity. And there
will be vehement objection to putting that provision on the entry of foreign
experts to practice their profession in the Philippines in the Constitution.
As a matter of fact, there are experts in the Philippines; and we export our
experts to other countries. They are very exportable; they are well in
demand
all over the world. So, I would really be cautious about including that in the
understanding that when we talk about technical exchange, we would not
allow
that encroachment on the realm of our own professionals.
Thank you.
MR. VILLEGAS: Thank you.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Vice-President, I understand that when Commissioner
Gascon made his interpellation, he forgot to ask a question or two. So, may I
ask
that Commissioner Gascon be recognized?
MR. BENNAGEN: Mr. Vice-President, before he is recognized, I want to ask
Commissioner Garcia one brief question.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bennagen is recognized.
MR. BENNAGEN: Regarding the Gentlemans answer to the question of
Commissioner Tingson on economic democracy, there is one provision on
page 4, Section 8.
It says:
The President, after consultations with the appropriate public agencies and
the private sector, including labor and peasant organizations, shall
recommend
to Congress and implement an integrated and coordinated approach to
national development.
Is that, in any way, related to the Gentlemans understanding of economic
democracy only as a part, not necessarily the whole concept of economic
democracy and if he feels that it is not, would the Commissioner be willing to
provide us with some amendments to strengthen the participation of other
sectors in the overall planning and implementation of national economic
programs?
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Garcia may reply, if he so desires.
I perceive the main problems of the economy to be: First, scandalous poverty
for the majority of the population while a few live in luxury; second, the
inability to sustain a process of national capital accumulation; and, third low
development of our productive forces.
In our analysis, massive poverty stems from the combination of unequal
distribution of wealth and power, and economic backwardness. Unequal
distribution of
wealth necessarily means that there is a lack of democratic access to the
factors of production, as well as the means of production. Hence, basic
property
rights and regulations should be questioned. In our view, private ownership
and exclusive rights to access to our resources and means of production
naturally lead to potential abuse and, therefore, overconcentration of such
resources in the hands of a few leaves the rest of society unable to
accumulate
their own surplus and they become vulnerable to exploitation by the
powerful minority.
Thus, both private and state capitalism can lead to the poverty of the
majority because in both instances the producers are directly separated from
the
productive process which is still controlled by a few. The producers cannot
determine what goods shall be produced. When I speak of producers, I speak
primarily of the workers. And profits are utilized in a manner that only a few
decide upon. Both private and state capitalism follow the rule of the
market, meaning, they will invest in the production of goods which are the
most profitable.
In contemporary Philippine society, the most profitable goods are those
which are demanded by the sectors with money. These are the local highincome
market and the export market. Mass consumer goods are, therefore,
neglected. Corollary to this, the majority of the workers are not the targeted
market;
they are not the consumers. Hence, there is no incentive to increase their
wages.
Our economy is also highly integrated into the world capitalist market. This is
unhealthy for us because it creates unnecessary dependence on foreign
markets, foreign capital and foreign goods. I say unnecessary because I
believe we have the resources to produce our own: they are only untapped
and
wrongly allocated.
Thus, it will take time for this recovery program to begin, and many of our
people are daily being killed softly by unemployment and starvation. Our
task,
therefore, in this Commission is to bequeath to future generations a direction
for the State to create an independent, self-sustaining, self-reliant and
self-sufficient economy, and the sooner we explicate that the Philippine
economy belongs first and foremost to Filipinos, then the better so as to
reduce
gradually our dependence on foreign capital for our development efforts.
Then the producers should be given the right to determine what goods shall
be produced. The economy should be receptive to the needs of the majority
of its
citizens. In order for the producers to have such power of self-determination,
they should have direct access to the means of production. This is the
economic democracy which Commissioner Garcia speaks of. Hence, a
democratization of access to these sources, and a more equitable
distribution of wealth
should be a priority. The owner works, and the worker owns.
We must have an economy whose priority is the welfare of the Filipino. Thus,
it must be independent and free from the dictates of trading partners and
must
uphold the interest of the Filipinos.
However, it is not enough merely to call for a nationalization of industries.
Property rights and control of such industries should be diffused among all
Filipinos, and such industries must be geared not to the demands of the
foreigners but to the needs of the Filipinos. We must move away from
dependency on
others to answer our unemployment or poverty problems. Therefore, we
must tap our own resources to develop our own productive process. We must
try to wean
our economy away from the global capitalist market so that our country shall
become less vulnerable to world market price fluctuations or capital flight.
These are some of my basic ideas in support of a genuinely independent and
self-reliant economy and of the democratization of our economy.
Thank you.
MR. BENGZON: Mr. Vice-President, just so it cannot be said that the
Committee is not aware of the Rules, we would like to state for the record
that we were
tolerant in listening to the privilege speech of Commissioner Gascon,
although we felt that it was out of order. We allowed him to finish although it
would
have been proper to make his privilege speech simply part of the record.
MR. GASCON: I would like to thank the Committee for its tolerance.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Vice-President, considering that we have no more
interpellators, may I be allowed to propound some questions to the
Committee?
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: First of all, something has been said here by Commissioner
Tingson about Proposed Resolution No. 432 which was filed by this Member
and
Commissioners Ople, Natividad and de los Reyes, Jr., limiting the practice of
any profession to Filipino citizens save in cases of reciprocity to aliens of
another country that permits Filipinos to practice their profession within its
territory under conditions prescribed by law. A similar resolution was filed
also by Commissioner Rosario Braid.
I just want to make it of record that this resolution which we filed is not
actually our own formulation. We practically copied it from RA 5181;
unfortunately, after we had filed it, we received very adverse comments. I do
not know for what reasons, but perhaps some were thinking that we were not
trying to protect Filipino citizens. Nevertheless, we will bring this up later on
to the Committee
I would like to go to another point, Mr. Vice-President. I am not an economist,
so I would like to get certain verifications from the Committee. I have
here an article which says that foreign investments are concentrated in each
sector of Philippine economy such as banking, manufacturing and mining. Is
this true?
MR. VILLEGAS: Not in banking, and in manufacturing it depends on which
manufacturing sector.
MR. MAAMBONG: So, that is not exactly true.
MR. VILLEGAS: No.
MR. MAAMBONG: Another statement here is that multinational corporations
dominate major lines of industry, as in drugs and pharmaceuticals, food
processing,
petroleum and tire manufacturing. Is this true, Mr. Vice-President?
MR. VILLEGAS: In tire manufacturing, yes, but in drugs, the biggest market
share is in the hands of United Laboratories. In fact, it is unique in the
world. There is only one country in the world where 25 percent of the
pharmaceutical market is in the hands of one company which happens to be
a local
company.
MR. MAAMBONG: I thank the Commissioner for that clarification. Then,
finally, there is a statement here that foreign interests also hold sway over
assembly
and packing, export production and trading. Is this exactly correct?
MR. VILLEGAS: Again, that depends on which sector. In bananas, it has been
basically multinational. In other export crops, like coconut, it is not.
MR. BENGZON: Mr. Vice-President, may I just clarify the statement of
Commissioner Villegas with respect to the fact that 25 percent of drug
purchases is
concentrated on one company. We just like to state that this was the
situation in the old dispensation, but this is precisely what the present
Ministry of
Health is trying to break and which, I believe, it has already broken in the
sense that every drug purchase is now open to bidding. There are no more
negotiated purchases. We just want to make that clarification.
MS. QUESADA: Mr. Vice-President.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Quesada is recognized.
MS. QUESADA: I just like to correct the information that there is no monopoly
of the drug manufacturing business in the Philippines which is not controlled
by foreign big business or multinationals.
The Commissioner just referred to the drug distribution which has been the
monopoly of United Laboratories until the intervention of the new
government.
But insofar as the production of drug is concerned, it still remains in the
hands of foreign big business. That is the reality and that is what we are
trying to drive at in our rationalization of the drug policies of the country.
MR. VILLEGAS: It really depends on what the Commissioner means by
monopoly. If by monopoly, she means one specific multinational firm
controlling more than
10 percent of the market share, it does not exist. But if we put all
multinational firms together, then we can say that the foreign or
multinational sector
has the biggest market share, and that is true. But there is cut-throat
competition between them, so that is not monopoly. I think the
Commissioner has to
define her term monopoly.
MS. QUESADA: Perhaps not monopoly, but I refer to the production of very
essential drugs.
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes, they may be producing but, as I said, the American and
European multinational firms are at one anothers throat competing like mad,
and
that is not monopoly in economic literature.
MR. BENNAGEN: Mr. Vice-President, my understanding of the question of
Commissioner Maambong has something to do with foreign control or foreign
monopoly.
MR. MAAMBONG: No, my main point is to check the veracity of the quoted
statements because I will ask the Committee questions in connection with
Sections 9
and 15. I am just laying the basis, and it appears to me that my basis is
wrong because most of the answers of the Committee are to the effect that
the one
I am reading is not actually correct. Anyway, may I ask another question.
There is a statement in this report that I have that nearly 40 percent of the
countrys top 100 corporations are either foreign firms or subsidiaries of
foreign corporations or have sizeable foreign equities. Is this a correct
statement?
MR. VILLEGAS: What is sizeable?
MR. MAAMBONG: It says that nearly 40 percent of the countrys top 100
corporations are either foreign firms, subsidiaries of foreign corporations or
have
sizeable foreign equity.
MR. VILLEGAS: What is sizeable foreign equity, more than 40 percent?
MR. MAAMBONG: I really do now know, I am just reading a report. Is this not
also correct?
MR. VILLEGAS: If by sizeable, it means 15 or 20 percent, it might be true
because there is that much foreign equity definitely.
MR. MAAMBONG: Maybe the next question will clarify it. It says here that,
according to the figures released by the Securities and Exchange
Commission,
these corporations accounted for 40 percent of sales, and 70 percent of net
profits of the top 100 corporations in 1984. Is this a correct statement?
MR. VILLEGAS: I would not be able to answer, because I have to look at the
data.
MR. MAAMBONG: Anyway, all these questions lead me to my next question.
Under Sections 9 and 15, it appears to me that our form of control or
regulation
when it comes to foreign investments is actually in terms of the percentages
in their interest.
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes.
MR. MAAMBONG: And if we do not use the word control, our regulation is
only up to that extent. When a foreign entity comes in and tries to do
business in
our country, we only check what its equity contribution is and that is it.
MR. VILLEGAS: No, there are also other controls, depending on which sector
of the economy the Commissioner is examining. For example, in the financial
sector, multinationals cannot borrow without limit anymore because of a
regulation of the Central Bank coordinated with BOI that they are limited to
the
equity that they have brought in.
MR. MAAMBONG: I think I am beginning to understand.
MR. VILLEGAS: Or they can remit profits in a limited way. There have been so
many controls, precisely that is the reason why, as I said earlier, compared
to Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore, foreign investments in the Philippines
have been a pittance over the last ten years.
MR. MAAMBONG: So would it be more correct to say that we have control or
regulation in terms of: first, when a foreign investor or foreign business firm
comes in, we have regulations on the business organization itself?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes.
MR. MAAMBONG: Then, secondly, when they conduct their business
transactions, we have other forms of control?
MR. VILLEGAS: That is right.
MR. MAAMBONG: And when they go into some kind of business operations,
we have other sets of control?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes. Even their use of land is controlled.
MR. MAAMBONG: My next point is, all these controls that we are talking
about are embodied in our laws, and taken in totality these provisions which
we are
now discussing do not, in any way, as of this moment and until Congress acts
otherwise, destroy whatever controls or regulations are existing as of now.
MR. VILLEGAS: No, they do not.
MR. MAAMBONG: I am happy to hear that.
I am particularly interested in the nationalization laws that we have. Just to
mention a few, we have the Anti-Dummy Law, which is actually
Commonwealth
Act 108, amended several times.
MR. VILLEGAS: Could the Commissioner please define his terms? By
nationalization, does he mean Filipinization?
MR. MAAMBONG: Filipinization? Other authors call it nationalization, but let
us use the Commissioners word.
As I was saying, we have the Anti-Dummy Law or Commonwealth Act 108,
amended several times; we have the Anti-Dummy Board or RA 1130; the
Retail Trade
Nationalization Law; and the Rice and Corn Industry Law. We have the
different flag laws: the Anti-Dumping Law and the Filipino Retailers Act or RA
1292.
All these laws, as of this moment, are not affected by the present
configuration of our draft Constitution?
MR. VILLEGAS: No, they are not.
MR. MAAMBONG: This is my next point. We have mentioned here in one of
the provisions, words or phrases like monopolies, combinations in
restraint of
trade, and unfair competition. My question is: Are they understood, as
used in the provision, in relation to the definition of the same terms in the
Revised Penal Code, because Article 186 thereof mentions monopolies and
combinations in restraint of trade; Article 189 speaks of unfair
competition;
Article 187 speaks of importation and disposition of falsely marked
provided for in the 1973 Constitution. We would like to know what the
difference would be between the previous and the proposed provisions
regarding equity
interest.
MR. VILLEGAS: Commissioner Suarez will answer that.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
As a matter of fact, this particular portion is still being reviewed by this
Committee. In Section 1, Article XIII of the 1935 Constitution, the wording is
that the percentage should be based on the capital which is owned by such
citizens. In the proposed draft, this phrase was proposed: voting stock or
controlling interest. This was a plan submitted by the UP Law Center.
Three days ago, we had an early morning breakfast conference with the
members of the UP Law Center and precisely, we were seeking clarification
regarding
the difference. We would have three criteria to go by: One would be based on
capital, which is the capital stock of the corporation, authorized, subscribed
or paid-up, as was employed under the 1935 and the 1973 Constitutions. The
idea behind the introduction of the phrase voting stock or controlling
interest was precisely to avoid the perpetration of dummies, Filipino
dummies of multinationals. It is theoretically possible that a situation may
develop
where these multinational interests would not really be only 40 percent but
will even extend beyond that in the matter of voting because they could
enter
into what is known as a voting trust or voting agreement with the rest of the
stockholders and, therefore, notwithstanding the fact that on record their
capital extent is only up to 40-percent interest in the corporation, actually,
they would be managing and controlling the entire company. That is why the
UP Law Center members suggested that we utilize the words voting
interest which would preclude multinational control in the matter of voting,
independent
of the capital structure of the corporation. And then they also added the
phrase controlling interest which up to now they have not been able to
successfully define the exact meaning of. But they mentioned the situation
where theoretically the board would be controlled by these multinationals,
such
that instead of, say, three Filipino directors out of five, there would be three
foreign directors and, therefore, they would be controlling the management
of the company with foreign interest. That is why they volunteered to flesh
out this particular portion which was submitted by them, but up to now, they
have not come up with a constructive rephrasing of this portion. And as far
as I am concerned, I am not speaking in behalf of the Committee, I would
feel
more comfortable if we go back to the wording of the 1935 and the 1973
Constitutions, that is to say, the 60-40 percentage could be based on the
capital
stock of the corporation.
MR. FOZ: I understand that was the same view of Dean Carale who does not
agree with the others on this panel at the UP Law Center regarding the
percentage
of the ratio.
MR. SUAREZ: That is right. Dean Carale shares my sentiment about this
matter.
MR. BENGZON: I also share the sentiment of Commissioner Suarez in that
respect. So there are already two in the Committee who want to go back to
the
wording of the 1935 and the 1973 Constitutions.
MR. SUAREZ: It is good to have lawyers in the Committee.
MR. FOZ: Another question. In Section 4, the size of the homestead for
acquisition through purchase by an individual or citizen is only 24 hectares,
which
is just a reiteration of the previous provision of past Constitutions. But in view
of the increasing population and the diminishing availability of
alienable land, is this figure of 24 hectares still practical and feasible?
MR. VILLEGAS: If the Commissioner continues reading lines 10 to 14 of the
provision, it says: The Congress, taking into account . . . shall determine by
law the size of lands of the public domain which may be developed, held or
acquired . . . which means that this is really only the maximum limit and
that
Congress may determine a smaller limit.
MR. FOZ: Congress may still delimit the size?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes, exactly, depending on the circumstances.
MR. FOZ: Section 11, about the formation or organization of private
corporations, is not clear on how government corporations may be organized
or created.
Is the Committee saying that government-owned or controlled corporations
may be created not only by special law but also by general law?
in some
cases, corrupt.
MR. NATIVIDAD: So this spread or article about free trade does not, in fact,
have solid basis; is that the Commissioners conclusion?
MR. VILLEGAS: In economics, definitely, there are never dogmas, and that is
the problem with some people who have very closed opinions. They see
things in
black and white. And considering the present circumstances, we can
definitely benefit from more openness to international competition.
MR. NATIVIDAD: More or less, would this Article on the National Economy and
Patrimony sustain this doctrine of free trade?
MR. VILLEGAS: No, I think this Constitution is very silent on that. In fact, if we
accept the amendment of Commissioner Ople, it contains very specific
statements on international trade.
MR. NATIVIDAD: There will be modifications then?
MR. VILLEGAS: That is right, yes.
MR. NATIVIDAD: How about this matter of protectionism, how does this
Article treat that subject matter?
MR. VILLEGAS: It is silent.
MR. NATIVIDAD: How about on our present policy on floating rate, is this
provision silent also?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes. That is a very specific technical decision that our
monetary authority should be given a lot of leeway.
MR. NATIVIDAD: There is no hint whatsoever in this Article on that?
MR. VILLEGAS: No, definitely not.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Thank you, Mr. Vice-President.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Vice-President, with that last interpellation, I move to
close the period of sponsorship and debate on the Article on National
Economy
and Patrimony under Committee Report Nos. 24 and 32.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none;
the motion is approved.
ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Vice-President, I move to adjourn the session until
tomorrow at nine-thirty in the morning to give the committee members and
the
Commissioners time to prepare the proposed amendments.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Does the Chairman of the Steering Committee agree to
the motion?
MR. BENZONS: Yes, Mr. Vice-President, in order to give the Commissioners a
lot of time within which to prepare their amendments. As a matter of fact, for
those Commissioners who are ready with their written amendments, I
encourage them to submit the amendments to the Chairman or to us in the
Committee.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none;
the session is adjourned until tomorrow at nine-thirty in the morning.
It was 4:51 p.m.
R.C.C. NO. 57
Friday, August 15, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
At 9:51 a.m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia Muoz Palma, opened the
session.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is called to order.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please rise to sing the National Anthem.
Everybody rose to sing the National Anthem.
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please remain standing for the Prayer to be
led by the Honorable Teodoro C. Bacani.
Everybody remained standing for the Prayer.
PRAYER
BISHOP BACANI: God our Father, as we begin our work once more today, we
ask You to give us a deeper consciousness of the fact that we are Filipinos,
whom
You have called not only to own our land and our natural resources, but to
protect them not only for the present generation but for our posterity.
Grant, O Lord, that conscious of this, we may enact in this Constitution
provisions that will truly be for the welfare of our people, and it will not only
be class interest that we will promote, but the interest of the entire nation
and of our future generations. We ask You this in the name of Jesus, the
Lord. Amen.
ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will call the roll.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Abubakar
Present *
Natividad
Present
Alonto
Present
Nieva
Present
Aquino
Present
Nolledo
Present
Azcuna
Present *
Ople
Present
Bacani
Present
Padilla
Present
Bengzon
Present *
Quesada
Present
Bennagen
Present *
Rama
Present
Bernas
Present
Regalado
Absent
Rosario Braid
Present
Reyes de los
Present
Brocka
Present
Rigos
Present
Calderon
Present
Rodrigo
Present
Castro de
Present
Romulo
Present
Colayco
Present
Rosales
Present
Concepcion
Present
Sarmiento
Present
Davide
Present
Suarez
Present
Foz
Present
Sumulong
Present
Garcia
Present *
Tadeo
Present
Gascon
Present
Tan
Present *
Guingona
Absent
Tingson
Present
Jamir
Present
Treas
Present
Laurel
Present *
Uka
Present
Lerum
Present *
Villacorta
Present *
Maambong
Present *
Villegas
Present
Monsod
Present
COMMUNICATIONS
Letter from Mr. Guillermo A. Castasus of 127 R. Berroya St., San Vicente, San
Pedro, Laguna, suggesting that in the acquisition of lands, particularly
agricultural lands, and on retaining ownership of landholdings, anyone who
cannot guarantee the lands productivity has no reason for holding on that
land,
much less to acquire more.
(Communication No. 552 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on the National Economy and Patrimony.
Letter from Mr. Luis A. Quibranza of 1564 Labra Street, Caballes Compound,
Guadalupe, Cebu City, transmitting his proposal on National Covenant for
consideration by the Constitutional Commission.
(Communication No. 553 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Steering Committee.
Communication from Ms. Marisse C. Reyes, Correspondence Secretary, Office
of the President of the Philippines, Malacaang, transmitting the following
letters from: Mr. Prudencio S. Serrano, 748 Don M. Marcos Ave., Mati, Davao
Oriental, submitting suggestions for consideration in the Constitutional
Commission; Mr. Eliezer J. Fortunato, 83 Chico St., Quirino District, Quezon
City, proposing a federal form of government; Mr. Ramon Santillan, 303 Ziga
Ave., Tabaco, Albay, suggesting inclusion of a provision in the Constitution
regarding increased pension and government-subsidized health care
program for
elders; and Mr. Troadio Fuentes, Immaculate Conception Parish, Ozamis City,
suggesting the inclusion of religion in the school curriculum.
(Communication No. 554 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Steering Committee.
Communication from Mr. Victor A. de la Cruz and three others, all of Filamer
Christian College, Roxas City, urging the Constitutional Commission to
incorporate in the Constitution the inviolability of the separation of the
Church and State.
(Communication No. 555 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on General Provisions.
Letter from Minister Candu I. Muarip of the Office of Muslim Affairs and
Cultural Communities, N. de la Merced Bldg., corner West and Quezon
Avenue, Quezon
City, submitting a compilation of proposals and resolutions adopted by
Muslim professionals, academicians and scholars, and expressing the hope
that these
proposals which embody the general sentiments and common aspirations of
the people be incorporated in the Constitution.
(Communication No. 556 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Human Resources.
Communication from Mr. Isabelo F. Magalit of KONFES, 4 Malinis St., U.P.
Village, Diliman, Quezon City, and thirty-nine (39) other signatories,
submitting
a position paper recommending that the text of the 1973 Constitution (Art.
XV, Sec. 8) on the teaching of religion in public schools be retained and
incorporated in the new Constitution.
(Communication No. 557 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Human Resources.
Eighteen letters with eight thousand eight hundred sixteen (8,816)
signatories with their respective addresses, all seeking to include in the
Constitution
a provision obliging the State to protect the life of the unborn from the
moment of conception.
(Communication No. 558 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of
Principles.
Letter from Mr. Ishmael F. Mohammed of Suite 4 QB, ODC Bldg., Legaspi
Village, Makati, Metro Manila, seeking the adoption of measures that will give
the
prisoners among the Filipino Muslims the privilege to observe fasting inside
the prison during the month of Rahmadan, exempting them from hard labor
for
thirty days, feeding them at dawn and at sunset and secluding them from
other prisoners of another faith.
(Communication No. 559 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
is the word
NATIONAL because the sentence that the Committee itself suggested,
which is THE STATE SHALL PROTECT FILIPINO ENTERPRISES AGAINST UNFAIR
FOREIGN
COMPETITION already covers the idea of the word NATIONAL. Second, in
the sentence where it says INCLUDING BOTH THE CORPORATE AND THE
COOPERATIVE OR
SOCIAL SECTORS, we believe that many people may not understand what
OR SOCIAL SECTORS mean. However, we are prepared to accept the word
COOPERATIVE or
say SIMILAR ENTERPRISES shall be encouraged, if it is acceptable to the
Commissioner.
MR. OPLE: Yes, I am prepared to accept the amendment of the Committee,
provided it is understood that in omitting the words NATIONAL before
INDUSTRIALIZATION, it is still the intent of this Commission, particularly of
the Committee, that Filipino entrepreneurs and leaders of business and
industry, and not any other group, shall lead in the industrialization of the
country which is stated here as a goal.
MR. MONSOD: That is why we used the words Filipino enterprises.
MR. OPLE: Yes, in that context, I accept the amendment, Madam President.
BISHOP BACANI: Did the Commissioner read the word DYNAMIC?
MR. OPLE: Yes, it is proposed to be inserted between the modifier selfreliant and the phrase independent national economy.
Does the Committee want a brief explanation for this proposal?
MR. VILLEGAS: Please proceed.
MR. OPLE: There are two contrasting examples of a self-reliant and
independent national economy. Let us say, Taiwan or Korea epitomizes the
first type it
is self-reliant and independent, but it is dynamic. The other group of selfreliant and independent economies that I have in mind, by way of contrast, is
Burma. Burma is almost an economic autarky by policy, that is to say, until
recently when it decided to join the rest of the world economy. It is static,
not dynamic
So, you can have a self-reliant and independent national economy which is
almost static and stagnant I am for inserting this modifier of DYNAMIC to
insure
that self-reliance and independence will generate not less, but more
economic dynamism in its interaction, especially with the rest of the world
economic
environment.
It is in that sense that I made the proposal, Madam President.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President, it seems that DYNAMIC is an
unnecessary surplusage because the very last sentence, for example, of the
same paragraph
speaks of EXPANDING PRODUCTIVITY AS THE KEY TO RAISING THE
STANDARDS OF LIVING FOR ALL ESPECIALLY THE POOR, and then the
following paragraph further
amplifies or explains the dynamism that is required of the national economy.
Hence, it would seem to be unnecessary.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, I will not press for the adoption of this
amendment if it is understood that the vision of a self-reliant and
independent
national economy that leads this paragraph refers to a state of economy that
is dynamic and not static; then I am willing to have this word omitted. In
other words, I accept the committee amendment if it is a committee
proposal.
BISHOP BACANI: Thank you.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, in other words, Commissioner Ople is
amenable to the suggestion that we delete the word DYNAMIC, but with the
understanding
that the meaning of dynamism, insofar as the national economy is
concerned, as it is proposed and elaborated on this morning, would be stated
in the
record.
MR. OPLE: The Gentleman has described exactly my position.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
The Committee would like to clear up certain expressions used in the
proposed amendment to Section 1. For example, with regard to the phrase
EXPANDING
PRODUCTIVITY, does this refer to all sectors, like agricultural, industrial,
commercial sectors of productivity?
MR. OPLE: Yes, Madam President. Many economic theories, regardless of their
ideological commitments or lack of depth, barely converge on the perception
God has given us and this includes the human resource potential of the
country. It also speaks of a commitment to put the process of
industrialization and
modernization in the hands of Filipino talent because we are called upon to
make full use of the national endowment in both human and natural
resources.
Originally, the reference to natural resources was industries that would
optimize the use of indigenous resources. But I think it has now been
transformed into a better statement in the sense that the THE NATIONAL
ENDOWMENT which comprises all of those now appears here as a key
clause.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, would Commissioner Ople favor the
deletion of the words THE NATIONAL ENDOWMENT, so that the lines will
read, INDUSTRIES
THAT MAKE FULL USE OF BOTH HUMAN AND NATURAL RESOURCES, for
simplicity? The Commissioners explanation states that the national
endowment would cover both
human and natural resources.
MR. OPLE: Yes, but then it also helps fix human and natural resources in a
frame, which I think is possessive, nationalistic, because we speak of both of
these as THE NATIONAL ENDOWMENT.
MR. SARMIENTO: So, will the Commissioner agree to the deletion of the
words THE NATIONAL ENDOWMENT?
MR. OPLE: If the Committee makes an amendment out of that, I would not
shed a few tears over it.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, since the Committee is prepared to use
Commissioner Oples proposal as the basis for drafting Section 1, there is
need to
clarify the terms being used here. May I refer the Commissioner to the clause
AND WHICH ARE FULLY COMPETITIVE IN BOTH THE DOMESTIC AND
EXTERNAL
ENVIRONMENTS. When the Commissioner refers to EXTERNAL
ENVIRONMENTS, I suppose he is referring to industries of other countries. Is
our understanding
correct, Madam President?
MR. OPLE: Not exactly, Madam President. When we say that these industries
are fully competitive in both the domestic and external environments, we
want to
emphasize again self-reliance and independence as the attributes of
industries that should be supported for this purpose. Let us begin with the
domestic
environment. If they are not competitive, they will penalize the consumers
with shabby products that cost too much. I think we are very concerned that
the
industries that will become the engines of the industrialization and
modernization of this country should be fair to our consuming public. They
should be
able to offer products that are competitive in quality and price, since virtually
under protected conditions our consumers have no choice. They can be
paying for a shirt which costs 50 percent less in Taiwan but whose quality is
higher. And so it refers, first of all, to the protection of the consuming
public relative to the producers. Secondly, it also refers to the ability of our
industries to earn foreign exchange, where they are in a position to do
so, by providing high quality, high performance, low-cost products in the
markets of the world, where the opportunities are available only to those
who are
prepared to take advantage of them.
MR. SUAREZ: That is the meaning the proponent attributes to the phrase
external environments.
MR. OPLE: Yes, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: The last clarification question would be with respect to the
protection of Filipino enterprises against unfair foreign competition. Although
this is a Committee suggestion, would the proponent be able to give
examples of what would constitute unfair foreign competition?
MR. OPLE: Let me start with a really critical problem. The dumping of excess
goods in the Philippine market is a form of unfair competition. For example,
when multinationals overcharge their Filipino partners in terms of royalties
for some of their dubious technologies, that is a form of unfair competition.
When they deny access to technology to their Filipino partners, that is highly
discriminatory and, I think, unfair competition.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Aquino be
recognized to amend the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: Would the proponent be amenable to an amendment to his
amendment?
MR. OPLE: With the greatest pleasure, if I like the amendment.
MS. AQUINO: I would propose to delete the word UNFAIR and substitute it
with the words CONTROL AND IMPORT COMPETITION. Madam President, any
competition,
any foreign competition, is by itself unfair and unequal competition. Any
foreign company that seeks to operate in the Philippine economy,
considering the
very small size of the Philippine economy and the relative level of
underdevelopment, would, by itself, pose great danger to the possibilities of
full
development of that local industry. A small company based in Japan, or
Korea, or the United States, conceding that it may not be nonmonopolistic in
their
country, once it begins to operate in our country is, by itself, a threat or a
danger to the possibility of growth.
MR. OPLE: I will put this matter to the Committee which introduced this
amendment to my amendment.
MR. SARMIENTO: Will Commissioner Aquino kindly restate her proposed
amendment?
MS. AQUINO: My amendment would read: HOWEVER, THE STATE SHALL
PROTECT THE LOCAL INDUSTRIES FROM FOREIGN CONTROL AND IMPORT
COMPETITION. It would, in
effect, delete the word UNFAIR on the premise that any foreign competition
is already by itself unfair and unequal competition.
MR. VILLEGAS: I regret that we will not be able to accept that amendment
because it is constitutionalizing a specific situation that may not last forever.
I think it is also unjust to think that Filipino enterprises, even assuming that
temporarily they are infants and they have to be protected, which is the
constitutional horizon, will forever and ever be needing protection. For
example, I mentioned beer on another occasion. It would be ridiculous to say
that
San Miguel beer needs protection from other industries abroad. So, although
we admit that there are legitimate infants that should be protected and that
can continue because new infants will arise in the local industry, I do not
think we should include in the Constitution a statement that all imports
would
constitute unfair competition to local industries.
MS. AQUINO: With all due deference to the position of the Committee and to
Chairman Villegas, whom I believe has no peers in that field, the concern
here
is that there are certain givens that we have to assume one is that we are
an agricultural economy and unless there is complete and committed
cuddling
from the State and the government, we cannot transcend the limitations of
an agricultural economy as evidenced now by our stagnant economy. My
concern is
that we cannot hope or we cannot even attempt to achieve a situation
whereby we can gear up the cycle of the development of domestic surplus
accumulation
and investment unless we protect the local industry and market from foreign
intrusion, and here I refer to import competition.
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes.
MS. AQUINO: What I am saying is that, if we allow untrammeled import
competition, we are just institutionalizing the decided advantage of the
foreign
competitors already in the market.
MR. VILLEGAS: We are not allowing untrammeled imports. Precisely, there is
this provision that, in legitimate and meritorious cases, the State shall
protect Filipino enterprises. But to make a sweeping statement that all
Filipino enterprises shall forever and ever be protected from imports, I think,
is
unwarranted.
MR. OPLE: The Committee has acquired jurisdiction over this amendment
now in the sense that they have accepted it except for some last minute
proposed
minor changes and, therefore, I submit to the wishes of the Committee.
MR. VILLEGAS: If Commissioner Aquino insists on the amendment to the
amendment, we can throw it to the body.
MR. OPLE: But before we consider that, Madam President, may I just say that
the amendment to the amendment introduced by the Committee itself and
which
reads: HOWEVER, THE STATE SHALL PROTECT FILIPINO ENTERPRISES
AGAINST UNFAIR FOREIGN COMPETITION, looks to me like it is an umbrella
statement for
protecting Filipino enterprises against all manner of unfair competition, the
exact forms of which may emerge later with greater clarity according to
dynamic changes in the internal economic situation. But I do not put the
regulation of imports as being beyond the pale of this protective umbrella,
depending on the changing situations, meaning, Commissioner Aquinos own
concern may already be subsumed actually in this sentence which, if I am
allowed
the amount of goods and services produced by the nation for the benefit of
the Filipino people . . . and, therefore, to repeat economic growth in the
context of productivity might be a redundancy. Moreover, RAISING THE
STANDARDS OF LIVING is a more active formulation than RISING
STANDARDS OF LIVING.
In that respect, I support the views of the Committee as expressed by
Commissioner Suarez.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, I will not insist on the second amendment. I
will insist only on the first.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: May I ask Commissioner Ople if instead of the words
STANDARDS OF LIVING he will be amenable to using LEVELS OF LIVING,
because even the
poorest may have very high standards of living which may not be attainable
and which may just lead to frustration. I think what the honorable
Commissioner
wants is RAISING LEVELS OF LIVING.
MR. OPLE: Yes, in this context they are synonymous and it is a choice, I
suppose, for the Committee between standards and LEVELS. I would have
no
objection to replacing standards with LEVELS.
BISHOP BACANI: Thank you very much.
MR. DAVIDE: So, may we know the reaction of the Committee on the first
amendment?
MR. VILLEGAS: Is the Gentleman referring to MAXIMUM ECONOMIC
GROWTH?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes.
MR. VILLEGAS: We hesitate to accept that because it is not the objective of
the Article on National Economy and Patrimony to maximize economic
growth;
besides, this has been an error of past development programs.
I think the reference here to a sustained increase, as mentioned by
Commissioner Ople, in the amount of goods and services produced by the
nation for the
benefit of the Filipino people would capture better the real objective of the
economy.
MR. DAVIDE: In short, that particular phrase would refer to the achievement
of maximum economic growth.
MR. VILLEGAS: That is right, Madam President.
MR. DAVIDE: I will not insist on that clarification. But what about substituting
the word poor with UNDERPRIVILEGED?
MR. OPLE: I would have no difficulty about that, Madam President.
MR. VILLEGAS: I would just harmonize the word with all the other references
in the Article on Social Justice and I think this will be more a matter of
style.
MR. DAVIDE: On the second paragraph, I seek for the deletion of the words
establish policies that so the first line will read: THE STATE SHALL
PROMOTE
NATIONAL . . .
MR. OPLE: I accept the amendment and I hope the Committee does, too.
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: May we have that again, Commissioner Davide?
MR. DAVIDE: It is just the deletion, Madam President, of the words establish
policies that. So, it will read: THE STATE SHALL PROMOTE NATIONAL
INDUSTRIALIZATION.
MR. OPLE: The policy is actually a vow of courtesy to the future Congress.
But I think the elimination of this phrase actually strengthens the paragraph.
So, I accept the amendment, Madam President.
MR. DAVIDE: That is the principal idea.
MR. VILLEGAS: Just a reminder: the Committee had suggested that we drop
the qualifying word NATIONAL because it is already subsumed under
Philippine
enterprises.
MR. OPLE: I had accepted that amendment in the context of the additional
last sentence which is a guarantee that the State shall protect Filipino
enterprises against unfair foreign competition.
MR. OPLE: I would not object, Madam President, to making the meaning more
precise unless the Committee contemplates domestic and external
environments as
being able to encompass a wider range of factors than markets in which
competitiveness shall be assured. May we hear from the Committee which
has acquired
jurisdiction over the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: What does the Chairman say?
MR. VILLEGAS: We accept the amendment. FOREIGN MARKETS would really
be synonymous with external environments.
MR. PADILLA: Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Garcia be recognized
to present an amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Garcia is recognized.
MR. GARCIA: Madam President, actually, the basic thoughts that I want to
incorporate have already been incorporated in the amendment presented on
the
floor; so it could simply be an alternative formulation. Utilizing the original
draft, Commissioner Gascon and I feel that it could be strengthened by
putting after the phrase The State shall develop a self-reliant and
independent national economy the following: FOUNDED ON THE EFFECTIVE
CONTROL BY
FILIPINOS, OF THE ECONOMY AND OF INDUSTRIES VITAL TO THEIR NATIONAL
INTEREST. That will be in the first sentence.
MR. OPLE: Will the Gentleman kindly repeat the amendment?
MR. GARCIA: FOUNDED ON THE EFFECTIVE CONTROL BY FILIPINOS, OF THE
ECONOMY AND OF INDUSTRIES VITAL TO THEIR NATIONAL INTEREST.
THE PRESIDENT: This is a sentence of the Committee. So, what does the
Committee say?
MR. OPLE: Yes, it is a Committee formulation and, therefore, I would like to
refer the matter to the Committee.
THE PRESIDENT: Is the Committee ready to give its reaction to this proposed
amendment of Commissioner Garcia.
economic policy and the industries themselves, then I would accept this
amendment.
MR. VILLEGAS: All the how-tos how to make sure that this effective
control will be exercised, for one, will be developed in the subsequent
sections of
this Article, like the 60-40 scheme or certain areas are limited only to
Filipinos. So, I think that would be sufficient.
MR. GARCIA: Thank you.
MR. VILLEGAS: We accept the amendment.
MR. GARCIA: Thank you very much.
I would like to ask the honorable Commissioner Ople regarding the third
paragraph broader-based ownership of private enterprises including both
the
corporate and the cooperative or social sectors shall be encouraged. This, I
understand, has been accepted by the Committee.
MR. OPLE: Yes, Madam President, the Committee accepted the phrase with
just one modification: the phrase or social was deleted on the ground that
there
is no familiarity as yet with the meaning of social sectors.
MR. GARCIA: Yes.
MR. OPLE: So, the provision reads: including both the corporate and the
cooperative sectors shall be encouraged.
MR. VILLEGAS: There is a final wording that we would like to read: including
both corporate ENTERPRISES AND COOPERATIVES OR SIMILAR
ORGANIZATIONS.
MR. OPLE: This, I think, captures the essence of the original. So, I am willing
to accept that amendment of the Committee.
MR. GARCIA: The reason I ask is that if I utilize the original draft, after the
second sentence, the third sentence has a phrase which states: in the
attainment of these goals. I suggest that after goals, insert the phrase:
THE STATE SHALL PROMOTE THE INDUSTRIALIZATION OF THE NATION,
FOSTER ECONOMIC
NATIONALISM, AND ENCOURAGE BROADER-BASED OWNERSHIP AND
MANAGEMENT OF ECONOMIC ENTERPRISES.
can further clarify this in the experience of our people as more communal
forms of ownership and participation evolve.
MR. VILLEGAS: The inclusion of cooperatives already opens the way for other
types of social aggrupations. Since the Constitution has to be as clear as
possible, we thought it would be better to include the Gentlemans
explanation in the record and to say that similar organizations mean
cooperatives and
other forms of aggrupations.
MR. GARCIA: With a very popular experience of, let us say, newspaper
ownership . . . let us say, Malaya, a cooperative ownership, social ownership.
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes.
MR. GARCIA: Does the Gentleman not think that recognizing it, therefore, will
encourage such forms of broader-based ownership and the participation of
people in economic enterprises?
MR. VILLEGAS: Precisely, that is a cooperative; so it is already included in the
use of the word cooperative.
MR. GARCIA: I feel that the word social would really give it a much broader
acceptability since we recognize that fact.
MR. OPLE: Would the Committee have any difficulty about saying
ENTERPRISES AND COOPERATIVES OR SIMILAR SOCIAL ORGANIZATIONS?
MR. VILLEGAS: An organization means social. But if the Gentleman wants to
be redundant. . .
MR. OPLE: I think that will help accommodate. Commissioner Garcias
concerns.
MR. VILLEGAS: To have a more specific adjective, is the Gentleman referring
to not-for-profit organizations?
MR. GARCIA: Not necessarily. For me, it is the form of economic organization.
The problem here is when one uses the word private, as I said yesterday,
normally it tends to become very exclusive those who are big and those
who are strong; whereas, when one uses the word social, the intent is of a
much
broader base the association of workers, the association of peasants. It
involves a much broader understanding and it is simply enlarging that and
recognizing that as a fact of economic life and encouraging, therefore, that
sector so that the conflict between private and State does not remain.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Madam President, Commissioner Bacani and myself had
earlier filed a resolution which would include AIRWAVES AND RADIO
FREQUENCIES as
part of the natural resources.
I have here a defense on why they should be considered part of the natural
resources. I will just summarize this paper and submit it for the record.
But I just want to emphasize that broadcasting is a very important social
force in our present life. There are 308 radio stations in the country and 44
television stations, including replay and relay stations. These stations
generated a gross billing of P812 million in 1985.
Most of these broadcasts reach four out of every five Filipinos daily, but their
content generally leaves much to be desired which is usually soap operas
and trivial programs. Because of this, concern has been shown by many
sectors about the power these programs have in influencing the values,
lifestyles and
attitudes of the people.
Just an hour ago, we were discussing economic nationalism and I submit that
the important area that should be attended to is the area of changing our
cultural values so that we make ourselves more nationalistic consumers. In
other words, there should be preference for puto and locally made products
instead of hamburger or products of imported brands. Most of these
influences are due to advertising and the mass media.
THE PRESIDENT: Where does Commissioner Rosario Braid propose to insert
AIRWAVES AND RADIO FREQUENCIES?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: I propose to insert it on line 5 after energy.
THE PRESIDENT: What does the Committee say?
MR. VILLEGAS: We cannot accept the amendment, and so we would like to
bring it to the floor for voting.
THE PRESIDENT: Does Commissioner Rosario Braid insist? May we know the
reason for not accepting, Commissioner Villegas?
MR. VILLEGAS: We have discussed this fully in public hearings. Defining what
airwaves are is very complex and technical. The consensus was that it is very
difficult to control airwaves. There was a secondary reason: since airspace is
traditionally included in the Article on National Territory, airwaves could
already be subsumed under airspace.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Madam President, may I just argue further. In the
Batasang Pambansa, there was a proposed bill Parliamentary Bill No. 5078
which
states that the radio frequencies spectrum being public property, its
enjoyment is granted as a privilege by the State and should be administered
in the
public interest and in accordance with international agreements and
conventions.
Earlier, several experts have recognized airwaves as a social resource which
should be regulated. The aim of this resolution is to insure that radio
frequencies do not just get passed on from one owner to the other without
the State providing criteria on who should be allocated these frequencies. It
has
been a common practice in the past that once a broadcast station stops
operating, the owner sells the frequency for several million pesos. This
should not
be done because, as we said, airwaves, being a public domain, should be
given back to the State which then allocates them on the basis of criteria
based
on public interest, broader-based ownership and management, and so forth.
It is for this reason that we feel they should be included as a public resource
and should fall under natural resources. I submit this is controversial, but I
would like to get this opportunity to give the Committee more arguments.
MR. VILLEGAS: There is no disagreement on the principle that airwaves
should be regulated by the government, and effectively they are, by the
Bureau of
Telecommunications. There are so many regulations. The only bone of
contention is to include them under the Article on National Economy and
Patrimony.
There must be a very specific way of actually measuring them and defining
them, and that is where the disagreement lies. So, we would rather leave it
to
the generic phrase air space and make it clear that we want the State to
regulate what the Commissioner is concerned about airwaves,
frequencies, radio
frequencies. But the moment we start including them in the same category
as forests or timberland, I think we will give our legislature a big problem, for
example, in defining quantitatively what the term airwaves is.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Will the Committee accept a provision in the Article on
National Economy and Patrimony since, I think, this would fall under that
Article?
for the contracts to be entered into between the executive department and
the foreign-owned corporation. Congress can only lay down general
guidelines.
MR. ROMULO: The Gentleman wants to add the word GENERAL?
MR. FOZ: Yes, Madam President.
MR. ROMULO: Does Commissioner Sarmiento accept that? We have no
objection.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I hear the amendment.
MR. FOZ: It merely consists of the insertion of the word GENERAL before
terms.
MR. VILLEGAS: I think the Committee will accept the amendment to the
amendment.
MR. ROMULO: We accept the amendment.
MR. SARMIENTO: I yield, Madam President, to the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Concepcion is recognized.
MR. CONCEPCION: Thank you, Madam President.
On Section 3, line 5, the word forests appear. The old laws used to refer to
timberlands; forests are only part of timberlands and there may be
timberlands without forests. So, would the Committee be agreeable to
accepting an amendment to add after the word forests OR TIMBERLANDS?
MR. VILLEGAS: We accept the amendment.
MR. CONCEPCION: Thank you, Madam President.
Line 16 of the same section reads: agreements shall be for a period of
twenty-five years. Does this mean it must be exactly twenty-five years or
perhaps
less? Is this merely a maximum? In other words, would the Committee accept
an amendment to insert NOT MORE THAN before twenty-five years?
MR. SUAREZ: May we just clarify that. If we put that descriptive phrase to
read: for a period of NOT MORE THAN twenty-five years, then how can we
harmonize it with the next phrase which reads: renewable for not more than
twenty-five years? I think we should harmonize the two together.
Gascon
amendment will come in.
MR. GASCON: Yes, it will be up to the body.
I feel that the general law to be set by Congress as regard service contract
agreements which the President will enter into might be too general or since
we do not know the content yet of such a law, it might be that certain
agreements will be detrimental to the interest of the Filipinos. This is in direct
contrast to my proposal which provides that there be effective constraints in
the implementation of service contracts.
So instead of a general law to be passed by Congress to serve as a guideline
to the President when entering into service contract agreements, I propose
that every service contract entered into by the President would need the
concurrence of Congress, so as to assure the Filipinos of their interests with
regard to the issue in Section 3 on all lands of the public domain. My
alternative amendment, which we will discuss later, reads: THAT THE
PRESIDENT SHALL
ENTER INTO SUCH AGREEMENTS ONLY WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF TWOTHIRDS VOTE OF ALL THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS SITTING SEPARATELY.
MR. VILLEGAS: Madam President, Commissioner Bengzon wants to say
something.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: The reason we made that shift is that we realized the original
proposal could breed corruption. By the way, this is not just confined to
service contracts but also to financial assistance. If we are going to make
every single contract subject to the concurrence of Congress which,
according
to the Commissioners amendment is the concurrence of two-thirds of
Congress voting separately then (1) there is a very great chance that each
contract
will be different from another; and (2) there is a great temptation that it
would breed corruption because of the great lobbying that is going to
happen.
And we do not want to subject our legislature to that.
Now, to answer the Commissioners apprehension, by general law, we do
not mean statements of motherhood. Congress can build all the restrictions
that it
wishes into that general law so that every contract entered into by the
President under that specific area will have to be uniform. The President has
no
choice but to follow all the guidelines that will be provided by law.
MR. GASCON: But my basic problem is that we do not know as of yet the
contents of such a general law as to how much constraints there will be in it.
And to
my mind, although the Committees contention that the regular concurrence
from Congress would subject Congress to extensive lobbying, I think that is a
risk we will have to take since Congress is a body of representatives of the
people whose membership will be changing regularly as there will be
changing
circumstances every time certain agreements are made. It would be best
that to keep in tab and attuned to the interest of the Filipino people,
whenever the
President enters into any agreement with regard to such an important matter
as technical or financial assistance for large-scale exploration, development
and utilization of natural resources or service contracts, the peoples elected
representatives should be on top of it.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, may I ask Commissioner Jamir to restate his
amendment so we can vote on it intelligently.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, may I just reply for the record before we
ask for a vote?
THE PRESIDENT: Please proceed.
MR. BENGZON: First of all, I think there should be a presumption that we
should trust Congress; second, that is precisely the reason we need people
like
the Commissioner to insure that we elect the right people to both Houses of
Congress; third, we should allow flexibility because of changing conditions. If
it turns out that the terms of the previous contract are not to the best
interest of the country anymore, then Congress can always change it.
MR. GASCON: They can change the general law?
MR. BENGZON: Certainly, they can change it.
So with those comments, Madam President, we are ready for a vote.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Jamir be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Jamir is recognized.
One of the reasons given for the deletion of the concurrence of Congress is
that it may open the system to payola. This fear can also be entertained the
other way. The President acts only upon the advice of his advisers, and if
Congress can be bribed, a group of people can be bribed much more easily.
But I
am not thinking of that; I am simply thinking of human error. Probably
Congress can anticipate the period, say, that the exploration should not
exceed a
certain period, and set standards. But as to the share of our government, for
instance, there can easily be a mistake of judgment. There is no way that
Congress can anticipate the discretion that should be used or the guidelines
that should govern the thinking or the decision of the President. And for this
reason, I believe that some kind of a safeguard or mechanism should be
inserted in the system to obviate or at least reduce the possibility that our
government may be too negligent in accepting the terms of the explorer.
That is why I agree with the thinking of the two Commissioners who spoke
ahead of
me that we should retain the original plan of the Committee. However,
personally, I would put it at a MAJORITY of either the Lower House or the
Upper
House.
I submit, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, just a point of clarification.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Madam President.
Maybe this should be addressed properly to the Acting Floor Leader since he
was a Member of the Batasang Pambansa. On the assumption that we will
pass this
resolution requiring the President to get the concurrence of Congress by
special law, does it mean a special law or only a resolution on the part of
both
Houses?
MR. MAAMBONG: I can hardly be considered an authority but if the
Commissioner is asking for my personal opinion, I think it should be a law.
MR. SUAREZ: So it will have to pass through the presentation of a bill
approving the terms and conditions of a service contract to be entered into
by the
President?
MR. CALDERON: When the Commissioner talks about the search for mineral
oil, is he referring to offshore or onshore?
MR. DAVIDE: Both.
MR. CALDERON: Under the regalian doctrine, the government could grant
concessions to all agricultural lands or any property of the public domain.
MR. DAVIDE: The report of the Committee would limit agricultural land only
for possible alienation which could only be done by leases and by
homesteads.
MR. CALDERON: Under the regalian doctrine, the government could grant
leases to all lands, whether private or public, because anything under the
soil is
supposed to be owned by the State.
MR. DAVIDE: Not of private land.
Under the same section, in the opening paragraph, the Commissioner will
notice that except for lands of the public domain, natural resources cannot
be
alienated, and with respect to lands of the public domain, only by leases or
homesteads not exceeding 24 hectares and, of course, to Filipino citizens.
MR. CALDERON: Because under our present laws, private lands are not
exempt from the regalian doctrine. In other words, the State can enter into
contract
involving private lands.
MR. DAVIDE: That is basic to the principle of ownership by the individual. He
can enter into contracts, however, subject to the control now of the State in
view of social justice.
MR. CALDERON: Frankly, I am not satisfied with the Commissioners reply
because if an oil concessionaire, for instance, will have to enter into a
contract
with the private landowner, there will be delays in the development of our oil
resources.
MR. DAVIDE: No, the mineral that the Commissioner is talking about could
belong to the State.
MR. CALDERON: I am talking about oil.
MR. DAVIDE: Oil belongs to the State, not to any particular individual.
MR. VILLEGAS: Madam President, the Committee would just like to go back to
the Jamir amendment for a change in style. Just for the record, it has
reference
to the amendment of Commissioner Sarmiento. We would like that
amendment to read as follows: IN SUCH AGREEMENTS THE STATE SHALL
PROMOTE THE DEVELOPMENT AND
USE OF LOCAL SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL RESOURCES.
THE PRESIDENT: Was that included in the vote?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Who is next?
MR. MAAMBONG: I ask that Commissioner Davide be recognized for an
anterior amendment to Section 3.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: I have a few minor amendments, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner may proceed.
MR. DAVIDE: On line 5, after forests insert a comma (,) and the word
WILDLIFE followed by a comma (,). And then change the e in faune to
A, to read
FAUNA.
MR. VILLEGAS: Could Commissioner Davide just explain why he is introducing
WILDLIFE when flora and fauna are both wildlife?
MR. DAVIDE: No, not necessarily, because it may also be marine flora and
fauna, and fauna would refer to the animal kingdom so we have to go
beyond. These
are not the only part of our natural resources; the birds, and so on, are also
wildlife.
MR. VILLEGAS: All right.
MR. MAAMBONG: Just a moment, Madam President. Is that accepted?
MR. AZCUNA: May I be recognized?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Azcuna is recognized.
MR. AZCUNA: Madam President, I believe that fauna includes wildlife. If the
term flora and fauna was intended to replace the term wildlife in the
1973
Constitution, I fear that there might be a redundancy if we mention both
wildlife and flora and fauna. I think we should choose between one or the
other.
MR. DAVIDE: I submit, Madam President, that wildlife is even broader, so
instead of flora and fauna we use the word WILDLIFE.
MR. VILLEGAS: Commissioner Bennagen, our naturalist, has something to
say.
MR. BENNAGEN: May I offer an observation. Flora and fauna is a broader
term and wildlife would be included within the concept of flora and
fauna, but
I agree to the inclusion of WILDLIFE, specifically to refer to endangered
species. It could be considered national treasure, for emphasis.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, so the Committee accepts WILDLIFE?
MR. BENNAGEN: Let us now give that emphasis that is required especially
with respect to endangered species.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that accepted?
MR. VILLEGAS: We accept the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: It is accepted. So let us proceed to vote on that line first.
Is there any objection to the proposed amendment of Commissioner Davide?
(Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is approved.
MR. DAVIDE: On line 9, Madam President, before the word and after the
comma (,), insert EXPLOITATION.
MR. VILLEGAS: Madam President, following the recommendation in the UP
draft, we omitted exploitation first of all because it is believed to be
subsumed
under development and secondly because it has a derogatory connotation.
MR. DAVIDE: I will not insist, but this one I hope the Committee will
immediately accept.
On lines 14 and 15, delete the clause at least sixty percent of whose voting
stock or controlling interest is and substitute the same with WHOSE CAPITAL
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 4:42 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
Commissioner Davide is to clarify his point.
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes, Commissioner Davide has accepted the word CAPITAL in
place of voting stock or controlling interest. This is an amendment already
accepted by the Committee.
We would like to call for a vote on 100-percent Filipino versus 60-percent
Filipino.
MR. ALONTO: Is it 60 percent?
MR. VILLEGAS: Sixty percent, yes.
MR. GASCON: Madam President, shall we vote on the proposed amendment
of Commissioner Davide of ONE HUNDRED PERCENT?
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes.
MR. GASCON: Assuming that it is lost, that does not prejudice any other
Commissioner to make any recommendations on other percentages?
MR. VILLEGAS: I would suggest that we vote on sixty, which is indicated in
the committee report.
MR. GASCON: It is the amendment of Commissioner Davide that we should
vote on, not the committee report.
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes, it is all right.
MR. AZCUNA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Azcuna is recognized.
MR. AZCUNA: May I be clarified as to that portion that was accepted by the
Committee.
MR. VILLEGAS: The portion accepted by the Committee is the deletion of the
phrase voting stock or controlling interest.
MR. AZCUNA: Hence, without the Davide amendment, the committee report
would read: corporations or associations at least sixty percent of whose
CAPITAL is
owned by such citizens.
MR. VILLEGAS: Yes.
MR. AZCUNA: So if the Davide amendment is lost, we are stuck with 60
percent of the capital to be owned by citizens?
MR. VILLEGAS: That is right.
MR. AZCUNA: But the control can be with the foreigners even if they are the
minority. Let us say 40 percent of the capital is owned by them, but it is the
voting capital, whereas, the Filipinos own the nonvoting shares. So we can
have a situation where the corporation is controlled by foreigners despite
being
the minority because they have the voting capital. That is the anomaly that
would result there.
MR. BENGZON: No, the reason we eliminated the word stock as stated in
the 1973 and 1935 Constitutions is that according to Commissioner Rodrigo,
there
are associations that do not have stocks. That is why we say CAPITAL.
MR. AZCUNA: We should not eliminate the phrase controlling interest.
MR. BENGZON: In the case of stock corporations, it is assumed
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, but what I mean is that the control should be with the
Filipinos.
MR. BENGZON: Yes, that is understood.
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, because if we just say sixty percent of whose capital is
owned by the Filipinos, the capital may be voting or nonvoting.
MR. BENGZON: That is correct.
MR. AZCUNA: My concern is the situation where there is a voting stock. It is a
stock corporation. What the Committee requires is that 60 percent of the
capital should be owned by Filipinos. But that would not assure control
because that 60 percent may be non-voting.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President.
right as ordinary stockholders and can submit the necessary proposal for,
say, a policy to be undertaken by the board.
MR. ROMULO: But that is part of the stockholders right to sit in the board
of directors.
MR. DAVIDE: That may be allowed but this is a very unusual and abnormal
situation so the Constitution itself can prohibit them to sit in the board.
MR. ROMULO: But it would be pointless to allow them 40 percent when they
cannot sit in the board nor have a say in the management of the company.
Likewise,
that would be extraordinary because both the 1935 and the 1973
Constitutions allowed not only the 40 percent but commensurately they were
represented in
the board and management only to the extent of their equity interest, which
is 40 percent. The management of a company is lodged in the board; so if
the 60
percent which is composed of Filipinos, controls the board, then the Filipino
part has control of the company.
I think it is rather unfair to say: You may have 40 percent of the company,
but that is all. You cannot manage, you cannot sit in the board. That would
discourage investments. Then it is like having a one hundred-percent
ownership; I mean, either we allow a 60-40 with full rights to the 40 percent,
limited
as it is as to a minority, or we do not allow them at all. This means if it is
allowed, we cannot have it both ways
MR. DAVIDE: The aliens cannot also have everything. While they may be
given entry into subscriptions of the capital stock of the corporation, it does
not
necessarily follow that they cannot be deprived of the right of membership in
the managing or in the governing board of a particular corporation. But it
will not totally deprive them of a say because they can still exercise the
ordinary rights of stockholders They can submit their proposal and they can
be
heard.
MR. ROMULO: Yes, but they have no vote. That is like being represented in
the Congress but not being allowed to vote like our old resident
Commissioners in
the United States. They can be heard; they can be seen but they cannot
vote.
MR. DAVIDE: If that was allowed under that situation, why can we not do it
now in respect to our natural resources? This is a very critical and delicate
issue.
MR. ROMULO: Precisely, we used to complain how unfair that was. One can
be seen and heard but he cannot vote.
MR. DAVIDE: We know that under the corporation law, we have the rights of
the minority stockholders. They can be heard. As a matter of fact, they can
probably allow a proxy to vote for them and, therefore, they still retain that
specific prerogative to participate just like what we did in the Article on
Social Justice.
MR. ROMULO: That would encourage dummies if we give them proxies.
MR. DAVIDE: As a matter of fact, when it comes to encouraging dummies, by
allowing 40-percent ownership to come in we will expect the proliferation of
corporations actually owned by aliens using dummies.
MR. ROMULO: No, because 40 percent is a substantial and fair share and,
therefore, the bona fide foreign investor is satisfied with that proportion. He
does not have to look for dummies. In fact, that is what assures a genuine
investment if we give a foreign investor the 40 percent and all the rights that
go with it. Otherwise, we are either discouraging the investment altogether
or we are encouraging circumvention. Let us be fair. If it is 60-40, then we
give him the right, limited as to his minority position.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, the body would like to know the position
of the Committee so that we can put the matter to a vote.
MR. VILLEGAS: The Committee does not accept the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: The Committee does not accept.
Will Commissioner Davide insist on his amendment?
MR. DAVIDE: We request a vote.
THE PRESIDENT: Will Commissioner Davide state his proposed amendment
again?
MR. DAVIDE: The proposed amendment would be the insertion of a new
paragraph to Section 3, between lines 24 and 25, page 2, which reads: THE
GOVERNING AND
MANAGING BODIES OF SUCH CORPORATIONS SHALL BE VESTED EXCLUSIVELY
IN CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES.
MR. GARCIA: It is actually on the same item, line 14, a primary amendment
regarding the percentage of capital stock and controlling interest. It is on the
same item where Commissioner Davide presented his amendment, but this
time I would like to raise it.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, with the indulgence of Commissioner
Garcia, our procedure is that primary amendments to approved amendments
will be taken up
later. Mine is an amendment to the provision which is now indicated in the
committee report. So if Commissioner Garcia does not mind, we can take
that up
after my amendment. It is very short, anyway.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair recognizes Commissioner Maambong. He may
now proceed.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you, Madam President.
As I was saying, on line 16, change the word of between the words
period and twenty-five to NOT EXCEEDING, so the whole line would read:
. . .
agreements shall be for a period NOT EXCEEDING twenty-five years,
renewable for not more than twenty-five years . . .
THE PRESIDENT: What does the Committee say?
MR. VILLEGAS: The amendment is accepted.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
amendment is approved.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Ople be
recognized for his amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, I propose a brief new section after line 30,
immediately preceding Section 4. I think we are still on Section 3, so
probably I
can give way to another proponent.
MR. MONSOD: Yes.
MR. MAAMBONG: I ask that Commissioner Garcia be recognized, Madam
President.
according to the general terms and conditions provided by law based on real
contributions to the economic growth and general welfare of the country.
The President shall subsequently notify Congress of every contract entered
into in accordance with this provision within thirty days from its execution.
In such agreements, the State shall promote the development, and use of
local scientific and technical resources.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, I ask that the Chairman of the Steering
Committee be recognized in connection with the resolution for the
Constitutional
Commission to congratulate former Senator Taada.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
CONSIDERATION OF
PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 538
(Congratulating Senator Taada for His
Philippine Legion of Honor Award)
PERIOD OF SPONSORSHIP AND DEBATE
MR. BENGZON: I move that we consider Proposed Resolution No 538.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
Consideration of Proposed Resolution No. 538 is now in order. With the
permission of the body, the Secretary-General will read the whole text of the
resolution.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: Proposed Resolution No. 538, entitled:
RESOLUTION FOR THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION TO CONGRATULATE
SENATOR TAADA
WHEREAS, the Republic of the Philippines has accorded Senator Lorenzo
Martinez Taada its highest award, the Philippine Legion of Honor, with the
degree of
Chief Commander, in recognition of his uncommon wisdom and steadfast
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of Section 3 as read by the
honorable Chairman of the Committee, please raise their hand. (Several
Members raised
their hand.)
As many as are against Section 3, please raise their hand. (Few Members
raised their hand.)
As many as are abstaining, please raise their hand. (One Member raised his
hand.)
The results show 24 votes in favor, 13 against and 1 abstention; Section 3 is
approved.
Commissioner Tan is recognized.
SR. TAN: Madam President, may I say something?
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner may proceed.
SR. TAN: I admire the diligence of the Committee and I have no doubt about
their pro-Filipino attitude and their knowledge of economics, but what I
cannot
resolve is what happens if that 60-percent Filipino capital were so great and
the 40-percent foreign capital to explore our natural resources were so great
also? I cannot resolve why with the 60-40 we became so poor. I rather be
idealistic by allowing only Filipinos to explore our seas than continue being
this
poor while giving foreigners 40 percent and allowing them to explore or
maybe to rape our natural resources. (Applause)
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Floor Leader, is there any other business?
MR. GASCON: Madam President, this is with regard to Section 1. I would like
to make a motion for a reconsideration of Section 1 for just one thing,
nothing
much really but maybe we can tackle it on Monday. It is with regard to
industrialization as indicated in Section 1 (2) which states:
The State shall promote industrialization and full employment based on
sound agricultural development and agrarian reform.
I was thinking that we should review this in the sense that there might be
some industries which are not based on agricultural development and
agrarian
reform. In that context, maybe just to broaden our concept of
industrialization, I am filing a motion for reconsideration so that perhaps we
could widen
the concept of industrialization. We should not limit any longer. That is my
only point, if I may reserve that right.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: I think the word industrialization is not synonymous with
industries.
MR. GASCON: That is right. My point of contention is that when the provision
says industrialization based on sound agricultural development and
agrarian
reform, we might be limiting our industrialization to this.
MR. MONSOD: No, industrialization is a generic term. It does not say
industries based on sound economic development. It says
industrialization.
THE PRESIDENT: This was discussed during the caucus, was it not?
MR. VILLACORTA: Madam President, may I be recognized?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Villacorta is recognized.
MR. VILLACORTA: I would like to join Commissioner Gascon in asking for a
reconsideration of Section 1 for another reason. I think that during the . . .
(Stricken off the record by the Chair on August 16, 1986.)
THE PRESIDENT: So, we will take this up on Monday.
MR. VILLACORTA: Yes, Madam President.
Thank you.
MR. MONSOD: No, Madam President. There is a suggestion that there has
been . . . (Stricken off the record by the Chair on August 16, 1986.)
MR. VILLACORTA: . . . (Stricken off the record by the Chair on August 16,
1986.)
MR. MONSOD: . . . (Stricken off the record by the Chair on August 16, 1986.)
MR. VILLACORTA: . . . (Stricken off the record by the Chair on August 16,
1986.)
MR. MONSOD: . . . (Stricken off the record by the Chair on August 16, 1986.)
MR. VILLACORTA: . . . (Stricken off the record by the Chair on August 16,
1986.)
THE PRESIDENT: We will ask the Secretariat to have the proceedings of the
caucus transcribed by Monday.
ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, I move that we adjourn the session until
nine oclock tomorrow morning.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is adjourned until nine oclock tomorrow
morning.
It was 5:52 p.m.
R.C.C. NO. 58
Saturday August 16, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
At 9:39 a.m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia Muoz Palma, opened the
session.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is called to order.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please rise to sing the National Anthem.
Everybody rose to sing the National Anthem.
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please remain standing for the Prayer to be
led by the Honorable Roberto R. Concepcion.
Everybody remained standing for the Prayer.
PRAYER
MR. CONCEPCION: Dear Lord, we thank Thee for Thy sustained assistance in
our earnest endeavors to draft a new Constitution for the Republic of the
Philippines.
Impart to us, our Father in heaven, the grace to vividly recall the fateful
events of last February when the armed and armored forces of the tyrant
confronted thousands of our civilian population who, armed with no more
than their faith in Thy wisdom and their just cause, held their ground,
seemingly
doomed to complete annihilation, when both groups were surprised to realize
that none of them were enemies, and all of them were and are Filipino
brothers;
and when exhilarated by this inspiring development they pledged to join
hands in the quest for truth and justice, in the pursuit of freedom and
equality,
in the promotion of peace and progress for all.
Help us, our loving Father, to draw strength from these meaningful tokens of
Thy love to avail ourselves of the light of Thy wisdom to find the right path
so that the new Constitution may ensure the stability of our beloved
Republic, enrich human dignity in our land, and promote the well-being and
progress of
the Filipino people. Amen.
ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will call the roll.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Abubakar
Present *
Natividad
Present *
Alonto
Present
Nieva
Absent
Aquino
Present *
Nolledo
Present
Azcuna
Present
Ople
Present
Bacani
Present
Padilla
Present
Bengzon
Present *
Quesada
Absent
Bennagen
Present
Rama
Present
Bernas
Present *
Regalado
Absent
Rosario Braid
Present *
Reyes de los
Present
Brocka
Absent
Rigos
Present
Calderon
Present
Rodrigo
Present
Castro de
Present
Romulo
Present *
Colayco
Present
Rosales
Present
Concepcion
Present
Sarmiento
Present
Davide
Present
Suarez
Present *
Foz
Present
Sumulong
Present
Garcia
Present *
Tadeo
Present
Gascon
Present
Tan
Absent
Guingona
Absent
Tingson
Absent
Jamir
Present
Treas
Present
Laurel
Present *
Uka
Present *
Lerum
Present *
Villacorta
Present *
Maambong
Present *
Villegas
Present
Monsod
Present
the
avenue towards federalism in the country. The Members of the Commission
decided that only two autonomous regions shall be recognized; namely,
Muslim
Mindanao and the Cordilleras. So, the members of the Committee were
asked to make the necessary revisions in our Committee Report Nos. 21 and
25 which are
now consolidated in Resolution No. 470. I would like to explain the revised
report of the Committee.
We propose to include in the 1986 Constitution an Article on Local
Governments consisting of two parts; namely, general provisions, and
provisions on
autonomous regions. In Section 1 of the revised committee report, we stated
that the provinces, cities, municipalities and barrios are the territorial and
political subdivisions of the Republic of the Philippines. Then we stated that
there shall be autonomous regions as hereinafter provided for. So, we
recognized only the provinces, cities, municipalities and barrios as the
territorial and political subdivisions of the Republic of the Philippines and we
separated the provisions on autonomous regions because while we are
mandating Congress to create autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and
the Cordilleras,
the same shall be subject to certain conditions, one of which and it is very
important is that the creation of the autonomous region must be approved
in a plebiscite by a majority of the voters of the constituent units. SDML
In Section 2, we provided that Congress shall enact a Local Government
Code and the contents of the Code are stated in this section. This is a
substantial
reproduction of a similar provision in the 1973 Constitution, Madam
President.
In Section 3, we placed a provision on highly urbanized cities which considers
them as independent of the province but subject to an exception that the
voters of a city within the province shall not be deprived of their right to vote
for the elective provincial officials, a provision in accordance with a
resolution of Commissioner Napoleon Rama.
In Section 4, we reproduced a provision found in the original Committee
Report No. 21 that sectoral representation shall be recognized in legislative
bodies of local governments as may be prescribed by law.
In Section 5, we also reproduced a provision recommended in Committee
Report No. 21 that the President of the Philippines shall exercise general
supervision over local government units.
Cordilleras. So, such decision closed the door to the creation of other
autonomous regions. Pursuant to the observation of Commissioner Rodrigo, if
there
should be other regions seeking autonomy, then they must seek such
autonomy through a constitutional amendment.
In Section 2, we substantially reproduced a similar provision in Committee
Report No. 25 which states:
The Congress shall enact an Organic Act in consultation with multisectoral
bodies for each autonomous region, defining the basic structure of
government
for the region consisting of the regional executive department and regional
legislative assembly both of which shall be elective and representative of the
constituent political units.
The second sentence, Madam President, is aligned with many provisions in
our 1986 Constitution designed to preserve the customs and traditions of
indigenous communities. The second sentence of Section 2 reads:
The Organic Act may likewise provide for courts with personal law and
property law jurisdiction within the autonomous region consistent with the
provisions
of this Constitution on Judicial Power.
In fact, we have already the Muslim personal law enacted by the deposed
President as a decree, and we have also the creation of the Sharia Courts.
The last sentence is very important:
The creation of the autonomous region shall be approved in a plebiscite by
majority of the voters of the constituent units.
I am changing my opinion in my sponsorship speech that the majority shall
be determined with respect to the entire voting population of the
autonomous
regions. In our new report, it will be noticed that majority of the votes cast
shall be determined with respect to each constituent unit. For example, if
Iligan does not like to join the autonomous region based on that sentiments
expressed by the voters therein, then Iligan will not form part of the
autonomous region. RBR
Section 3 states:
The President of the Philippines shall exercise general supervision over
autonomous regions to ensure that laws are faithfully executed.
political units.
Section 1 under the general provisions defines what are really the general
classification of local governments. Under the subheading AUTONOMOUS
REGIONS,
we especially recognize two autonomous regions. So, the title will not be
misleading if it would be LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND AUTONOMOUS
REGIONS. LGM
MR. RAMA: There are no more registered speakers on the same subject so we
can go into a vote.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, the Davide amendment is objected to by
Commissioner Padilla, and so it should be put to a vote.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of the Davide amendment, please
raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their
hand.)
As many as are abstaining, please raise their hand. (Three Members raised
their hand.)
The results show 12 votes in favor, 9 against and 3 abstentions; the
amendment is approved.
MR. RAMA: May I ask that Commissioner Padilla be recognized to propose an
amendment on Section 1.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Padilla is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: The first sentence is a transposition in the form of Section 1,
Article XI of the 1973 Constitution, which reads:
The territorial and political subdivisions of the Philippines are the provinces,
cities, municipalities and barrios.
The same wording was used in the committee report, but the clauses were
merely transposed.
Section 1 of the proposed resolution reads:
The provinces, cities, municipalities and barrios are the territorial and
political subdivisions of the Republic of the Philippines.
MR. OPLE: May I put a question to the Committee concerning the Padilla
amendment?
THE PRESIDENT: The Gentleman may proceed.
MR. OPLE: Thank you.
Is it the intent of the Committee that the creation of the two autonomous
regions is actually delegated to Congress? Or is it to be done under the
heading
of LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND AUTONOMOUS REGIONS right in the
Constitution, although mandating Congress to pass the enabling laws and
the organic acts to
implement this action of the Constitution?
MR. NOLLEDO: It is the understanding of the Committee that the Members of
the Commission in caucus intended to mandate Congress to create the
autonomous
regions in Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras. So, the Constitution itself
provides that there shall be autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and the
Cordilleras and that Congress shall pass the necessary organic acts.
MR. OPLE: Yes, but is the act or the creation by the Constitution denied by
the Committee?
MR. NOLLEDO: It is, in effect, a constitutional creation because we are
authorizing Congress to enact the organic acts for Muslim Mindanao and the
Cordilleras.
MR. OPLE: That intent seems to be clear now.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de Castro is recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you, Madam President.
At the start of our session this morning, I requested the Floor Leader that I be
given an opportunity to speak, for the information of the body, on the
matter of the autonomous region in Muslim Mindanao, and this is basic
because it will run through from Section 1 up to the end of this committee
report.
Our caucus definitely decided that there must be autonomous regions only in
Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras. However, when we look at Muslim
Mindanao,
there are two regions which are not the same, having different dialects and
sometimes different customs; and one region would not like to be dominated
by
another region. I am talking of the Tausugs and the Maranaws. The Tausugs
are in the Province of Sulu and the Maranaws, in Lanao del Norte, Lanao del
Sur,
and the surrounding areas. It will be very, very difficult to form only one
autonomous region in these areas because the two Muslim areas do not
agree with
each other. So, I was recommending to the Committee and I talked with
Commissioner Alonto that it is necessary to create two autonomous
regions in
Muslim Mindanao; one in Sulu, the Tausugs, and the other, the Maranaws.
On the Cordilleras, during our meeting in the Committee on Local
Governments, it was clear to my mind that the Kalinga-Apayaos are not in
favor of
autonomous region while the others are in favor. In fact, those we invited as
our honored guests do not agree with each other. I do not know how the
Committee came out with the decision to create an autonomous region in
the Cordilleras when there are two big factions that are not of the same
opinion.
May we clarify this?
MR. NOLLEDO: Commissioner Alonto would like to clarify. Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Alonto is recognized.
MR. ALONTO: Madam President, the statements of the honorable
Commissioner are both partly correct and partly wrong. In the case of Muslim
Mindanao, the
reason we specifically stated in this Constitution Muslim Mindanao is that
these different ethnic groups, presently the Muslims in Mindanao, are agreed
on one definite discipline, the discipline of Islam. Whatever the tribe any of
these ethnic groups in Mindanao belong to is completely in agreement at
least on the basic principles of Islam. That is the reason we grouped them
together as Muslim Mindanao. As far as grouping them into different
territorial
autonomous regions is concerned, that is left to Congress. So, the
subsequent Congress will determine which of these ethnic groups could be
grouped
together by reason of geography, by reason of local customs or by any other
reason for that matter. ELC
external forces have unified them. In the case of the impression that there
are two major factions in the Cordilleras, I think that was already resolved
when I answered the question of Commissioner Rigos, who said that during
the committee hearings, there was one big group which asserted that they
are not
for autonomy. I think I read a letter of disclaimer from the same organization,
and with the Chairs indulgence, I can reread that letter.
MR. DE CASTRO: I think it may not be necessary.
MR. BENNAGEN: No, it is not our job to settle; it is the job of the people to
settle that. The letter that I am going to read tells us that that has been
settled. Whatever quarrel remains, I think we should take it as a family
problem.
MR. DE CASTRO: Without reading that letter, I will agree to what the
Gentleman said. To expedite the proceedings, will the Committee accept
certain
amendments, when the time comes, on Section 1 of the provisions on the
autonomous regions?
MR. NOLLEDO: We will be receptive if we feel that it will not destroy the
essence of the provision.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople was seeking to be recognized.
MR. OPLE: Yes, I think the more appropriate place for exchanges of views on
the intent of the Commission concerning the autonomous regions would be
when we
come to the separate article dealing with them. But since the issue has been
raised I would not say prematurely because we are dealing with the
second
sentence of Section 1 about autonomous regions may I volunteer the
information that on behalf of the original proponents of the resolution to
create two
autonomous regions, we did contemplate only one autonomous region for
Muslim Mindanao.
Madam President, this has been the butt of controversy for many years now,
with the Philippine government in the past regime setting up two
autonomous
regions which, in the view of many Muslim leaders, was an attempt to
circumvent the obligations of the Philippine government under the Tripoli
Agreement. I
am not saying that the Tripoli Agreement binds this Commission; it is far from
that. But if we have chosen to write a constitution of peace, peace in the
countryside through land reform, peace through social justice in labor, peace
in the Cordilleras and in Muslim Mindanao, then I think we have to recognize
that the major demand of most of the groups Muslim groups in Mindanao
whether or not this is the MNLF or alternative Muslim organization is
precisely
to form a single autonomous region in what used to be the Moro homeland,
consisting of several provinces and cities. I think if we say now that there
shall
be two autonomous regions in Mindanao instead of only one, we would have
to face all over again this serious accusation of the Moro National Liberation
Front and other Muslim groups that we are not seriously addressing their
problem. We are dividing them instead of unifying them. Of course,
Commissioner de
Castro is right. There are Maranaws, there are Maguindanaos, there are
Tausugs, there are Samals, and there are Yakans. But for purposes of giving
Muslim
Mindanao their autonomy for which they have waged an armed struggle as
well as a peaceful struggle, we should not fall short of the minimum
expectation
that this shall be a single autonomous region for Muslim Mindanao.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. BENNAGEN: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bennagen is recognized.
MR. BENNAGEN: I would like to support that view because in the earlier
manifestations that I have already made, I adverted to the fact that there
have been
systematic ongoing consultations among the various ethnic groups unified by
Islam. And it would not be fair if we even drop the hint that there is this
overriding division among these various ethnic groups because the fact is
that they are unified as a community in spite of ethnic differences.
THE PRESIDENT: May we go back now to the proposed Padilla amendment?
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, may we ask Commissioner Padilla if he is
willing to adopt the committee recommendation based on his amendment
that it should
read as follows: There shall be autonomous regions in MUSLIM MINDANAO
AND THE CORDILLERA as hereinafter provided. We will accept the
amendment if it so
reads.
the
National Capital Region?
MR. OPLE: Yes, Madam President. That intention is very clear and is made
explicit in this draft provision.
MR. NOLLEDO: With respect to the phrase SHALL LIMIT ITS JURISDICTION TO
BASIC SERVICES REQUIRING AREA-WIDE COORDINATION, does the word
JURISDICTION
also refer to rules to be promulgated by the metropolitan authority?
MR. OPLE: Yes, but only with respect to such spheres of competence that will
be granted by Congress to the metropolitan authority. What this paragraph
does
contemplate, although it has been omitted for the sake of brevity, is that
under the authority, there will be a council consisting of the mayors
themselves
who will make the rules for the authority with respect to what they hold in
common.
MR. NOLLEDO: Do I understand it right that the rules to be promulgated by
the metropolitan authority should not infringe upon the provisions of the
ordinances within the component cities and municipalities?
MR. OPLE: They should not and in that sense, the basic autonomy is vested
in the municipal councils and the mayors themselves. Since the mayors will,
as
contemplated here, constitute the rule-making council of the metropolitan
authority, they will ensure that there is no inconsistency between the rules
for
the metropolis and the ordinances of the municipal councils, Madam
President.
MR. NOLLEDO: Last question, Madam President.
Do I understand it right from the Gentlemans explanation that the Metro
Manila Commission will continue under P.D. No. 824 until the same is
repealed by
Congress?
MR. OPLE: Yes, P.D. No. 824 has been upheld by the Supreme Court recently
as being valid and constitutional. Therefore, until repealed or amended
otherwise, the Metro Manila Commission in its present form will continue and
the 15,000 employees, some of whom are outside these halls right now, are
guaranteed stability of employment. Of course, the Metro Manila Commission
is set aside in favor of a new authority that Congress will determine.
situation
such as what the Metro Manila Commission now has, where all the legislative
and executive powers are concentrated in a non-elective body.
FR. BERNAS: As I see it, therefore, would it be correct to say that what the
Gentleman contemplates here is something between what Section 1
contemplates
and what Section 6 contemplates?
MR. OPLE: Yes, I said sui generis, and it will challenge Congress to come out
with the most appropriate form of authority.
FR. BERNAS: As a matter of fact, there are models for this in other
jurisdictions.
MR. OPLE: Yes, Madam President.
FR. BERNAS: I thank the Commissioner.
MR. VILLEGAS: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Villegas is recognized.
MR. VILLEGAS: Madam President, I would like to strongly support the
amendment of Commissioner Ople from experiences in other parts of the
world when
addressing the economic problems of what is not only a metropolis but a
megapolis like Mexico, Tokyo and South Korea. It is not only expedient but
imperative that there be some way of attaining economies of scale in the
basic services enumerated by Commissioner Ople. I think a study has
already been
made of the problems of Metro Cebu and, sooner or later, it will be
imperative to have a way of coordinating basic services for the benefit of the
residents of the metropolis.
Thank you, Madam President.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Aquino is recognized
MS. AQUINO: Will the proponent yield to a few clarificatory questions?
MR. OPLE: Very gladly, to the lady, Madam President.
economies of scale for the entire region, but which still provide and vest
basic local autonomy in the component cities and municipalities.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair suspends the session for a few minutes before
hearing Commissioners Colayco and Bernas.
It was 11:07 a.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 11:25 a.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Ople be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: I have agreed to a rewording of the proposed amendment
concerning metropolitan areas, the final draft text now being in the hands of
the
Committee. But may I acknowledge the other contributors to this draft
provision, Madam President; namely, Commissioners Nolledo, Azcuna,
Bennagen, Alonto,
Calderon, Monsod, Davide, Aquino, Bernas and President Cecilia Muoz
Palma.
The text that will now be read by the Chairman of the Committee is proposed
to be relocated to what all the conferees here thought was the more
appropriate
section, which is Section 6, rather than as part of Section 1. And with that,
Madam President, may I ask the Chairman of the Committee to read the text
of
the proposed amendment as finalized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Nolledo may please proceed.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you, Madam President.
After considering the refinements suggested by Commissioners Davide and
Monsod, the Ople amendment shall read as follows: THE CONGRESS MAY,
BY LAW, CREATE
since it will not be part of the political subdivision known as the Province of
Bulacan, then why should Valenzuela be incorporated into Bulacan just for
purposes of redistricting? And so, in that respect, we do not mind Valenzuela
being redistricted within the context and framework of the existing entity
known as the National Capital Region.
MR. SUMULONG: But Valenzuela can no longer be considered as integrated
into Metro Manila because Metro Manila has disappeared now by virtue of
Section 1 of
the Article on Local Governments.
MR. OPLE: The draft provision that is now pending before the Commission,
Madam President, precisely seeks to rescue Metro Manila from constitutional
limbo
by providing for its existence as a special geographical political subdivision.
However, it will be relocated according to the consensus on the floor from
its place now in Section 1, following the enumeration of political subdivisions,
to Section 6 which deals with the power of local government units to group
themselves, if they consider this beneficial for their common good. So, in
effect, I see the legal situation as one where, as the Chairman of the
Committee
on Local Governments pointed out, the law creating the Metro Manila
Commission, P.D. No. 824, having been sustained by the Supreme Court as
being
constitutional just very recently, the Metropolitan Manila government will
continue to exist under a valid law until this is amended or repealed.
MR. SUMULONG: Metro Manila has ceased to exist, but we still have the
National Capital Region. So, would it not be better, and I think it will be more
in
accordance with the facts, if in Section 5 of the Article on the Legislative
Department we say that the apportionment of districts will cover not only the
provinces and cities but also the National Capital Region, that will cover
Valenzuela and the 12 municipalities of Rizal integrated in Metro Manila?
MR. OPLE: The Commissioner is also prepared to make the supreme sacrifice
of allowing towns of Rizal origin to be redistributed within the context of the
National Capital Region.
MR. SUMULONG: May I just ask one more question. I understand that the
Commissioner is of the opinion that Metro Manila, as created by P.D. No. 824
of
President Marcos, no longer exists.
MR. OPLE: It continues to exist until the law is deemed repealed or amended,
Madam President. I am not quoting my own views but the interpretation of
this
legal situation made by the Chairman of the Committee on Local
Governments, meaning that Metro Manila continues to exist until the law
creating it, which
has been upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court, is deemed
superseded, repealed or amended.
MR. SUMULONG: So, until Congress takes action on the Gentlemans
amendment by enacting a law recognizing special political subdivision in
metropolitan
areas, what will be the situation of the 12 municipalities of Rizal and one
municipality of Bulacan?
MR. OPLE: Madam President, they will remain, according to this
interpretation, in that entity known as the National Capital Region or
Metropolitan Manila.
MR. SUMULONG: So, in the interim, is it still the opinion of the Commissioner
that we have to follow P.D. No. 824 of President Marcos?
MR. OPLE: I am sustaining, on my own account, the interpretation of the
Chairman of the Committee on Local Governments, that is so.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, may I intervene. I think the Committee on
Transitory Provisions has adopted a provision that all existing presidential
decrees shall be valid until set aside by Congress. In view of that provision,
P.D. No. 824 shall continue until repealed or amended by Congress.
MR. SUMULONG: If the opinion of the Committee is that P.D. No. 824 is still in
existence and should be followed, we should note that it provides for a
commission form of government in Metro Manila. But there has never been a
commission. P.D. No. 824 was never implemented correctly because instead
of
creating a commission to govern Metro Manila, there was only one person
who governed Metro Manila, and that was the former First Lady, Mrs. Imelda
Marcos.
So if we are going to follow that decree until Congress enacts this law
mentioned in the amendment of Commissioner Ople, then Mr. Lina, who was
appointed
by the new government as Officer-in-Charge or Acting Governor of Metro
Manila, has no legal basis for acting as such because under P.D. No. 824
there
should be a commission, not a governor. Are we going to allow that in the
meantime?
MR. OPLE: Madam President, it is not made explicit in the draft provision but
the contemplation of the proponents is really to have Congress enact a law
creating a quasi-legislative assembly consisting of the mayors of the
component cities and municipalities themselves who will then be in a
position to
enact rules that will be consistent with the ordinances that their own
municipal councils shall provide.
FR. BERNAS: So, it could be empowered to exercise the usual general police
power, the power of eminent domain and the power to tax for purposes of
supporting the basic services?
MR. OPLE: Yes, I think that is a very splendid interpretation of the intent of
the proponents.
FR. BERNAS: I thank Commissioner Ople.
THE PRESIDENT: So, how will it read now?
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, it reads: THE CONGRESS MAY, BY LAW,
CREATE A SPECIAL METROPOLITAN POLITICAL SUBDIVISION INCLUDING THE
NATIONAL CAPITAL
REGION, SUBJECT TO A PLEBISCITE AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 11 HEREOF.
THE COMPONENT CITIES AND MUNICIPALITIES SHALL RETAIN THEIR BASIC
AUTONOMY AND SHALL BE
ENTITLED TO THEIR OWN LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLIES. THE METROPOLITAN
AUTHORITY THAT MAY THEREBY BE CREATED SHALL LIMIT ITS JURISDICTION
TO BASIC SERVICES
REQUIRING COORDINATION.
THE PRESIDENT: Is this part now of Section 1 or of Section 6?
MR. NOLLEDO: It will be the first part of Section 6, Madam President.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: Before we vote on this reformulated section, may we
request a clean copy.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: I second the suggestion that we ask for a clean copy; but
meanwhile, I would like to ask the Committee if they will agree to some
modifications and amendments. From what I heard, the wording says: THE
CONGRESS MAY, BY LAW, CREATE A SPECIAL METROPOLITAN POLITICAL
SUBDIVISION . . .
Why is that singular? Does it mean that this authorizes the creation of only
one political subdivision? I heard Commissioner Ople mention that a similar
subdivision may be created in Cebu or in Davao.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, is Commissioner Rodrigo suggesting that we
convert this singular word into plural?
MR. RODRIGO: Yes.
MR. OPLE: We accept the amendment, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: I thank Commissioner Ople.
MR. OPLE: So, instead of A SPECIAL METROPOLITAN POLITICAL
SUBDIVISION, it becomes plural. We add an S to SUBDIVISION and
eliminate A.
MR. RODRIGO: Thank you, Madam President.
I have another question. I think the purpose of the proposal is to maintain
the powers of the mayors. But the wording, as read, mentions only legislative
assemblies. Should we not add LOCAL EXECUTIVES so this part reads:
SHALL BE ENTITLED TO THEIR OWN LOCAL EXECUTIVES AND LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLIES.
MR. OPLE: That is indeed the purpose, so we want to thank Commissioner
Rodrigo for making up for that omission. So LOCAL EXECUTIVES will be
introduced.
MR. RODRIGO: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. NOLLEDO: The proposal now reads: THE CONGRESS MAY, BY LAW,
CREATE SPECIAL METROPOLITAN POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS INCLUDING THE
NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION,
SUBJECT TO A PLEBISCITE AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 11 HEREOF. THE
COMPONENT CITIES AND MUNICIPALITIES SHALL RETAIN THEIR BASIC
AUTONOMY AND SHALL BE ENTITLED
TO THEIR OWN LOCAL EXECUTIVES AND LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLIES. THE
METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY THAT MAY THEREBY BE CREATED SHALL LIMIT ITS
JURISDICTION TO BASIC
SERVICES REQUIRING COORDINATION.
to a plebiscite,
was he thinking in terms of a plebiscite for the whole country?
MR. OPLE: No, Madam President, this contemplates a plebiscite for all the
qualified voters of the National Capital Region.
MR. SUAREZ: The Gentleman was not thinking in terms of, say, seeking the
decision of the people in the whole province in the case of Rizal but only in
those municipalities affected.
MR. OPLE: It is a matter of time perspective, I believe. In 1975, the National
Capital Region was created partly out of the towns of Rizal and Bulacan.
Since then, how many years have elapsed? Eleven years, and according to
some of the mayors I met this morning, that was a shotgun wedding in 1975
to which
they had to submit since they had no choice. But they have enjoyed their
live-in status among themselves since 1975, and now, having gotten so
accustomed
to each others company, they would rather retain, they would rather live
under the same roof at this time. So, I think, considering the time that has
elapsed since 1975, the plebiscite can justifiably be confined to what is now
known as the National Capital Region.
MR. SUAREZ: In other words, if we confine our questions to the National
Capital Region, the Commissioner would not think of submitting the matter
to a
further plebiscite to the provinces of Bulacan and Rizal who would be vitally
affected?
MR. OPLE: If I were a political revanchist, I would insist on a plebiscite
including Bulacan and Rizal, but I yield to the realities of history, Madam
President.
MR. SUAREZ: So when the Commissioner speaks of plebiscite, he is excluding
the possibility that the provinces of Bulacan and Rizal ought not to be
consulted further in the continued operation of the National Capital Region?
MR. OPLE: It could be a highly distortive situation where the two provinces
are allowed to vote after 11 years of separation, Madam President.
What is the prescription period for missing husbands and wives?
MR. SUAREZ: I think it is seven years.
MR. OPLE: In the Civil Code, I think it is seven years. Here, the separation has
been 11 years, Madam President.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, these basic services will be neatly segregated
in the law that Congress will pass. We merely provided in the explanatory
note
examples of such services that may be coordinated under the Metropolitan
Manila Authority. Let us take garbage collection and dump sites. Between
Rizal and
Mandaluyong, if they do not have this coordination under a metropolitan
system of governance, the Municipality of San Juan can construct an abattoir
right
on the border of Mandaluyong or Pasig where there is, let us say, a first class
residential subdivision. Or in the case of flood control, drainage systems,
we can have one town unloading its water on another town without even
being aware of it. Instead of easing up a flood situation, this can actually
aggravate the problem. So it is in that sense that we cited examples of basic
services where supramunicipal coordination is necessary in order to avoid
absurdities, conflicts, wastes and even, let us say, wasteful conflicts in
jurisdiction among the component cities and towns.
MR. FOZ: Does the Gentleman envision that the governing body of the
Authority itself will be composed of the mayors of component cities and
municipalities?
MR. OPLE: Yes, that is the contemplation of this provision, Madam President.
MR. FOZ: And I understand that the Committee has accepted this
amendment to be the first portion of Section 6.
MR. NOLLEDO: The Commissioner is right.
MR. FOZ: The difference between this amendment and the former provision
of Section 6 is that while this amendment would mandate that such an
Authority be
created by Congress, in the second portion of Section 6 now, this pooling of
resources, coordination and cooperation in the provision for services is to be
voluntary on the part of local government units.
MR. OPLE: Yes. So, in Section 6 now, if this is approved by the body, the first
part will consist of an aggroupment of municipalities and cities by law
and, in the second instance, it will be a voluntary mode of association among
like-minded local government units for their common benefit.
MR. FOZ: Would the Commissioner say that Section 7 is also somewhat
related, not only to his amendment, but also to Section 6?
MR. OPLE: Section 7, Madam President, if I read this section right, refers to
regional development councils composed of local government officials with
such adequate powers as may be prescribed by law. And I think this has
been introduced in the context of the existing regional development bodies
of the
National Economic and Development Authority, which are really coordinating
bodies for the purpose of allocating infrastructure budgets to provinces and
municipalities within a region without giving them any higher status than as
regional development councils, the planning and recommendatory bodies in
the
chain of command of the National Economic and Development Authority.
MR. FOZ: I thank the Commissioner.
MR. OPLE: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: In the light of the Suarez interpellation and clarificatory
questions, and in the light of the Rodrigo amendment, will Commissioner
Ople
yield to some minor amendments?
MR. OPLE: Very gladly, Madam President.
MR. SARMIENTO: For instance, on line 4, after the phrase SUBJECT TO A
PLEBISCITE, will Commissioner Ople be willing to accept the addition of the
words
IN THE POLITICAL UNIT OR UNITS DIRECTLY AFFECTED? This is an offshoot of
the interpellation made by Commissioner Suarez.
MR. OPLE: May I refer that to the Committee which has now acquired
jurisdiction over the amendment, Madam President.
MR. NOLLEDO: That amendment, Madam President, is no longer necessary
because we have placed the words AS SET FORTH IN SECTION 11 HEREOF
and, referring to
Section 11, we say in a plebiscite in the political unit or units directly
affected. So by referring to Section 11, I think that will be a superfluity.
MR. SARMIENTO: I withdraw my amendment, Madam President.
Now, in view of the Rodrigo amendment, will Commissioner Ople be willing to
include the word DEPARTMENT after EXECUTIVE, so it will read: SHALL BE
ENTITLED TO THEIR OWN LOCAL EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT AND LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLIES? This was not included when the Committee Chairman read the
entire section.
MR. OPLE: May I refer this to the Committee, Madam President.
MR. NOLLEDO: Will Commissioner Sarmiento repeat the question please.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, I am proposing the inclusion of the word
DEPARTMENT after EXECUTIVE, so that it will read: SHALL BE ENTITLED TO
THEIR
OWN LOCAL EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT AND LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLIES. If we
will note, other sections include the word department after executive.
MR. NOLLEDO: But what we have here is the word EXECUTIVES plural
so that the phrase reads: TO THEIR OWN LOCAL EXECUTIVES AND
LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLIES. This is to separate EXECUTIVES from the word
ASSEMBLIES, Madam President.
MR. SARMIENTO: I thank the Commissioner for that clarification.
And one last point: Will Commissioner Ople be willing to delete the word
BASIC before AUTONOMY, so that the proposal reads: SHALL RETAIN
THEIR
AUTONOMY AND SHALL BE ENTITLED TO THEIR OWN LOCAL EXECUTIVES
AND LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLIES.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, I would have difficulties about omitting BASIC
because I think we want to build a bias into this provision against the
possible
undue encroachment of a metropolitan authority on the autonomous powers
of the component cities and municipalities.
MR. SARMIENTO: Thank you, Madam President, for the clarifications.
I will not insist on my proposed amendments.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: There had been amendments regarding the recognition of . . .
EXECUTIVES AND LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLIES. May I propose a general
wording so that
it should just read: THE COMPONENT UNITS SHALL RETAIN THEIR POWERS,
Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: While waiting for the text to be distributed, I ask that
Commissioner Monsod be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, I rise on a question of privilege.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, what is the question of privilege of Commissioner
Monsod?
MR. MONSOD: Yesterday, there was an accusation here that I made a
misrepresentation. I believe I am entitled to a quick resolution of that
accusation now.
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner may proceed.
QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE OF COMMISSIONER MONSOD
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, the Journal says:
Thereupon, Mr. Villacorta advised that one misinformation given to the
Members was that Minister Jose Concepcion is against constitutionalizing
protectionism. He stated that he would like to get hold of the advertisement
alluded to by a Member who said it, in reply to which, Mr. Monsod stated that
he was the one who issued the statement. Mr. Villacorta suggested that the
matter be discussed in a caucus on Monday because there were other
matters
mentioned that were contrary to economic facts.
Mr. Monsod contended that the record of the caucus which was already
incorporated in the Record of the Commission would bear out that all he said
was that
Minister Jose Concepcion was against constitutionalizing protectionism in
Section 1 of the Article which statement was based on his personal interview
with
the Minister. He also urged that a public apology be made by those who said
they were misled by him, if it would be proven that he was correct.
Now, quoting myself, the minutes of the caucus states on page 4;
Secondly, I want to tell you that this morning, I think, Minister Jose
Concepcion has been quoted or has been mentioned in the ad. I talked to
Minister
Jose Concepcion this morning, and he said he is against constitutionalizing
permanent and absolute protectionism in the Constitution because that is
bad
for Philippine industry because he is in favor of the program. He just wants to
give time for the industry to recover, which is what we are putting here,
when we say that they should be protected from unfair competition. It would
be unfair at this time if they are not given protection when they are
recovering from the economic debacle.
I would like to read a letter dated August 16, 1986, Madam President, for the
record. It was typed with difficulty because I believe it was typed
personally by the one who sent the letter since he said he wanted me to
have it this morning and he had no time to go to his secretary The letter
says:
Dear Chris,
I refer to our conversation yesterday regarding the ad by the Coalition
addressed to the ConCom.
This will confirm my statement to you that I did not see the ad before it was
published.
I am in favor of a statement incorporating in the Constitution the
responsibility of the State in promoting the industrialization of the economy.
I am in favor of also incorporating a provision that promote the viability and
growth of domestic industries. I do not subscribe to an indefinite
protection of industries to be incorporated in the Constitution. We should
leave to the Legislature the responsibility of enacting the necessary
legislation given the situation and circumstances. A direct statement in our
Constitution regarding protectionism may not provide us with the necessary
flexibility as we pursue our programme to gain market access for our exports
during this period of reconstruction where we do not have the purchasing
power
to buy the products to be produced by the domestic market. It may invite
unnecessary retaliation. Besides, Philippine industries are in agreement that
our
final objective is to look at the world as our market; and given an increased
purchasing power to our people, our large domestic and ASEAN markets, and
the
Philippine entrepreneurial drive, we shall be another Japan. This strategy
requires reciprocity.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 1:52 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, there is just one more amendment to Section
1.
May I ask that Commissioner Maambong be recognized?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you, Madam President.
I am hoping that the honorable Chairman of the Committee on Local
Governments will just accept my very simple amendment so that I do not
have to explain
it. Anyway, the proposed amendment is on line 8, and this will also affect
Section 11 on the word barrios. We propose to change it to BARANGAYS.
May we
know the reaction of the Committee, Madam President?
MR. NOLLEDO: I deeply regret, Madam President, that I cannot accept the
amendment.
MR. MAAMBONG: In that case, Madam President, within my time limit I will
have to be a little bit expansive on my explanation why I am proposing the
amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: The Gentleman may please proceed.
MR. MAAMBONG: In the first place, the use of the term barangay has a
historical significance. In the book of Mr. Onofre D. Corpuz, entitled The
Philippines, published by Prentice Hall in 1976, he said, and I quote:
The community was called barangay named after the boat that brought
the original migrants from their homes in Malaysia and Indonesia. Each boat
carried
an extended family group consisting of the head and his immediate family,
as well as the families of his children, his brothers and sisters, and the aged
kinfolk. From the year 1565 to 1898, the headman in the Philippines was
called the cabesa de barangay. He was the lowest but a crucial
administrative
figure.
Asiaweek
Far Eastern Economic Review, etc., it will be readily noticed that reference is
always made to barangays, not barrios.
I think I have said enough, Madam President.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, will the Committee please be allowed to
react.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the Chairman of the Committee will please go ahead.
MR. NOLLEDO: Before I give the reasons why the Committee objects to the
use of the word barangay, it is not true that punong barangay will
become
punong baryo; it will be punong nayon; Katarungang Pambarangay will
be Batas ng Katarungang Pangnayon. So nayon seems to be more
beautiful. If
the Commissioner will ask Sister Christine Tan, she will tell him that she
dislikes the word barangay because according to her, the heads of the
barangay
I do not know how she equates it that way are the mercenaries and
those who were highly subservient to Ferdinand Marcos without thinking of
the
interests of the populace of their respective barangays. ELC
But my reasons, Madam President, are the following, based on consultations
with persons in different parts of the country:
(1) The word barrio appears in old titles, in surveys, government files and
documents from the Spanish regime up to the present, even in titles known
as
Composicion Con El Estado so voluminous that they can easily
overwhelm the various decrees of President Marcos;
(2) I notice that the names of various schools in many parts of the country,
Madam President, still carry the word barrio;
(3) I agree with the unanimous decision of the League of Governors and City
Mayors that the word barrio should be reinstated. I met those governors
and
city mayors through the courtesy of Commissioner Jose Calderon and his
wife, Governor Calderon, in Quezon City; and
(4) This is, I think, a very important argument, Madam President. In the 1973
Constitution, the word barrio was used in the Declaration of Principles and
in the Article on Local Governments. Without amending the 1973
Constitution, Mr. Marcos issued decrees using the word barangay instead of
barrio. Even
the Freedom Constitution of the present regime reproduced some portions of
the 1973 Constitution which still carried the word barrio.
To my mind, the word barangay, Madam President, is a constitutional
bandit. It is a violation of the 1973 Constitution, and for us now to put
barangay
in the 1986 Constitution is to constitutionalize a constitutional violation.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, that is precisely why we are trying to
correct this mistake where we use the word barangay in all our laws while
we use
barrio in our own Constitution.
But if it is not asking too much, Madam President, may I ask Commissioner
Bennagen to comment at least on the historical context of my discussion on
the
word barangay, because I am looking at this from the historical point of
view.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bennagen is recognized, if he desires to
answer.
MR. BENNAGEN: Let me say that I shall speak as an anthropologist and not
as a Commissioner, and the citations given by Commissioner Maambong are
correct in
relation to the origin of the word and the substantive meaning of balangay.
These are really the same cognate words, like balay and bahay.
Barangay
is the same word except that there are some shifts in linguistic terms.
But I think that is a different consideration altogether from the issue that was
raised by the Chairman of the Committee on Local Governments.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I think the amendment has been sufficiently debated on, so may I
ask for a vote.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Before we vote, may I ask the Chairman of the
Committee to answer a few questions.
will have to disqualify somebody, this does not sound right. Suppose there is
a qualified and deserving person, we are already instituting in the
Constitution a restriction on consecutive terms. We have these kinds of
restriction. We
do not have to go into this because I feel that this is too much of a restriction
and disqualification for deserving people. In the name of
democratization, we are really doing an undemocratic act.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Madam President.
Like Commissioner Natividad, we are a little disturbed about the parameters
of this prohibition against the so-called political dynasties. So may we seek
some clarification because, in answer to Commissioner Natividads queries, I
think the matter was limited to succession to an incumbent. May I give some
examples which may fall within the prohibition? Let us take the case of
Tarlac. We have a President who is from that place and she has very many
relatives
who might be interested in running for political positions in the Province of
Tarlac, say as congressman, as governor, or as mayor. Under this proposed
prohibitory resolution, would her brothers, sisters, in-laws, or relatives by
affinity or by consanguinity be precluded and prohibited from aspiring for
those positions?
MR. NOLLEDO: As far as I am concerned, we are talking of succession.
MR. SUAREZ: Yes.
MR. NOLLEDO: Let us take, for example, a governor who has grown old and
has run for two reelections as permitted by the Constitution, but now wants
his son
to continue to run for that same position. That is what we call political
dynasty.
MR. SUAREZ: So the Commissioner would not think of what happened during
the last regime where we had a President, a Metro Manila Governor, a
Governor of
Ilocos Norte, a Governor of Leyte and an Assembly-woman in Batasan. The
Commissioner is not thinking in terms like those.
MR. NOLLEDO: No. The situation the Commissioner is talking about seems to
involve nepotism. There is a prohibition on the appointment of relatives to
the
MR. DAVIDE: That would be practically the same in the matter of the people
enacting legislations or rejecting or approving laws enacted by the different
local legislative bodies.
MR. NOLLEDO: The Committee accepts the amendment, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Committee has accepted the proposed amendment of
Commissioner Davide.
Is Commissioner Sarmiento going to say something?
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I address a few questions to the
proponent?
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner may proceed.
MR. SARMIENTO: Does not Commissioner Davide think he is weakening the
local governments or the local bodies by instituting the system of recall,
initiative
and referendum?
We must remember that the local executive has to serve for three years.
With this system of recall, initiative and referendum, does not the
Commissioner
think we are virtually paralyzing our local executive and legislative bodies?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, on the contrary, it will even strengthen the
democratization of the government. Besides, with a provision on referendum
and
initiative, we can be assured of responsive, accountable and responsible
local elective officials. There is always a sword of Damocles hanging over
their
heads, so they will always do the best they can because of the fear that the
public may preempt any particular act, if the local officials will not perform
such an act. If we have allowed it to the Congress of the Philippines, there is
no reason why we should not allow it to the local governments which are
really directly in touch with the people.
MR. SARMIENTO: Commissioner Davide must remember that in the Article on
Social Justice, we approved a section on popular organizations, that is,
virtually
giving strength to peoples power.
MR. DAVIDE: That is correct. That is precisely why we have to give some
political vehicle or instrument for it. How can these sectoral groups be heard
unless they will also be allowed initiation or rejection of laws through the
MR. DAVIDE: We leave it to Congress, but we must remember that under the
Article on the Legislative especially on initiative and referendum, pursuant to
the Gascon amendment, the Congress shall, as soon as possible, provide for
the mechanics of initiative and referendum.
MR. RODRIGO: I would like to have a categorical answer. Is this provision
directory or mandatory?
MR. DAVIDE: I would say it is an authority granted to the Congress of the
Philippines.
MR. RODRIGO: So, it is not mandatory?
MR. DAVIDE: It is an authority and a power.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: I have one more point for clarification from the proponent.
We have just approved Section 1 wherein we defined the political
subdivisions of
provinces, cities, municipalities and barangays. When we say effective
MECHANISM FOR recall, INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM, are we referring to
all these
political subdivisions in their respective sphere? For example, in a barangay,
will Congress also provide for an effective mechanism for recall, initiative
and referendum, and so on with the provinces, cities and municipalities? Is
that it? RBR
MR. DAVIDE: This particular provision would relate to all the local government
units to be incorporated in the Local Government Code. It is up to Congress
to decide later whether this would be made applicable to the barangays. But
insofar as I am concerned, there is really no harm making it applicable even
to
the barangay officials.
MR. MAAMBONG: That is not the point. I am just trying to follow up the trend
of questioning of Commissioner Rodrigo, because when we say Congress
shall
enact a Local Government Code, and then we talk of the different local
government units, it would seem to me that Congress under this provision
should
enact a law with a provision for effective mechanism for recall, initiative and
referendum in all the local government units. But now, the Commissioner is
saying that Congress may or may not enact.
MR. DAVIDE: The answer was not with reference to that. My answer was with
respect to the effective mechanism for recall, initiative or referendum, but I
would consider the power and the authority of Congress to enact a Local
Government Code precisely to give the details on our perception of the local
governments. Without that particular law, I wonder how the local
governments can perform their functions. In short, Congress must take it
upon itself to
institute or promulgate the necessary laws to govern precisely the powers,
responsibilities, functions and duties of the different local government units.
MR. MAAMBONG: Maybe my question is not very clear. What I am trying to
ask is: When Congress enacts a Local Government Code, should Congress, in
that Local
Government Code, provide an effective mechanism for recall, initiative and
referendum for a barangay?
MR. DAVIDE: I would not be able to state now whether it will, but I would
suppose that it must, in order to make effective the decentralization and also
what is provided for in the last section of the Article on the Legislative
regarding initiative, recall and referendum.
MR. MAAMBONG: That is precisely the point of Commissioner Rodrigo. It is
either that Congress is mandated to enact that mechanism of recall, initiative
and
referendum or it is not. So when Congress enacts a Local Government Code
should it enact an effective mechanism for recall, initiative and referendum
for a
province, city or municipality? Probably the barangay will not be included.
What I mean is, it should be uniform and we should be very categorical about
it, that the exact mandate of the Constitution is to provide an effective
mechanism for recall, et cetera, for all local government units without
exception.
MR. DAVIDE: I would suppose so, because the Local Government Code will be
a general law applicable to all.
MR. MAAMBONG: Then I am satisfied with that answer.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, the body is now ready to vote.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: The proposed amendment of Commissioner Davide on line
14 is to add the words INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM after the word recall.
MR. NOLLEDO: Not necessarily, it will be the Local Government Code that will
indicate the appointing power.
MR. DE CASTRO: I am already clarified; I withdraw my amendment.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you very much.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, the last registered speaker is Commissioner
Rodrigo. This amendment is on Section 2.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, for the record, I just want to ask a question
on the last sentence which states:
No change in the existing form of local government shall take effect until
ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite called for the purpose.
This refers to changes in the form of local government made by Congress,
does it not?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes.
MR. RODRIGO: Is the plebiscite here nationwide?
MR. NOLLEDO: I think so because the structure of the government should be
uniform in all local political units.
MR. RODRIGO: So, any change in the form of local government in a law
enacted by Congress will not take effect until it is submitted and approved in
a
nationwide plebiscite. Is that it?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, but that is without prejudice to the pertinent provisions
on autonomous regions. Those autonomous regions have different
provisions.
MR. RODRIGO: Thank you.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, there are no more proponents of amendments
to Section 2. I move that we approve the entire Section 2 after it is read by
the
Chairman of the Committee.
I am aware that this was borrowed from the 1973 Constitution, and since
1973 to date, there have been presumably some concrete experiences of the
nation on
how this last sentence has, in fact, operated.
Is the Committee aware of any instance when the existing form of local
government has been changed since 1973, so that it has required a national
plebiscite?
MR. NOLLEDO: We will notice that Mr. Marcos interpreted this provision in a
different way. For example, when he decreed P.D. No. 824, he abolished the
legislative councils in the constituent units of Metro Manila, and he submitted
the same allegedly to a referendum only within the metropolitan area.
So, in this case, we are not talking actually of the structure of government
affecting the entire country.
So the interpretation then of Mr. Marcos is that only the people of Metro
Manila area should participate in the plebiscite. I remember very well a news
item to that effect, because somebody was questioning that that should be
submitted to the entire Filipino nation. But Mr. Marcos, in consultation with
his
Minister of Justice, said that the existing structure referred only to the City of
Manila and did not refer to all other political units.
I think, although the referendum was rigged, there was assumed existence of
good faith.
So the Commissioners question is adequately answered.
MR. OPLE: We are not called upon to judge that plebiscite at this time, but is
the Chairman saying that this plebiscite actually took place in compliance
with this provision of the Constitution of 1973? Did it take place in Metro
Manila?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes.
MR. OPLE: Now, outside of that limited and localized experience of the Metro
Manila form of government, there was no other change of government that
required a national plebiscite?
MR. NOLLEDO: I cannot remember, but if the Commissioner knows, will he
kindly enlighten the body.
MR. OPLE: Actually, I am seeking some illumination on this point because I
am not aware that there has been any change in the form of local
government
applicable to all local governments since 1973.
MR. NOLLEDO: I would say something, if the Commissioner will permit me.
MR. OPLE: Yes.
MR. NOLLEDO: Should Congress, for example, abolish the municipal council,
that means abolishing municipal councils in all political units known as
municipalities, then that should be ratified by the entire electorate in the
country because it affects the municipalities of the entire country.
MR. OPLE: That is a good concrete illustration of the sort I was looking for,
Madam President.
Just one last question. My concern is: Is there a quantum of change in the
form of local government that rises to a standard that will require a national
plebiscite in the absence of more concrete experience? This leads to the
question: Will the lawmaking power of Congress be subject to unusual
restraint in
the light of what I would call imminent threat from a constitutional
provision that if they do amend the Local Government Code to a degree that
can be
deemed substantial, then that law will have to be submitted to a nationwide
plebiscite?
MR. NOLLEDO: Perhaps the Committee will entertain a move to delete this
provision.
MR. OPLE: I move for its deletion right now because since 1973 it has not
proved useful enough to be availed of by the Congress of the Philippines or
by
other law-making bodies, Madam President.
MR. NOLLEDO: If the Commissioner does not mind, it was President Marcos
who placed it there. As a former member of the 1971 Constitutional
Convention, I
cannot remember whether that provision really formed part of the report of
the Committee on Local Governments.
The purpose of Mr. Marcos in placing that provision is that if the form of
government is in his favor, he wanted that it should not be changed
anymore. His
intention was to discourage the Batasang Pambansa, which may prove to be
not too subservient to him, from changing the structure of local government
so
soon.
MR. OPLE: If the Chairman believes that this vitiates the lawmaking power of
Congress, then I move for its deletion
MR. NOLLEDO: Is that in the form of an amendment?
MR. OPLE: Yes, Madam President.
MR. NOLLEDO: Not in the form of a motion because a motion must be duly
seconded and shall still be submitted to the floor.
If the Commissioner puts that as an amendment, the Chairman gladly
accepts the amendment.
MR. OPLE: It is an amendment, and I thank the Commissioner for accepting
it.
Thank you very much, Madam President.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: If the last sentence is deleted, is it possible for Congress to
provide a parliamentary form of government for the local government units?
I
believe that the consensus of the Commission is to adopt the presidential
system. The existing local government units are patterned after the
presidential
system. If we delete the last sentence now, can the provision grant Congress
the authority to adopt the parliamentary system for the local government
units?
We go further. Can it also allow a sort of a federal system for the local
government units like the provinces and the cities?
MR. OPLE: Madam President, this is extending the horizons of possibilities to
their farthest limit. I think we should be able to trust the sense of
proportion of the Congress that will be elected under the aegis of this new
Constitution.
MR. DAVIDE: In which case, I would strongly object to the amendment,
because there might be the possibility that Congress will adopt another type
of
government for the local government units which would be against the
presidential form. I am in favor of the parliamentary system, but I have to
respect
the decision of the Commission to adopt, in effect, the presidential system.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, may I react to the statement of
Commissioner Davide?
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner may proceed.
MR. NOLLEDO: We will find in the first portion of Section 2 that Congress is
mandated to enact a Local Government Code which shall provide for a more
responsive and accountable local government structure.
So even under that authority, Madam President, the legislature can also
adopt a parliamentary system if we follow the argument of Commissioner
Davide.
MR. DAVIDE: In which case that would be a prejudicial question. The
prejudicial question which the Commission will have to decide is whether or
not to
adopt a parliamentary system of government for the local government units.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, I do not think that that is a prejudicial
question. We are tying the hands of Congress in determining the form of
government
that should be provided for in the Local Government Code. We do not have
the facilities here to conduct public hearings in order to determine what form
of
government the Congress should provide for.
MR. DAVIDE: Precisely.
MR. NOLLEDO. I think Congress will be guided by a high sense of patriotism,
including knowledgeability, in determining the structure of government that
should be provided for in the Local Government Code.
Besides, pending the enactment of a new Local Government Code under the
report of the Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions, the
former Local
Government Code, which is Batas Pambansa Blg. 337, shall continue to be
effective until repealed by the Congress of the Philippines.
MR. DAVIDE: That is exactly the reason there is the necessity of the last
sentence. If the new Local Government Code will adopt a system other than
what is
now mandated in the Local Government Code, a plebiscite will be necessary.
I would state that it is wiser to retain the last sentence. Let us not engage
again in another constitutional adventurism, to quote Commissioner
Aquino.
MR. OPLE: This is not adventurism but superfluity, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair believes that all that is to be decided is whether
or not to submit to a plebiscite any change in the existing form of
government.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, the Local Government Code will not be
submitted to a plebiscite. What should be decided is whether the Congress
shall enact a
Local Government Code with the provisions stated and authorized by Section
2 without the need to submit the same to a plebiscite.
MR. FOZ: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: That is the problem that is confronting us. The committee
report, as is, requires a plebiscite for a change.
MR. NOLLEDO: No, that is only after the Congress has fixed a form of
government for local government units, and then there is a need to change
the same. In
which case, the second act of Congress must be ratified under this last
sentence of Section 2, which Commissioner Ople amended by way of
deletion which I
accepted on behalf of the Committee.
THE PRESIDENT: I want to be clarified on the matter that requires a plebiscite
MR. NOLLEDO: The change of the local government structure would require a
plebiscite.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the Committee Chairman please clarify this?
MR. FOZ: Madam President, I have a question.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, in response to the question of the Chair, may I
reiterate the proposed amendment. This pertains to line 19 of Section 2,
page 1
of the Article. I propose to delete the sentence which says: No change in the
THE PRESIDENT: Will the Committee Chairman read Section 1 with the
amendments so that we can vote separately.
MR. NOLLEDO: Section 1. The TERRITORIAL AND POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS
OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES ARE THE PROVINCES, CITIES,
MUNICIPALITIES AND
BARANGAYS. THERE SHALL BE AUTONOMOUS REGIONS IN MUSLIM
MINDANAO AND THE CORDILLERA AS HEREINAFTER PROVIDED.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Before we vote on Section 1, may I just ask the Chairman
to reiterate his answer to my query as regards the subprovinces which are
local
government units existing under our present laws but are not mentioned
here. I would like the Chairman to articulate before the Commission what is
his
thinking about the subprovinces which seem to be in limbo up to this present
time.
MR. NOLLEDO: I said before, Madam President, and reiterate now, that
subprovinces, because of their temporary status, are extensions of the
mother
provinces and, therefore, they can be considered in the redistricting system
for purposes of representation in the Congress.
MR. MAAMBONG: In other words, as far as Section 1 is concerned, the
Constitution does not acknowledge the existence of the subprovinces.
MR. NOLLEDO: As separate political units, because they are, to my mind,
extensions of the mother provinces.
MR. MAAMBONG: Would the Commissioner perhaps suggest that I formulate
another provision, probably to be given to the Committee on Amendments
and Transitory
Provisions or to the Committee on the Legislative?
MR. NOLLEDO: To what effect?
MR. MAAMBONG: The proposed provision shall cover the subprovinces.
MR. NOLLEDO: I have no objection.
MR. OPLE: May I support this proposal, Madam President.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of Section 1 as read, please raise
their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (No Member raised his
hand.)
The results show 29 votes in favor and none against; Section 1, as amended,
is approved.
May we ask the Chairman to read Section 2, as amended.
MR. NOLLEDO: Section 2, as amended, now reads: THE CONGRESS SHALL
ENACT A LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE WHICH SHALL PROVIDE FOR A MORE
RESPONSIVE AND ACCOUNTABLE
LOCAL GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE, INSTITUTED THROUGH A SYSTEM OF
DECENTRALIZATION, WITH EFFECTIVE MECHANISM FOR RECALL, INITIATIVE
AND REFERENDUM, ALLOCATE AMONG
THE DIFFERENT LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS THEIR POWERS,
RESPONSIBILITIES AND RESOURCES, AND PROVIDE FOR THE
QUALIFICATIONS, ELECTION, APPOINTMENT AND REMOVAL,
TERM, SALARIES, POWERS AND FUNCTIONS AND DUTIES OF LOCAL
OFFICIALS, AND ALL OTHER MATTERS RELATING TO THE ORGANIZATION AND
OPERATION OF THE LOCAL UNITS.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of Section 2 as read by the
Committee Chairman, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their
hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (No Member raised his
hand.)
The results show 29 votes in favor and none against; Section 2, as amended,
is approved.
Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, I am prepared to present my amendment
to Section 3. As a matter of fact, I have submitted or caused the distribution
of my
comments on my proposed amendment. However, I would like to call the
attention of the Chair that my proposed amendment will affect two things. It
will
settle probably, once and for all, the status of highly urbanized cities, and will
also affect the right of suffrage of the voters in highly urbanized
cities.
So, may I ask the indulgence of the Chair if I would rather reserve my right to
present this at some later date, because these issues are very vital and we
do not have a full complement of Commissioners right now. I would rather
that this be decided when there are more Members present, Madam
President. So, I
reserve my right to present my amendment to Section 3 later.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other amendment to Section 3?
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Colayco be recognized to amend Section
3.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Colayco is recognized.
MR. COLAYCO: Thank you very much.
Without going over the reservation of Commissioner Maambong, I am going
to ask two clarificatory questions. Line 2 of Section 3 says the highly
urbanized
cities, as determined by reasonable standards. I would like to know if the
Committee has in mind what these reasonable standards would be, for the
guidance of the Congress.
MR. NOLLEDO: They are provided in the Local Government Code. I think it is
Congress that shall determine the reasonable standards.
MR. COLAYCO: My second question is, is the word city on line 4 used as it is
understood on line 2 highly urbanized cities?
MR. NOLLEDO: The word city on line 4 refers to a city, whether highly
urbanized or not, as long as it is a component part of the province.
MR. COLAYCO: I would like to call the attention of the Gentleman to existing
practice. For instance, Pasay City is inside Rizal.
MR. NOLLEDO: I think Metro Manila is excluded, as I understand from
Commissioner Rama, who is the proponent of this provision.
MR. RAMA: Yes, Metro Manila is excluded from this provision.
MR. COLAYCO: But there is no distinction her in this definition.
city. Section 167 says: A component city may become a highly urbanized
city if it meets the criteria specified in the preceding section. That is
precisely the point which will be the subject matter later on of our
amendment, because as of this moment we have highly urbanized cities
whose inhabitants
are not allowed to vote logically for the provincial elective officials in the
same way that the inhabitants and the voters in the province are not allowed
to vote for the election of city officials in the highly urbanized cities. That will
be the subject matter later on of my proposed amendment to Section 3.
Thank you.
MR. RAMA: So as a consequence, Commissioner Monsod wishes to be
recognized.
MR. MONSOD: I just want to ask a question, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Please proceed.
MR. MONSOD: If I understand correctly, the reason for the sentence is to
prevent warlords in the province from dominating the countryside. Is it not
possible that there will be a warlord in the city also, so that the city will then
dominate the countryside?
MR. RAMA: Our experience, Madam President, is that the warlords normally
do not have their political bailiwicks in the cities because the cities are
enlightened voters. It is in the towns in the provinces where the warlords
thrive because they can terrorize and buy voters there. It is not so easy to
buy
voters in the cities. That has been our experience, so that this provision also
tries to correct an evil because there has been gerrymandering. This is
trying to do justice to those people who have suffered injustices under the
aegis of some warlords.
MR. MONSOD: My solution in that case where there is gerrymandering is to
prevent the gerrymandering, not to solve it by offsetting a wrong in the first
place.
I have another question, Madam President. In the case of the city residents
voting for the province, let us say that their votes make the difference. Would
the provincial governor have any power or any authority within the city?
MR. RAMA: Madam President, many of the inhabitants or dwellers in the city
come from the towns. Their families live there. As a matter of fact, they just
go to the city to find work. But for purposes of their livelihood they have to
transfer their domicile in the city, and it is more convenient for them to
stay in the city and vote in the same place. But the majority of those people
in the city come from the towns, and their families come from the towns. The
gerrymandering that I was referring to has already been committed and I
want to correct this. The warlords have already gerrymandered by
disenfranchising
the city voters.
MR. MONSOD: I find it very hard to conceptualize the principle that a group of
voters may determine the government of the province when there is really
no
jurisdiction over the province. To me, the parallel to this is in the 1984
Election Code, where transient workers were allowed to vote in cities of their
place of work. We saw many instances where the laborers of a construction
company, for example, had a very big vote in Pasay City. I was wondering
whether
there is really a principle involved here on who are the people who are going
to be governed by the officials who are being elected. I am only trying to
reconcile whether that principle is superior to the principle of trying to
constitutionalize the prevention of warlordism. We are trying to put a
negative
constitutional provision to solve the warlord system, but we may be opening
up another avenue of injustice where people are governed by those who
really
were not voted by them into office.
THE PRESIDENT: Amendments to this Section 3 have been reserved for
Monday or any other day when the Article on Local Governments is
scheduled. I suppose
additional manifestations on this can be postponed to that time when the
amendment of Commissioners Maambong and Colayco will be considered.
Can we proceed
now to Section 4?
MR. RAMA: May I ask that Commissioner Davide be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: Thank you, Madam President.
My proposal is to delete the word sectoral on line 8, and to insert after
representation the phrase FROM THE PARTY LIST. And on line 9, after the
word
law, add the following: IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STANDARDS SET FORTH
IN SECTION OF ARTICLE OF THE CONSTITUTION. The Article here
refers to the
Article on the Legislative/National Assembly. I understand that the idea of the
adequately responded
to by the local governments. Besides, I have serious doubts about the
feasibility of the application of the party system in the local governments,
Madam
President.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, may I just raise one point?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: I believe that we had a very lengthy discussion on the floor
regarding the concept of permanent seats. Here we are talking about an
eight-man
council and I do not know what is in the mind of the Committee but,
certainly, the members are probably thinking about two or three reserved
seats; about
the municipality where universal and equal suffrage is only applicable to five
seats out of the eight; and about a situation where there are permanent
sectoral seats and where some people who belong to favored sectors would
again have two votes, and the rest have only one.
So, I do not know whether we should provide here an exception to the
deliberations where the Commission has voted in principle on the question of
whether
reserved seats are really a democratic type of legislature, and we only have
here a council of eight people.
MR. NOLLEDO: Incidentally, Madam President, we used the words as may be
prescribed by law.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I address a few questions to the Chairman of the
Committee? May I know the sectors referred to in Section 4 which will have
representation in the local governments? In the Article on the
Legislative/National Assembly we mentioned sectors like youth, women,
indigenous cultural
communities urban poor, peasants and others, even women and other
sectors, as may be provided by law. Are we carrying over those sectors in
this Article on
Local Governments?
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, we did not discuss those sectors in the
Committee. Commissioner Bennagen would like to answer the question of
the Gentleman.
MR. BENNAGEN: Earlier, during the deliberations, I answered that because of
the wide variations of sectors in the regions, we cannot specify precisely
what
sectors will be represented in all of the local districts. I would imagine there
will be areas with at least two sectors peasants, maybe youth, and even
women and in other areas, there will be a lot more.
MR. SARMIENTO: I fully endorse Section 4 on sectoral representation. This
will bolster the claims or the statements of Commissioner Davide about
peoples
power. As a matter of fact, this will supplement the mechanisms of recall,
initiative and referendum.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, I understand from Commissioner Davide
that he is withdrawing his amendment.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, because of the problem on sectoral representation and
because of the enlightenment of Commissioner Aquino.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, in that case, I would like to make an
amendment. I believe that this section is difficult to operationalize and that it
is
against the system of universal and equal suffrage. I would like to propose
that Section 4 be deleted.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, the Committee does not accept the
amendment and would prefer that the question be submitted to the floor.
MR. COLAYCO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Colayco is recognized.
MR. COLAYCO: May I give my reaction. I support the stand of Commissioner
Monsod, because the legislative bodies in the local level will deal only with
local problems. I do not see how the sectoral area or sectoral representatives
can be of any special help in protecting the rights of the parties
represented by them. For that reason, therefore, I do not see any reason nor
justification for Section 4.
Thank you, Madam President.
MS. AQUINO. Madam President.
to
guiding Congress on what this Commission would like to denominate as its
own preferences for sectoral seats, but I appeal to the Committee to
preserve the
principle of sectoral representation in local bodies because it is already a
working principle which has been proven by experience to be useful and to
be
desirable for a community.
Thank you.
MR. COLAYCO: One last reaction, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Colayco is recognized.
MR. COLAYCO: We are speaking here of reserved seats, in other words, to
guarantee that these sectoral areas shall be insured of their representation.
But
in the local bodies, these sectoral areas or persons can fight it out on an
equal basis. Everybody knows everybody in a municipality. The idea of
sectoral
representation was important in the higher provincial and national levels
because they are at a big disadvantage. Here, they do not need this
protection.
Secondly, what are the issues covered by the legislation in local matters?
Licenses, probably, minor violations, that is all. The personal rights as a
social member of a unit are not involved in local legislation. Madam
President, I do not think there is need, really, for providing special sectoral
representation in the municipal level at least.
MR. OPLE: I just wanted to point out that the range of lawmaking duties at
the municipal level is much wider than what Commissioner Colayco had
suggested.
There are social and economic development programs covered by
appropriate legislation at the municipal level, and it is in this respect that
sectoral
representation becomes very important. There are problems of fishermen
and of farmers in a locality. There are the problems of market vendors and of
peace
and order. If the level of peace in a remote barangay is substandard, then
they cannot go out to plant; they cannot harvest when the rice ripens. So,
there
is a whole range of legislative services now being provided by the
sangguniang bayan, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: May we listen to Commissioner Bengzon.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, does this prohibition to serve for more than
three consecutive terms apply to barangay officials?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, the voting that we had on the terms of office
did not include the barangay officials because it was then the stand of the
Chairman of the Committee on Local Governments that the term of barangay
officials must be determined by law. So it is now for the law to determine
whether
the restriction on the number of reelections will be included in the Local
Government Code.
MR. RODRIGO: So that is up to Congress to decide.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes.
MR. RODRIGO: I just wanted that clear in the record.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Considering that it was decided by the proponent and by
the Committee that this should be a new section, I will vary my proposed
amendment a
little bit to the effect that this present formulation should now become
Section 4 and the present Section 4 should be Section 5 so that we can have
the
proper sequence of the executive and the legislative, if that is acceptable to
the Committee.
THE PRESIDENT: What does the Chairman of the Committee say?
MR. NOLLEDO: I suggest, Madam President, that adjustments be made later
on when Commissioner Maambong shall have presented his amendment.
That is with
respect only to the numbering.
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, I think the best way is for us to renumber
as soon as the body approves the Maambong amendment, because there
may be
forthcoming amendments later on.
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes, as long as the sequence that I presented will be
followed.
Thank you.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, I just wanted to call the attention of the
Committee, if this is welcome, to a prior decision taken by the Commission to
relocate, to allocate a new section to the amendment concerning
metropolitan areas that was approved this morning. May I leave it to the
Committee to find
the correct and most appropriate place in these series of sections for that.
Thank you.
MR. NOLLEDO: We will do that.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Laurel be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Laurel is recognized. Is this on the Davide
amendment so we can vote on it? Is this a new matter?
MR. RAMA: This is a new matter, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Then let us vote first on the Davide amendment.
Is there any objection to this new section proposed by Commissioner Davide
which has been read to the body? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
proposed
section is approved.
CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 541
(Protecting the Dignity and Integrity of the Commission)
PERIOD OF SPONSORSHIP AND DEBATE
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I move that we consider Proposed Resolution
No. 541.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
Commissioner Laurel is recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Laurel is recognized.
while the Members of the Commission are deliberating over the resolutions
that
are before the body.
MR. FOZ: That is right, Madam President, but I just want to make the
statement that we should not give any impression, that we do not want to
listen to
anybody, be he a public official or a private citizen. I am referring particularly
to the impression created by another incident in the South Conference
Room where a public official was embarrassed because one of us practically
stopped him from delivering his statement in connection with another issue.
So, I am appealing to our Members not to make any step or to adopt any
measure that would give the impression that we do not welcome any view
from the
public at all. That is all my concern, but I support the proposed resolution of
Commissioner Laurel.
MR. LAUREL: Madam President, I read that paragraph of the resolution which
refers to the steps taken by this body to receive the comments and the
opinions
expressed by other people. I am not saying that my dear colleague is going
to vote against this resolution. If there is any one of those who came over
and
said things on the floor at a time when we were in session, and who wants to
participate here, I am even willing to resign, and give way to him provided
the President is willing to appoint him. At kung kailangan pa, I know there will
be Members of this Chamber who are willing to give up their positions.
But what I want is to preserve the dignity and the integrity of this Chamber. I
am not doing this for myself.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Foz has expressed his full support for the
resolution.
MR. LAUREL: Maganda ho naman. Magbotohan na lang tayo. At akoy hindi
naman umaasang mayroon kaanib dito na hindi sasang-ayon sa resolusyong
ito. Hindi
naman para sa akin sapagkat ito ay para sa ating bayan.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Madam President.
May we just ask one clarification of the distinguished Commissioner Laurel. I
did not get very well the last condemnatory portion of the resolution. I
R.C.C. NO. 59
Monday, August 18, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
At 9:56 a.m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia Muoz Palma, opened the
session.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is called to order.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please rise to sing the National Anthem.
Everybody rose to sing the National Anthem.
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please remain standing for the Prayer to be
led by the Honorable Hilario G. Davide, Jr.
Everybody remained standing for the Prayer.
PRAYER
MR. DAVIDE: Almighty and eternal God, through Your Son Jesus Christ, You
said:
Ask, and it shall be given you;
Seek and you shall find it;
Knock, and it shall be opened to you.
For everyone who asks, receives;
And he who seeks, finds;
And to him who knocks, it shall be opened.
During the past seventy-seven days of our sacred work to write the
fundamental law, we had asked for Your guidance; sought Your wisdom;
knocked at Your
heart for love not only here but everywhere, during waking hours or sleeping
moments, in the quiet of aloneness or in the midst of noise.
You never failed us. Your patience was endless.
As the end of our work draws near and the issues become more complex and
complicated, debates more intense and evenwinded, we need You more.
We need You for strength to walk the last mile; for courage to resist
pressures and the intimidation of the crowd; for humility to accept defeat of
our pet
proposals; for patience to listen to the words of others; for peace of mind and
soul.
Above all, we need Your wisdom; so that the Constitution we shall prepare
will come from You and no one else for the Filipinos of all generations to
love, cherish and share.
Be with us then always. Amen.
THE PRESIDENT: May I call the attention of our Commissioners and
everybody in this hall that we are starting today the celebration of Peace and
Freedom
Week under the auspices of the Ninoy Aquino Movement and SERVE. And so,
let us all join in expressing the hope that peace and freedom will always
reign in
our country, in our communities, in our families and homes, and also here in
this august assembly.
ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will please call the roll.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Abubakar
Present *
Natividad
Present *
Alonto
Present
Nieva
Present
Aquino
Present *
Nolledo
Present
Azcuna
Present *
Ople
Present *
Bacani
Present
Padilla
Present
Bengzon
Present
Quesada
Present
Bennagen
Present
Rama
Present
Bernas
Present
Regalado
Present
Rosario Braid
Present
Reyes de los
Present *
Brocka
Present *
Rigos
Present
Calderon
Present
Rodrigo
Present
Castro de
Present
Romulo
Present
Colayco
Present
Rosales
Absent
Concepcion
Present
Sarmiento
Present
Davide
Present
Suarez
Present
Foz
Present
Sumulong
Present
Garcia
Present *
Tadeo
Present
Gascon
Present
Tan
Present
Guingona
Present *
Tingson
Present
Jamir
Present
Treas
Present
Laurel
Present
Uka
Present
Lerum
Present
Villacorta
Present
Maambong
Present *
Villegas
Present
Monsod
Present
Letter from Ms. Pearl Gunzon and sixteen (16) others, all from U.P. Diliman,
Quezon City, proposing the following: (1) that elective local officials will
have a six-year term; (2) that they be allowed to seek reelection or to run for
other elective positions only after a six-year term has been served by a
successor; and (3) that first-degree relatives of elective officials be
disqualified from running for elective positions after the expiration of their
term.
(Communication No. 568 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Local Governments.
Communication from the Mindanao Movement, signed by its Chairman,
Epimaco M. Densing, Jr., urging inclusion in the Constitution of the following
proposals:
(a) that election to public office should not involve any expense whatsoever
on the part of the candidates, political parties, voters and others, except on
the part of the government, and (b) that in the administration of justice,
litigants should not incur any expense in the procurement and/or availment
of
anything which may affect a just and fair decision.
(Communication No. 569 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Steering Committee.
Letter from Mr. Edmundo H. Fulleros of Buhang, Bulusan, Sorsogon, urging
the dismantling of the two U.S. military bases come 1991, and thereafter, no
foreign military bases be allowed in our country.
(Communication No. 570 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of
Principles.
Position paper of the Association of Baptist Churches in Luzon, Visayas and
Mindanao, Inc. 32 Road 2, Project 6, Quezon City, signed by its Chairman,
Rev.
Edwin T. Ormeo, supporting the retention of the provisions upholding the
principle of the separation of Church and State in the new Constitution of the
Philippines.
(Communication No. 571 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on General Provisions.
over our broad land, which will ensure the achievement of a lasting and
effectual solution to the problems of mass poverty, high cost of living and
increasing unemployment. It is the only philosophy of economic development
which will insure for us and perhaps, for our region, the permanence of
individual freedom and parliamentary institutions.
Thank you, Madam President, and I thank the Chairman and the members of
the Committee on the National Economy and Patrimony.
MR. RAMA: Commissioner Tadeo wishes to be recognized, Madam President.
MR. TADEO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tadeo is recognized.
MR. TADEO: Kaisa po ako sa sinabi ni Commissioner Rene Sarmiento. Gusto
ko lang basahin sa inyo ang sinabi ni Alexander Padilla doon sa promotion of
Church
Peoples Response, Philippine Society in Perspective, a National Situationer,
tungkol sa economic protectionism. He says on page 2, paragraphs 2, 3 and
4
thereof:
In 1909, the United States forced the Philippines into an economic relation
called the free trade. Essentially, this meant that our government will be
prohibited from imposing any tariff, and other restrictions on American goods
exported to the Philippines. Free of tariff and duties and without limit,
cheap manufactured goods flooded the Philippines. More than any single
factor, this law which forced our agricultural economy to trade freely with a
highly
industrialized America entrenched and solidified the colonial pattern of our
economy. Our country became an exporter of raw materials and a consumer
of
finished products. This inhibited our manufacturing and industrial sectors
from expanding since it was highly prohibited to compete with imported,
cheaper
and better quality manufacturers. This free trade policy, to this date, is still
being practiced through its modern and various guises such as the
decontrol program of 1962, the floating rate of 1970, and through most of
the entire period of martial law, the export-oriented, labor-intensive
development strategy introduced in 1972 at the behest of the International
Monetary Fund-World Bank financial institution.
It is significant to note that over 200 years ago, when the United States had
just fought and won their independence from England, this very theory of
free trade espoused by Adam Smith was itself repudiated by the newly
know from history, Madam President, that the more protectionist a country
is, the
better its capacity to engage in international trade, the reason being that
protectionism generates the necessary economic activity and motivation to
increase production and to improve the trade capacities of domestic
economic and business entities.
The Honorable Villegas, during the caucus, said that this humble
Representation should read closely the debate on the textile bill in the United
States.
And I would like to quote from Asiaweek, issue of August 17, which
summarized the developments that followed the defeat of the Jenkins bill,
and I quote:
Jenkins defeat left intact MFA-4 (and this refers to the Multi-Fiber
Arrangement, which is a protectionist measure to protect the American
textile
industry). The pact will set standards for bilateral agreements and unilateral
restrictions on textile trade among contracting parties for the next five
years. Aside from the present cotton, wool, and synthetic fiber goods, it will
control yarn, fabric and apparel made of blends containing silk, ramie,
linen, jute, and other natural fibers, a U.S. demand. In the future, quotas may
be imposed on an item if the value or weight of its natural fiber content
is more than half its price or weight.
What I am trying to point out, Madam President, is that despite the defeat of
the Jenkins protectionist bill, protectionism as a matter of state policy
continues administratively and in all aspects in the United States, precisely
because the developed countries as well as the newly industrialized
countries
are all protectionist. I would also quote from an Appendix which an
economist, Dr. Romeo Bautista, and I included in our joint monograph. It is a
listing
of protectionist measures imposed by Japan on products of export interest to
the Philippines. This is page 111, Appendix 4 of the book Asian-Japan
Relations, Trade and Development. And in four pages were listed numerous
protectionist measures imposed by Japan on the products of the Philippines.
The
source is the NEDA Subcommittee on GATT matters. I shall have this xeroxed,
Madam President, for distribution to the Commission.
It might also be mentioned, Madam President, that in our age of
protectionism in the 1950s, local industries took off significantly. I would like
to quote
from the World Bank report on the Philippines, December 1963:
The progress of the Philippine economy during the decade of the 50s was
one of the more impressive records of economic gains among the less
developed
countries.
I repeat:
. . . one of the more impressive records of economic gains among the less
developed countries.
In more recent years, the conditions for expansion have been less buoyant
and the pace of economic growth more sluggish than during the decade.
Toward the
end of the decade, over-expansion was becoming evident in some lines and
the system of controls was creaking from various abuses and administrative
difficulties.
The system was replaced in 1959 by a gradual decontrol program, involving
rising exchange rates which culminated in 1962 in a virtually unrestricted
trade
and free exchange. This marked increase in the peso costs of exchange over
this period was undoubtedly an important factor in the sharp sag in industrial
profits. The expansion of manufacturing slowed down, and with it, the growth
of the economy as a whole.
This report of the World Bank illustrates that as a result of decontrol, there
was a marked increase in the peso costs of exchange which was undoubtedly
an
important factor in the sag of industrial profits.
I do not need to read from the entire report because I know time is limited. I
shall have this xeroxed also for distribution to the Commission for purposes
of record.
Suffice it to say, Madam President, that when the U.S. government and other
governments restricted the importation of items like textile, steel and cars
into their economy, they do so irrespective of whether the foreign
competition is fair or unfair; that the primary, if not the only, criterion is that
imports stunt the growth of domestic industries which are sources of
employment. In fact, the whole point of protection is to restrict imports in
order to
give domestic industries a controlling share of the domestic market.
When one, for example, imposes a protective tariff, that tariff applies on an
absolute basis, and is not selectively applied only to such imports as this
represents unfair competition.
to reopen the debate. We should be very clear that we only have one market.
If we do not protect the Filipino market, who else will? Those of us who have
had experience with other nations, other governments, other economies,
realize that it is basically the responsibility of the nation, of its people to
protect their market. And yet here we have to find ourselves on the
defensive when we are protecting our very own natural resources and our
very own market
which, in the last analysis, remain the basic source of our wealth as a people.
And in the face of what we have just discussed, especially in the Article
on Social Justice, we realize more and more now that all our efforts to bring
about social justice will come to naught unless we, at the same time, have a
strong, self-reliant, self-sustaining, productive economy. And this is our
appeal to our companions, our colleagues in this Commission, that we should
come
together and close ranks in the protection of our own economy, our own
market and our own natural resources because they are the only ones we
have.
Thank you very much, Madam President.
MR. BROCKA: Madam President, may I be recognized?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Brocka is recognized.
MR. BROCKA: Thank you very much.
I just have to speak up, Madam President. When Commissioners Villegas and
Monsod explained to us the provisions in the Article on National Economy
and
Patrimony, we listened.
As a matter of fact, we had caucuses to discuss it where they explained it to
the laymen, particularly the noneconomists in the Commission. The
explanations that were given were all on record. I wish I could take their word
for it. I am not an economist; definitely I am not versed in economics. As
a matter of fact, I must make a confession that I did not prepare for this
Article. I was concentrating on the work of the Committee on Social Justice to
which I belong, particularly on arts and culture, which we were expecting to
be discussed this week. As I said, I wish I could take their word for it, but
something bothered me and I spent an agitated weekend thinking about all
the explanations. Last week, when the coalition of businessmen presented
their
paper, I read it and I thought their espousal of industrialization, protectionism
and economic nationalism made sense. Last week also, when we were
arguing
for the percentages of 60-40 where from 100-percent Filipino control we
went down to 60-40 and then there was another proposal for 2/3-1/3 and it
lost
a Commissioner said that it was ridiculous that we were fighting percent for
percent in going down and that probably, since 66 2/3 percent or 2/3 lost, we
will go down to 65 percent. I wanted to answer and say that it was not
ridiculous, that it was pathetic that we were fighting inch by inch, percent for
percent, and that it did not matter whether it was one percent or .5 percent.
The point is I found it pathetic that we were fighting for one percent more
in favor of less control of foreign capital insofar as Filipino business is
concerned. And so, this morning I would like to speak and add my two-cents
worth not as an economist but as a film maker. I am not an economist; I do
not know the ins and outs of economic theory and practice, but I am trying to
understand the proposed provisions in the Article on National Economy and
Patrimony from the point of view of the ordinary and average Filipino layman.
As a film maker, I have had dealings with both the State and private
enterprise. The State has censored my films, and because of that I would
naturally be
opposed to restrictive, repressive and oppressive state intervention in the
affairs of the film industry. I also do not want the State to be producing
movies, especially the pornographic movies that the Experimental Cinema of
the Philippines used to do, because the censorship-free and tax-free movies
provided unfair competition to local movie producers. However, I would not
be opposed to the State providing grants, subsidies and tax incentives for
the
making of quality movies that the commercial movie industry would not
venture into by itself.
But I have also worked for private enterprises; that is to say, the movie
producers, the capitalists in the movie industry. And I know from experience
that
the movie producers are left to themselves as a general rule. They would be
doing nothing but sex and violence movies because that is where the money
is.
They do not care about social responsibility, the common good, the
preferential concern for the poor and the underprivileged. All they care about
is raking
in as much as they can in the form of profits.
The point is that we are not proposing state capitalism, socialism or
communism, but at the same time, I do not want unscrupulous capitalists
running
roughshod over the rest of the impoverished population. There should be
some form of state regulation to balance the legitimate business demands of
private
enterprise with the urgent social needs of the poor.
For the pro-life people we had a special time; they herded us from the lounge
to listen to them and to sit through their presentation. When the Cordillera
people came in their G-strings and costumes and all that, they came
knocking at our hearts to listen to their plea for an autonomous region, so
did the
Bangsa Moro people.
But when the businessmen who felt very strongly about these sentiments did
come, I think we did not give them just as much time as we gave others. As a
matter of fact, it resulted in that kind of reaction heated exchanges. But I
suppose that they have just as much right to come and appeal to us because
what we will be putting down in this particular section and article will mean a
big difference on whether they are going to survive in their own land. And
I also felt, as a member of the Committee on Social Justice, what good all
these provisions on social justice will do, if there will be no mass employment
and no economic recovery?
So, even among us who pride ourselves in having accomplished something,
we will not really find any translation or implementation as long as we
remain
poor. But why do we remain poor? I think all of us have heard the arguments
of why we remain poor in spite of all the wealth or richness of our country.
I believe that we know how it is when the Members of this Commission have
set their minds to. It is very easy to just vote down an article especially if
they are convinced that theirs is the right decision. But who is to say that
theirs is right and ours is wrong? I think we have often asked ourselves: Are
we responding to the peoples needs? And who are these people that we
should respond to? Are these the people who come here and really present
their
plight? Are these the silent majority, or are these just a few people who come
to us and ask us to pressure the body for the passage of a provision? So I
feel that even if it is a losing battle I have realized that in this Commission,
it is a numbers game I would like to put on record what I have gone
through agonizingly, realizing that probably I made a mistake in having voted
for Section 1.
The people who signed this resolution have so rationally presented this to us
so that it would become part of the Journal of this august body. I think that
all of us have copies of this. We have seen this published in the newspapers.
Since it has not been fully registered in the Journal, I would like to go
through some of the important points which convinced me that probably I
really did commit a wrong to the people who have wanted so much that
economic
protectionism, Filipinization and industrialization be the pathway, the
underlying direction for our national development. So I will start with the
points
that they have so strongly stated:
Only through a full and rapid industrialization (of our economy). . . can we
create, in a massive scale, the work opportunities that will absorb the
millions of unemployed and underemployed; (the unemployed who have to
go to different countries to sell themselves, their labor power, even their
bodies,
to work in many other parts of the world, and the underemployed here who
have to work just to survive day to day), and that corollarily, only by a
rigorous
system of economic protectionism similar to that in force in virtually every
nation in the world, both the developed and newly industrialized countries,
can we foster the industrialization of this country.
We specifically refer to the recent study of the political economist, Alejandro
Lichauco. Copies of that study have been distributed to the Members of the
Commission among with this letter that they have sent us.
Industrialization and economic protectionism, as an indispensable means to
industrialization, are of vital importance and urgency to warrant their
incorporation in the new Constitution.
If social justice is significant enough to be incorporated into the Constitution
as an objective of state policy, with more reason should industrialization
and economic protectionism be similarly incorporated.
There can be no meaningful program of social justice as long as mass
unemployment exists, and as long as our economic system is unable to
generate massive
work opportunities, which it can only do through industrialization. History has
shown no other way.
They have a particular reason for making this appeal; and this is I think
this has been mentioned already by Commissioner Villacorta that the
industrialization of this country has been delayed far too long. They continue:
Unless we industrialize, by the end of the century, which will come in less
than 15 years, we will be the most backward and the most impoverished
nation in
Southeast Asia. And the most exploited. Every nation in Asia is fast
industrializing.
To cut down on time, I move, Madam President, for the inclusion of the
coalitions petition (the entire document) in the registered communications in
the
From my own point of view, I believe that what is involved here is basically a
question of economic sovereignty. We really have to go into a further
discussion of our concept of industrialization, protectionism and degree of
participation of the people, and I hope that we will come into some
agreement
as a whole body.
I think Section 1, as approved, operates to curtail the sovereign power of the
State to protect its most important economic resource, the domestic market
for the nations output of goods and services. We cannot stress the supreme
and paramount importance of the issues raised by our fellow Members and
colleagues in this Commission, and our people will never forgive us should
we fail to give this subject the thorough and extensive deliberation which it
deserves. So, I would like to reiterate the request.
Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Villegas be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Villegas is recognized.
MR. VILLEGAS: Madam President, first, I would like to make some general
statements presenting a framework through which members of the
Committee and the
one who proposed the specific amendment, Commissioner Ople, can follow
me. Taking the lead from a very important question asked by Commissioner
Quesada,
Who is to say who is right? in the specific question, I would like to remind
all in this body that economics is a very inexact science, and I think all
of us have been witnesses to its inexactness. As I said in one of the debates
concerning the bicameral versus unicameral form of government, in trying to
define the common good and especially in this specific case, there is always
a mosaic of legitimate vested interests that have to be recognized. And the
most serious error in economics, in fact, in all of political life, is never an
absolute falsehood but an oversimplification, being obsessed with partial
truth and equating it with the whole truth.
Now, the Committee could have been perfectly within reason if it insisted on
its original view that all these requests for industrialization, protectionism
and economic nationalism could have been completely subsumed by the
original statement that all economic sectors shall be given optimum
opportunity to
the
coalition decided to underline very select paragraphs in this article. And
those select paragraphs highlighted what is already well-known that in all
countries, whether industrialized or nonindustrialized, developed or
developing, there are always legitimate vested interests asking for
protection; that
in many of these industrialized countries, like the United States and Japan,
there are dying industries like textile that are singing their swan song and
making last-ditch efforts in complete opposition to the common good, to the
common economic good, to save their industries.
If the body will note and will read it through, the whole article of my
colleague, Dr. Suh Sang Mok, is an eloquent appeal to the whole world to
reject
protectionism. In the very same article that was distributed, to indicate that
there are some last-ditch attempts all over the world to save protectionism,
there was a very dramatic appeal. And let me read the parts that were not
underlined. He said:
Despite the worsening of the trade environment, Korea has undertaken a
comprehensive import liberalization program. The number of Korean import,
subject to
quantitative restriction declined to 12% this year, from 32% in 1977, while
the average nominal tariff rate fell to 20% from 36% during the same period.
Declining oil prices and the recent alignment of currencies make this an
opportune moment to reverse the protectionist trend, with improved
prospects for
economic recovery, both the industrialized and developing countries should
accelerate their efforts to achieve a freer trade environment.
And, finally, he concludes the article. This last paragraph is the punchline. He
says:
In the struggle for free trade, concerted action by all involved parties is vital.
By definition, trade involves interdependence. If some nations failed to
support free trade by maintaining protectionist barriers and defying the rules
established by GATT, retaliatory spirals can lead only to an eventual
collapse of the global trade environment (And I must say, to a no-win
situation for all). Clearly, no one would benefit from such a collapse. The
industrialized and developing countries must cooperate to reverse the recent
rise to protectionism. The best time to act is now.
So, this is a Korean economist appealing to the whole world that any
tendency towards protectionism, no matter who may initiate such tendency,
is
self-destructive, is the road to international economic suicide.
Now, just to address distinctly the point raised by Commissioner Villacorta
about the Jenkins bill, I have here the latest issue of The Economist. That has
already been cited by Commissioner Bennagen on another occasion. For the
information of the nonspecialists, this magazine The Economist is probably
the
best economic magazine for the layman in the whole world. If we are looking
for the most informed economic information, read this London-based
magazine.
So, in an editorial of this weeks issue, the title is Routing Protectionists, it
says:
Even at the height of summer, most of the 240 million Americans wear
clothes most of the time. Fewer than two million of them work in the cloth
and
clothing industry which is more profitable than most in manufacturing and
mainly situated in the States with below average unemployment. The mills
are
still shedding labor but not because of foreign competition. They are
protected by tariff six times higher than those for American manufacturing
generally.
It is the productivity case brought by modern equipment which is helping
them to increase output with fewer workers.
So, I do not quarrel with the very factual statement of Commissioner
Villacorta that despite the defeat of the Jenkins bill, this dying industry in the
States is still being protected. There is no quarrel. But the point is, the whole
world is precisely condemning that protectionist move. And it is hurting
the Americans themselves and hurting the whole world.
The editorial continues:
To be so close to such foolishness is yet another sign that America is
slouching towards protectionism. The administrations commitment to free
trade has
wobbled sadly in the past month.
Why is this nonsense happening? Remember, this is written by an economics
journal in a country, Great Britain, that started the whole question of
protectionism 200 years ago. And they have learned from their own
mistakes. So why is this nonsense happening? Mainly because it is easy for
politicians to
buy votes by blaming imports for every layoff in the heartlands, and easier
still to indulge in Japan-bashing. Free trade is a doctrine supported by the
employ
the more than 700,000 new workers that appear in the labor force year in
and year out.
The second explanation for our mass poverty is what Commissioner Tadeo
has been reminding this body from the very beginning. We completely
neglected
agricultural productivity. There is a whole world of difference between
agricultural production and agricultural productivity. Sure, we expanded rice
production; sure, we expanded sugar production; sure, we expanded coconut
production; but how? Through expanding hectarage. Our means of
production got
more and more unproductive and the yield per hectare in all of these
agricultural sectors declined year in and year out. That is why the poor
farmer was
not making the necessary income.
And the third explanation is rather very obvious: Twenty years of a corrupt
and a repressive regime looted billions and billions of dollars away from this
economy. I do not have to elaborate.
Those are, from my standpoint as a student of economic development of the
Philippines, the three main reasons why we are not in economic paradise,
and the
first one of which is precisely protectionism.
I would like to ask Commissioner Ople to add some remarks especially
concentrating on the formulation of his amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: Thank you very much, Madam President.
I suppose I have a duty to speak in defense of that portion of the section, the
authorship of which is attributed to me, although I must make it clear that
this was one of the most amended provisions of Section 1. This has to do
with the statement on industrialization based on sound agricultural
development
and agrarian reform and, of course, there is a last sentence in that
paragraph, one of the nubs of the ongoing controversy, which states that
the State
shall protect Filipino enterprises against unfair foreign competition and trade
practices. That last sentence, I gather, was negotiated earlier from the
Committee by no less than Commissioner Suarez who was in the situation of
extracting blood from a turnip. If I understood that situation correctly just so,
there would be a statement that would emphasize the obligation of the State
bracing
winds of competition would ever touch the shores of the Philippine economy,
because if they are allowed to come in, even in the most deliberately
measured
doses, even a whiff of such winds would collapse the shaky pillars of some of
our own industries.
I have nothing against Philippine industry. I do not own a single share of
Philippine industry. But, at the same time, as a Filipino, I would like to put
our industries to high standards of patriotic duty that would not consist of
demanding a closed market parceled out among themselves, that would
perpetuate
the profits that they are making through monopoly control.
Let me single out one of them: the FILSYN. FILSYN is a monopoly. The reason
the cost of the shirt to the average worker in Manila is two-and a-half times
that of Taiwan and Hongkong is precisely these irrational blind protectionist
policies have insured to this monopoly, 25% of whose stocks are Taiwanese,
complete domination of the local textile field, charging, I gather, twice the
price of comparable yarn that one can bring in. And that is what I mean: the
burden of that policy ultimately rests on the back of the common man, the
worker who must pay exorbitant cost for a shirt that, in quality, will suffer
still by comparison with that which manufacturers in our own neighborhood
can make.
My friends, Madam President, I rise in opposition to the motion for
reconsideration. It is not because I do not welcome freedom of debate. The
record shows
I have always stood for it at all times. But I believe there are considerations
of dignity, independence and even integrity that are at stake in this
issue.
As with other deliberative assemblies, Madam President, whatever we do
here, together with the rulings of the Chair, creates the force of precedent as
part
of our Rules. It is true that anyone can file a motion for reconsideration within
the time limits allowed by the Rules. On past occasions, we will recall,
Madam President, we even suspended the Rules to allow reconsiderations of
previous decisions beyond the limit of 48 hours.
The President of the Commission, in all her rulings, has exemplified the very
spirit of liberality itself. But let us start with the simple and unadorned
fact that last Friday, all of us voted unanimously for this section. I think the
Record of the Constitutional Commission will show that.
Now, some of us want to renege on that collective decision, and that is the
reason for the motion for reconsideration. In spite of that, the Chair has
allowed the fullest possible debate, not on the motion itself as a procedure,
but on the merit of the issue. And I congratulate the Chair, again, for that
liberality.
But, Madam President, when the avowed reason for seeking a
reconsideration, especially when the vote sought to be reconsidered by
external pressures so
openly and brazenly exerted and so proudly acknowledged by some
Members of this Commission, I think this Commission should draw the line.
We are not
speaking of belated illuminations from heaven, or of the grace of a sudden
revelation from sustained analysis of the facts or the evidence. The provision
targeted by this motion Section 1 of the draft Article was subjected to
the most exhaustive debates and one of the most demanding amending
processes
ever experienced on the floor of this Commission.
The proponents of the motion not only vigorously and forcefully took part;
they have enriched and strengthened this particular section with their own
amendments. Perhaps, the illumination, at the last minute, may have come
from the position paper of the Coalition for Protectionism in the Constitution.
But at that time, this document was already fully available. It became, as a
matter of fact, a valued input into the debates and the process of
amendment.
It was not ignored; it was seriously and sympathetically considered. But there
is certainly no call, I submit, to consider this external document
whatever its merits as a controlling and binding guide for this
Constitutional Commission.
I submit that because of these amendments and probably because of the
help from this document that I had mentioned, this section has become so
strong that
the Minister of Trade and Industry, the Honorable Jose Concepcion, was
quoted as saying that this formulation, as it now stands, might repel foreign
investors and the trading partners of the Philippines. On one hand, Minister
Concepcion says by this section we are scaring badly needed investments so
critical to our economic recovery. On the other hand, we are warned by some
of the lobbyists whose behavior on the floor was censured by this
Commission
last Saturday that in approving this, we, the entire Commission that voted
unanimously for this provision, had committed treason, and I repeat, treason.
This accusation against the Commission published by the Philippine Daily
Inquirer and attributed to Mr. Alejandro Lichauco has never been denied.
a
lameduck provision.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. OPLE: We will correct the hiatus in the Commissioners perception when
given the opportunity in the future, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, may I be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Madam President.
Our humble name was alluded to by Commissioner Ople regarding the
supposed authorship of the last sentence of Section 1. If I may trace the
genesis of this
particular sentence, I did inform Commissioner Ople that I was instrumental
in authoring that particular sentence. But during the early committee
hearing,
when there was a hue and cry regarding the possible use of the terms
protection, protect or protectionism, the Committee was put in a
quandary. Being
a lawyer, and in order to reach a compromise, we suggested the sentence:
The State shall protect the interest of Filipino enterprises. Later on, in the
course of the committee discussions, the phrase against foreign
competition was included. Then after that, there was an insistence on the
insertion of
the word unfair. So on the committee level, in order that we could at least
submit an acceptable proposition, we came up finally with the sentence The
State shall protect Filipino enterprises against unfair foreign competition
without the additional phrase and trade practices. There was a debate and
a
discussion on the use of the term unfair. The consensus of the Committee
was that we should include it and submit it for discussion on the floor.
So, this matter of partial paternity is correct. I am only explaining to the
honorable Commissioners how it happened that the authorship was
attributed to
this humble Representation. It was not full parenthood. It was only partial. In
fairness to both of us I told Commissioner Ople: Hey, I spent about twenty
or twenty-five minutes to have the word protect included here, so you
better include it in your proposed amendment.
That is exactly how it happened.
Tutol ako kay Commissioner Villegas sa sinabi niyang wala tayong magagawa
kung bakit 90 porsiyento ng mga sanggol sa Pilipinas ay kinakailangang
umasa sa
dayuhang gatas, sapagkat ang ating niyog ay mayroong 20 o 21 porsiyento
ng protinang katulad ng gatas na kung pauunlarin natin ay makalulutas ng
70 to 78
porsiyento ng malnutrisyon sa kanayunan. Pero iyan ba ay binigyan ng
proteksiyon?
Tungkol naman sa self-reliant, independent economy, ang ibig sabihin nitoy
nasa kontrol ng Pilipino ang ekonomiya. Pero nang suriin namin ang
probisyon,
nakita naming mayroon itong mga loopholes. Katulad din ito ng probisyon sa
agrarian reform na binotohan ko rin sa dahilang hindi ako abogado at hindi
ako
economist. Ngunit matapos namin itong suriin, nakita naming naipasok nga
ang agricultural lands ngunit tadtad na tadtad naman ng mga loopholes.
Itong
Article on National Economy and Patrimony ay ganoon din. Ito ang aming
ipinakikipaglaban. Ang sabi ninyo: Jimmy, hindi ba matagal na naming
ibinigay sa
inyo? Dapat sanay pinag-aralan na ninyo. Ngunit tanggapin naman sana
ninyong hindi pa dapat pag-usapan ang Article on National Economy and
Patrimony. Ang
dapat pag-usapan ay tungkol sa local governments. Ibinibigay nga ninyo sa
amin ang proposal sa Artikulong nabanggit pero tinatalakay natin noon ang
Article
on Social Justice, na pinag-aralan din namin. Ang ibig ba ninyong sabihin,
kapag ibinigay ang proposal sa National Economy and Patrimony, tututukan
na
namin kaagad iyon at kalilimutan na namin ang Social Justice? Tanggapin
nating nagmamadali tayo sa ating gawain; halos hindi na natin ito mabasa.
Ngunit
ang Article on National Economy ay totoong napakahalaga at dapat pagaralan sapagkat 55 milyong Pilipino ang umaasa sa atin dito. Pero ang sinabi
ni
Commissioner Ople na ang perpetual infancy ay para na ring treason ay
lubhang nakasakit sa akin. Gusto ko lang sabihin kung paano natin inaayos
itong
ating Saligang Batas. Ayon sa Section 4 ng Article on National Economy and
Patrimony:
The President with the concurrence of two-thirds vote of the National
Assembly, by special law, shall provide the terms and conditions under which
a
foreign-owned corporation may enter into agreements with the government
up the liberalization move to the policies of the World Bank and the IMF. So,
with the Chairs indulgence, let me read this article by former Dean of the
UP School of Economics, Amado A. Castro. It is entitled: IMF Theology Part II:
At the Bretton Woods Conference in July 1944, the Allies met to plan the
post-World War II economic order. They agreed to set up three organizations:
the
International Monetary Fund (IMF), the International Bank for Re-construction
and Development (World Bank) and the Inter-national Trade Organization
(ITO).
By design, there was to be specialization among the three institutions: the
IMF was to take care of monetary matters and short-term finance; the World
Bank
would concentrate on the rehabilitation of the war-torn industrial nations
mainly in Europe, and the long-term economic development of
underdeveloped
countries. The ITO was to assure orderly international trade.
The World Bank was established in 1946; the IMF, in 1947. The ITO was
slated to be organized at the Havana Conference in 1947. The spokesmen for
the
underdeveloped countries, prominent among them the late Central Bank
Governor Miguel Cuaderno, denounced the proposed ITO as a device being
foisted by the
advanced nations to preserve the status quo of world trading. The ITO was
scuttled.
Today, however, by a strange twist, the IMF is carrying on a large part of the
ITOs original mission to liberalize world trade. Under the guise of
promoting sound national currencies, the IMF tackles balance of payments
problems which cause foreign exchange and currency difficulties. And one of
its
theologies is that free trade leads to economic efficiency and sound balance
of payments situations.
In principle, free trade is, indeed, as Adam Smith pointed out in 1776, the
economists ideal. By giving full play to competition, free trade leads to
international division of labor and therefore economic efficiency. National
economies should become stronger for it. But as often happens, between the
theoretical ideal and the real world, many factors come into play which can
justify departures from the ideal.
One of the justifications for a paced trade liberalization program is infant
industry and even infant economy protection. A free trade regime freezes the
trade situation. It gives an advantage to those industries which are already
and all
tire industries with 30 to 50 percent tariff rates
MR. VILLACORTA: What about the case of rice? Would the price of rice be
higher or lower compared to rice that we would have imported?
MR. MONSOD: I am glad the Commissioner raised that point because the
liberalization program does not include rice and corn.
MR. VILLACORTA: I raise this question because the Honorable Villegas always
cited the textile industry and the implications of its protection on the
American consumers, as if to say that anything that serves to protect certain
local industries would necessarily entail higher prices for the consumers and
would be bad for the economy, unless Commissioner Villegas would want us
to import from Thailand and the United States where the price of rice would
be
much cheaper for our rice eaters.
MR. VILLEGAS: Precisely, there are situations like that in the rice industry
where whatever happens, we protect it. So that is a possible situation.
MR. VILLACORTA: If the Commissioner can protect the rice-producing
industry, why can we not extend the same protection to all other industries?
MR. MONSOD: If we do that, then where will we get our foreign exchange in
order to finance our imports? Japan has always been cited as providing very
high
protection to its agriculture but forcing its industry to be competitive.
On the question of import liberalization, I want to mention also that products
for national security, health, and safety are not included in the import
liberalization.
MR. VILLACORTA: If that is the intendment and contemplation of the
Committee with respect to the idea of protection against foreign competition,
can that
not just be placed on the record? Can we not then just remove the term
unfair because it is very clear. . .
MR. MONSOD: It is the reverse. It is already on record five, six, or seven
times that dumping constitutes unfair competition; that we have to protect
our
infant industries; that in order to recover from recession, we should allow
industries temporary relief until they can go back to normal levels. It is very
clear on record.
I do not think that I should impose upon the Commission by reading the rest
of this news story, but if I said some fairly strong words to which I am not
accustomed on this floor, I hope everybody will understand it, in the light of
my own reaction as a Member of this Commission, to this accusation of
treason against all of us. I did not seek a remedy of reparation for this. I
reserve that for the future, Madam President, but I just wanted to put my
own
comment in a proper light. I did not accuse anyone in this Commission of
lacking fidelity to his duty, but we will have to admit that the provocation
was
very great in this quotation which was never denied and, in effect, that I was
speaking not only for myself but for the many Members of the Commission
when
I articulated that protest.
Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: The matter has been sufficiently explained, and I would like
to inquire from the Floor Leader if the body is ready to vote.
MR. RAMA: Yes, Madam President.
MR. VILLEGAS: We would like to have the vote, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: The body will take a vote now.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bernas is recognized.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President, may I just have two minutes in support of the
motion for reconsideration. I must begin by saying that I myself am not in
favor
of absolute protectionism. I have listened carefully to all the speakers, and
what I perceive is that there is no absolute irreconcilability in what they
are saying. But what I do perceive is that there are differences in the reading
of the second paragraph of Section 1, and I think that we should make an
effort to remove these differences in reading. There are references to the
records. I think we should make an effort to see if we can improve the
language
of paragraph 2 so that it can reflect more accurately what are contained in
the record. So in asking for a reconsideration, I am quite aware of that
hyperbolic statement referred to in the Daily Inquirer. But I think that for the
sake of clarifying this very important point, we should be able to
transcend such hyperboles and face this as dispassionately and as cooly as
possible because it is quite clear that we have here men of goodwill and
No
Bacani
No
Alonto
No
Bengzon
No
Aquino
Bennagen
Azcuna
Yes
Bernas
Yes
Calderon
Rosario Braid
Yes
Castro de
Brocka
Yes
No
No
Gascon
Concepcion
No
Guingona
Davide
Yes
Jamir
Foz
Yes
Laurel
Garcia
Yes
Lerum
Yes
No
No
Reyes de los
No
Monsod
No
Rigos
No
Natividad
Rodrigo
No
Nieva
Abstain
Romulo
Nolledo
Yes
Rosales
Ople
No
Sarmiento
Yes
Padilla
No
Suarez
Yes
Quesada
Yes
Sumulong
No
Rama
No
Tadeo
Yes
Regalado
No
Tan
No
No
Villacorta
Treas
No
Villegas
Uka
No
Yes
Natividad
Guingona
Rosales
Laurel
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, with due respect to Madam President,
may we know her vote on this issue?
THE PRESIDENT: I was just saying I will vote in case there is a tie. If the body
needs my vote, I can give it. Does the Commission desire that I give my
vote?
My vote is no, because I believe that even with this provision of Section 1 in
this Constitution, it does not deprive our government, whether through
executive or legislative action, to undertake measures that will Protect
Filipino enterprises.
The results show 17 votes in favor of the motion for reconsideration, 25
against, and 1 abstention; so the motion for reconsideration is lost.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I move for the suspension of the session until
two-thirty this afternoon.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended for lunch until two-thirty this
afternoon.
It was 12:51 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 2:43 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
The Floor Leader is recognized.
CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 470
(Article on Local Governments)
Continuation
PERIOD OF AMENDMENTS
The reason I propose this simple section is that there is no specific statement
that all these local government units, the provinces, cities and
municipalities, are also entitled to local autonomy. I suppose some would say
that it is taken for granted or that it is conceded, but there is no clear
statement or express statement that these political units should continue to
enjoy local autonomy.
When we go to the autonomous regions, they would have local autonomy,
but it does not mean that only the two autonomous regions, Muslim
Mindanao and
Cordillera, will have local autonomy. All the other provinces, cities and
municipalities as political units will also enjoy local autonomy.
MR. NOLLEDO: I think that amendment is unnecessary in the light of the
provision in the report of the Committee on Transitory Provisions that all
presidential decrees, executive orders, et cetera, shall continue to exist until
repealed or amended by the regular Congress. The Local Government Code,
which is Batas Pambansa Blg. 337, is deemed included under that provision.
That is aside from the fact that in the Commissioners absence, Section 2,
line
13, was amended by Commissioners Monsod and Davide where they added
the words instituted through a system of decentralization.
In view of these reasons, the Committee regrets that it cannot accept the
amendment.
MR. PADILLA: The Transitory Provisions has reference to existing laws,
particularly presidential decrees, executive orders, letters of instructions.
MR. NOLLEDO: Including Batas Pambansa.
MR. PADILLA: Yes. As a matter of fact, I am not very much in favor of a
provision that will make operative and continuously enforce these unilateral
decrees during the Marcos regime. In some instances, I tried to make a
distinction between a Batas or a Republic Act or a Commonwealth Act,
passed by the
Legislative Assembly and approved by the President, and these presidential
decrees, executive orders and letters of instructions which were issued by
the
deposed President. In the exercise of Amendment No. 6, the latter were all
unilateral acts. The Local Government Code is a Batas Pambansa. So the
local
autonomy that is enjoyed by our political units, which is decentralization of
central authority and which is recognized in the Local Government Code and,
I
suppose, in many other provisions of law, should not depend upon the
Transitory Provisions.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, will Commissioner Padilla yield to a question?
MR. PADILLA: Gladly.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: Thank you.
I want to know more precisely the intention behind the proposal for a new
section. Does the Commissioner think of creating a new section right in the
forefront of this Article on Local Governments which is in the nature of a
philosophical statement to the effect that all local governments shall enjoy
autonomy?
MR. PADILLA: Yes, not only philosophical; it is actually the situation and
perhaps we can even increase the local autonomy of these political units: the
provinces, cities and municipalities.
We speak of the autonomous regions of Muslim Mindanao and Cordillera, well
and good. But with regard to the political units, I suppose it is taken for
granted that they also exercise local autonomy. There is no specific
statement in the committee report.
MR. OPLE: In other words, Madam President, although the Committee insists
that the whole Article operationalizes the concept of decentralization of
powers
and local autonomy for all, the Commissioner would like to make this a more
explicit statement in one separate section, maybe ahead of the other
sections?
MR. PADILLA: Yes, I was suggesting after Section 2.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, I think Commissioner Ople has a
misapprehension of the recommended provision because there is the word
continue. As
Chairman of the Committee, may I be allowed to explain further. The
recommended provision reads: THE TERRITORIAL AND POLITICAL
SUBDIVISIONS UNDER THE
LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE SHALL CONTINUE TO ENJOY LOCAL AUTONOMY
MR. PADILLA: We can eliminate the words CONTINUE TO, if that will be one
of the Commissioners objections. Hence the phrase will read: SHALL ENJOY
LOCAL
AUTONOMY.
MR. OPLE: Yes, the phrase SHALL ENJOY LOCAL AUTONOMY will reflect the
intent of the proponent much better, since to merely continue an existing
policy
for local autonomy might be inconsistent with the spirit of this new Article
which is for increasing local autonomy.
MR. PADILLA: I agree.
MR. OPLE: So if that is the intent of Commissioner Padilla, I think that
statement will not be superfluous. It can elevate to a statement of
philosophy the
intent of the whole article for decentralizing governmental powers in favor of
the local units. So if the Commissioner can formulate that amendment, I
would like to express my support for it, Madam President.
MR. PADILLA: As I stated earlier, I was suggesting to add after Section 2 a
separate section which will read as follows: THE TERRITORIAL AND POLITICAL
SUBDIVISIONS UNDER THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE SHALL ENJOY LOCAL
AUTONOMY.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, as the last statement of the Committee,
the Monsod-Davide amendment on line 13, by the use of the words
instituted through a
system of decentralization, would render the proposed amendment of
Commissioner Padilla a superfluity.
THE PRESIDENT: Chairman Nolledo will state that particular amendment
being referred to.
MR. NOLLEDO: The Monsod-Davide amendment is in Section 2, line 13. I will
read a portion of Section 2, including those amended portions: The
Congress
shall enact a local government code which shall provide for a more
responsive and accountable local government structure instituted through a
system of
decentralization . . . And for us to state here that THE TERRITORIAL AND
POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS SHALL ENJOY LOCAL AUTONOMY would seem to be
a
superfluity.
THE PRESIDENT: What does Commissioner Padilla say?
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: Those in favor of the proposed amendment of Commissioner
Padilla will please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
Those against the amendment will please raise their hand. (No Member
raised his hand.)
The results show 29 votes in favor, none against and no abstention; the
amendment is approved.
MR. NOLLEDO: So, it will now be Section 3, Madam President.
MR. OPLE: It is placed before Section 3; hence it would be numbered Section
2.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, we agree to make it Section 2.
THE PRESIDENT: Who is the next proponent?
MR. RAMA: Commissioner Maambong has an amendment.
MR. NOLLEDO: Commissioner Maambongs amendment will be on Section 4
now. Section 3 has become Section 4, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Do we have copies now?
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong may proceed.
MR. MAAMBONG: The amendments which are being proposed by this
Representation, Commissioners Bengzon, Ople, Natividad, de los Reyes and
Colayco in Section
3, which is now Section 4, consist of the following: Before the sentence,
insert the word EXISTING, then delete the first part of the sentence which
reads:
The local government code may provide that; then after the word cities,
delete the word as and substitute the words AND THOSE; and after the
word
standards, insert the phrase ESTABLISHED BY LAW.
In the second sentence, delete the words a city and insert COMPONENT
CITIES; then after the word within, substitute the article A for the word
the;
after the words vote for, delete the; after the word officials, insert a
comma (,) and the phrase UNLESS THEIR RESPECTIVE CHARTERS PROVIDE
OTHERWISE; and after that, insert a new sentence which is indicated in our
formulation. The whole Section 4 would now read: EXISTING highly
urbanized
cities, AND THOSE determined by reasonable standards ESTABLISHED BY
LAW, shall be independent of the province. However, the voters of
COMPONENT CITIES
within A province shall not be deprived of their right to vote for elective
provincial officials, UNLESS THEIR RESPECTIVE CHARTERS PROVIDE
OTHERWISE.
The second paragraph, which is a new one, reads: THE ELECTORATE OF
HIGHLY URBANIZED CITIES SHALL NOT VOTE IN THE ELECTION FOR
PROVINCIAL OFFICIALS OF THE
PROVINCE IN WHICH IT IS LOCATED: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT NO
COMPONENT CITY SHALL BE DECLARED OR BE ENTITLED TO A HIGHLY
URBANIZED CITY STATUS WITHIN NINETY
DAYS PRIOR TO ANY ELECTION.
We respectfully present this to the Committee, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Will this be Section 4?
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes, Madam President.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: Will Commissioner Maambong yield to just one question? I
just want to be enlightened as to the distinction between highly urbanized
cities
and component cities. Will the Commissioner please tell me the precise
distinction between the two?
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes. The present Local Government Code, specifically under
Section 165 thereof, classifies cities into component or highly urbanized.
Section
165 provides:
Cities Classified. A city may either be component or highly urbanized.
Highly urbanized cities, as hereinafter provided, shall be independent of the
province.
I understand that as of this moment, there are some 13 highly urbanized
cities in the whole country. And in highly urbanized cities so organized, their
voters are not allowed to vote in the election of provincial officials in the
province where the city is situated. This question was raised before the
Supreme Court in the case of Ceniza vs. COMELEC . The position of the
petitioner was that the voters of highly urbanized cities should be allowed to
vote
for their elective provincial officials otherwise this will violate the principle of
republicanism. But in resolving the issue, the Supreme Court said that
whether the prohibition imposed on voters of highly urbanized cities from
voting in provincial elections subverts the principle of republicanism by
depriving them of the right to participate in governmental exercise of
suffrage, still there is no violation of the principle because provinces have no
jurisdiction over highly urbanized cities. It is for this reason that the
configuration which we, together with Commissioner Bengzon and others,
are
presenting is to the effect that voters of highly urbanized cities should not be
allowed to vote for the election of provincial officials.
BISHOP BACANI: May I know who determines that a particular city will be
classified as a highly urbanized city or just as a component city? Is it the
charter itself of the city or is it through some other legislative enactment?
MR. MAAMBONG: There are criteria specifically indicated in the Local
Government Code. It is indicated in Section 167, and I will read so that it will
be
very clear:
Criteria for elevation of a component city to a highly urbanized city A
component city may become a highly urbanized city if it meets the criteria
specified in the preceding section.
Section 166 says:
Highly Urbanized Cities.
(1) Cities with a minimum population of 150,000 as certified by the National
Census and Statistics Office, and with the latest annual income of at least
P30 million as certified by the Minister of Finance, shall be classified as highly
urbanized cities.
(2) Cities which do not meet the above requirements shall be considered
component cities of the province in which they are geographically located. If
the
component city is located within the boundaries of two or more provinces,
said city shall be considered a component of the province of which it used to
be
a municipality.
Committee on Local Governments will note that the said provisions have not
been fully
implemented.
When I was a member of the Provincial Board of Cebu, we never approved
ordinances of component cities because at that moment, the provisions of
the Local
Government Code were not fully in effect.
MR. TREAS: Is it not a fact that most of the inhabitants especially in small
cities have properties or interest in the Province?
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes, that is true.
MR. TREAS: Following that admission, is it not more logical for the residents
of the city to be allowed to vote for the officials of the province?
MR. MAAMBONG: It would be a bit logical because if we allow the voters of
highly urbanized cities to vote for provincial officials, then it goes without
saying that residents of the province should be allowed to vote for the
election of city officials. It would not look good because at present, these
people
who are voters in the province are not really allowed to vote in the election
of city officials.
MR. TREAS: The Commissioner mentioned as a basis for his argument the
case of Ceniza vs. Commission on Elections; that is, Vol. 95, SCRA.
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes.
MR. TREAS: Is it not a fact that that case was decided on the basis of Batas
Pambansa Blg. 51 providing local elections for January of 1980?
MR. MAAMBONG: That is correct.
MR. TREAS: Therefore, it does not necessarily follow that if in our present
Constitution we allow the residents of the city within a province to vote, it
will be contrary to this particular jurisprudence that the Commissioner has
cited?
MR. MAAMBONG: Let me put it this way. The Commissioner was referring to
Batas Pambansa Blg. 51. But the Commissioner should pay attention to the
provisions
of the 1973 Constitution itself.
MR. TREAS: Yes.
MR. MAAMBONG: Article XI, Section 4 (1) of the 1973 Constitution provides:
. . . provinces with respect to component cities and municipalities, and cities
and municipalities with respect to component barrios, shall ensure that the
acts of their component units are within the scope of their assigned powers
and functions. Highly urbanized cities, as determined by standards
established
in the local government code, shall be independent of the province.
The keywords to the whole thing under the 1973 Constitution are the words
shall be independent of the province. This phrase has been repeated
several
times in Sections 15 and 165 of the Local Government Code to the extent
that this provision in the 1973 Constitution and the provisions of Sections 15
and
165 of the Local Government Code actually jibe with the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Ceniza vs. COMELEC.
MR. TREAS: Precisely, those articles or provisions were mentioned, first,
because of the existence of Section 4 (1), Article XI of the 1973 Constitution
and Batas Pambansa Blg. 51. Am I right?
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes.
MR. TREAS: My last question is: Would it not be fair for the inhabitants or
residents of a city, especially a small city, to allow them to vote for the
province since they have already been voting for the provincial officials for
many years?
MR. MAAMBONG: In the case of highly urbanized cities, considering that the
province itself has no more supervisory jurisdiction over them or there is no
more umbilical cord connecting the highly urbanized city and the province, in
contradistinction to component cities, I feel that it is only logical that
the voters of a highly urbanized city should not be allowed to vote for the
election of provincial elective officials and vice-versa.
MR. TREAS: But a city, whether highly urbanized or not, has its own organic
act.
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes. All of them are covered by charters or special laws.
MR. TREAS: And those should govern.
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes, those should govern.
MR. TREAS: Thank you.
permission of
the Chair, I would like to turn over the lectern to Commissioner Bengzon.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
FR. BERNAS: But we are talking here of component cities; we are not talking
about highly urbanized cities. Besides, the very concept of component cities
is
that they still form part of the province although juridically distinct, and are
still subject to the jurisdiction of the province. If they are subject to
the jurisdiction of the province, then they should have a say on who should
govern the province.
MR. BENGZON: No, but there are component cities which are independent of
the province by the very nature of their charter. They elect their own mayors
and
city officials, and the province does not really have anything to do with them.
But they are not qualified to become highly urbanized, precisely because
they are unable to meet the standards.
FR. BERNAS: Then I would have a quarrel with the word component,
because if they are totally independent of the province, then they are not
component
cities. Component really has reference to the relationship to the province.
MR. BENGZON: They are component in the sense that they are part or
geographically part of the province.
FR. BERNAS: No, I think it is because they are juridically part of the province.
MR. BENGZON: Then there is a difference of opinion on the definition of
component. For example, in my Province of Pangasinan, we have two
cities, San
Carlos City and Dagupan City, whose charters specifically prohibit the voters
from electing provincial officials because these two cities could dominate
the provincial seats from governor all the way down. Residents of these two
cities could combine and would have a very undue advantage of dominating
the
elections for the seats in the provincial government. However, they are not
qualified to become highly urbanized and, therefore, in their charters it is so
stated that they cannot vote for provincial officials.
So they are at that particular level, and this is what I mean when I insist on
inserting this clause: UNLESS THEIR RESPECTIVE CHARTERS PROVIDE
OTHERWISE.
Conversely speaking, in the case of San Jose City in Nueva Ecija which is a
component city, it is a small city and yet it is a city, and it is within the
jurisdiction of the Province.
FR. BERNAS: Do I take it therefore that there are actually three kinds of cities
now, not just highly urbanized cities and component cities, but we also
have highly urbanized cities, component cities which are under the
jurisdiction of the province and nonhighly urbanized cities which are not
component
cities?
MR. BENGZON: It comes out to that because these highly urbanized cities
just came later on. Actually, there were really two kinds of cities before the
component cities and those cities whose charters prohibit their voters from
voting for provincial elective officials. This term highly urbanized cities
just came in lately within the last twenty years.
FR. BERNAS: I quite realize that there is a variety in the provisions of the
various charters of the cities, but even before we started talking about
highly urbanized cities, there were differences in these charters as to
whether or not they provide that residents of a city could vote in a province.
That
is a fact.
MR. BENGZON: Yes.
FR. BERNAS: What I am trying to say is that perhaps we should try to make
uniform rules for these nonhighly urbanized cities. In all fairness, because
they
are subject to the jurisdiction of the province they should have a say on who
should rule the province, otherwise we will have to face the problem of equal
protection. I quite realize that the Ceniza case faced the issue of equal
protection but in a very unconvincing way, I must say.
MR. BENGZON: Yes, but then if we are going to eliminate this clause which I
am talking about, we will give way to an anomalous situation where
residents of
these big cities which, under definition, are still not qualified as highly
urbanized will be able to dominate the provincial seats. Perhaps, we could
keep
these three categories and face the facts and recognize that until such time
as these cities whose charters prohibit them from voting for the provincial
elective officials shall be qualified to become highly urbanized cities and,
therefore, become totally independent, then they should remain as such
because
these cities by their very charters are also independent of the province, like
Dagupan, for example.
FR. BERNAS: I would go along for a uniform classification where we have
highly urbanized cities which are independent of the province and, therefore,
do
not vote in the province; nonhighly urbanized cities independent of the
province by reason of their charters; and then component cities.
MR. BENGZON: Yes. So, with that concept, I would be willing to reword
Section 4.
FR. BERNAS: In other words, component cities, precisely because they are
component, should always have the right. And though not highly urbanized,
they are
independent cities, would they not be considered component anymore?
MR. BENGZON: I would be willing to go along with that concept, with that
interpretation and, therefore, let us craft it in such a way that there are really
three kinds of cities.
FR. BERNAS: I would go along with that, if that has to be the case but the
only thing I would be against is having a city that is under a province but
deprived of the right to vote for the officials of the province.
MR. BENGZON: And is not independent.
FR. BERNAS: And is not independent.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Davide be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: My question will be propounded to the main proponent,
Commissioner Maambong.
THE PRESIDENT: Please proceed.
MR. DAVIDE: Will Commissioner Maambong agree with me that in the
exercise of its broad and plenary powers in enacting a Local Government
Code, Congress
itself may provide for the manner of the election of the officials of local
government units and all other matters related to the relationship between
one
local unit and another local unit?
MR. DAVIDE: That is exactly the point. If we want to have logic, we should
leave it to the Local Government Code because it is only the Local
Government
Code that could probably harmonize. With the provision now, as the
proposed amendment is worded, there will be a lot of confusion. We will be
classifying
cities not only into two, but possibly three or four. In addition to what has
been admitted regarding the question of Commissioner Bernas, not only do
we
have a highly urbanized city, a component city, but we will also have a highly
urbanized city which is at the same time a component city, because
according
to the apportionment provided in Section 5 of the Article on the
Legislative/National Assembly, we actually increase the requirement of
population as one
of the bases for classifying a city into a highly urbanized city.
In addition to these, we might have a less urbanized city. Therefore, if we
have to harmonize everything or if we have to attain logic, we better delete
this particular section and leave it to the Local Government Code to provide
for the proper approach to this very illogical situation. Does not the
Commissioner believe so?
MR. MAAMBONG: I do not believe so. Let me give my reason why we should
make a classification in the Constitution itself. The reason why there are
chartered
cities where voters are allowed to vote for provincial elective officials, and
there are chartered cities where voters are not allowed to vote is that
before there were no guidelines provided in the Constitution. So what was
the result? We had served the Members of Congress who are politicians. If
there
is no guideline, politicians always try to protect their self-interest, and that is
why we do not have uniform charters of our cities.
If we do not provide certain forms of criteria, the same thing will happen
where a very small city will be granted or denied rights which are only proper
to be granted or denied a highly urbanized or a bigger city. Another point is,
this Article on Local Governments makes liberal use of the Local Government
Code. As I understood from the Chairman of the Committee, he said that
under the present configuration of the Transitory Provisions, all the laws are
supposed to be valid. In this Article, Section 11, for example, says
established in the Local Government Code. There are already criteria, so
why do we
have to disturb these? What could be our reason for disturbing these criteria?
MR. DAVIDE: There are several reasons why we must disturb the criteria. First
of all, the Local Government Code as presently worded does not actually vest
real autonomy on the local governmental units. The Commissioner will notice
in the provision of the Local Government Code that the local governmental
units
are all linked to the so-called national agencies having offices within the local
governmental units. So, in short, since the idea now is to provide for a
more decentralized government of the local governmental units and greater
local autonomy pursuant to the Padilla amendment, the entire Local
Government
Code as now existing needs reassessment, total review, total surgery, as a
matter of fact.
On the matter of existing charters of some cities which specifically provide
that the voters in that particular city cannot vote for elective provincial
officials, the determination thereof was based on a specific criteria then
existing at the time. It was the collective wisdom of the Congress to
determine
whether for a particular city to be granted a charter, it also provides for the
disenfranchisement of the voters of that city in the matter of the election
of the local provincial officials or otherwise.
But under the proposal of Commissioner Maambong to incorporate the
clause UNLESS THEIR RESPECTIVE CHARTERS PROVIDE OTHERWISE, we
are, in effect, making
it difficult or impossible for the succeeding Congress to even repeal or modify
the charters of existing cities where the voters are not allowed to vote
for provincial officials. This will be a class legislation of the highest order
because for these cities now where voters are not allowed to vote for the
provincial officials, the charters can no longer be repealed, modified or
amended by Congress because we are already putting it here. We are, in
effect,
institutionalizing the disenfranchisement of the voters of this particular city
from voting for the provincial officials pursuant to their charter, whereas
new cities will be created, with flexibility given to Congress. But I am more
concerned with the existing cities with such charters.
MR. OPLE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: May we invite the three Cebuanos on the floor who are apparently
exporting some of their problems to the Constitutional Commission so that
we can
understand the problem better and how these concepts apply to Cebu.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, I would say that the problem in Cebu has not
been taken into account in my interpellations. And that is the reason why I
propose to delete the section and leave it to the Local Government Code to
decide on harmonizing conflicting charters.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I would like to speak against the amendment of Commissioner
Maambong. The major premise, Madam President, is that this provision now
existing as
proposed in the Local Government Code is an anti-warlordism provision
that is a reality that we have to address. There are evils in this government
which
cannot be solved in the vacuum of theories and philosophical arguments. Let
us go into the history of these cities whose voters had been disenfranchised.
The history is this. All these cities were allowed to vote for their provincial
elective officials. Now, came the warlords, particularly during the time of
Mr. Marcos. Their ploy was this: They disallowed these centers of population
and centers of media and schools from voting because they could not
establish
their political fiefdoms if the city voters, who are more informed, were
allowed to vote. That is the history of all the cities whose voters had been
disenfranchised. It was at the behest of the warlords in order to entrench
themselves that they were disenfranchised. Reality and the fact shows that
they
could not establish and entrench themselves if the cities were allowed to
vote.
Now, the most powerful argument en contra was the one that was set forth
by Commissioners Bernas and Monsod. Why should the city voters be
allowed to vote
for their elective provincial officials when the province itself does not have
jurisdiction over the city? That is a beautiful, wonderful, theoretical,
constitutional argument an artful argument. But the fact is that the
election of warlord chieftains as heads of the province affects the lives of the
citizens in the cities. We all understand, Madam President, that the cities in
the provinces cover small areas. Although the cities are beyond the
jurisdiction of the province, when one is a resident of the city and wishes to
go out of that city, he is affected by the provincial government of the
warlords. For instance, there were people in the City of Cebu, particularly
NAMFREL members, who wanted to go to a certain town. But because the
warlord
had control over the province, they were terrorized; they could not get out of
the city; they could not enter certain towns. And yet, city voters families
live there; their interest and properties are there.
I am addressing a specific problem of the evil of warlords. The warlords
control the province because they disenfranchise the voters who cannot be
terrorized because they are better informed and are larger in number. This
will allow the warlords to thrive and to survive and terrorize the whole
province.
We are talking about the jurisdiction of the province. It is true the province
has no jurisdiction over the city nor the people in a city. But the seats of
government of the provinces are in the cities. When we allow the warlords to
win because they had gerrymandered these voters out of the provincial
election, they control even the cities to a certain extent that they bring their
goons into the cities and the peace and order condition there,
particularly cities which are the seats of provincial governments, is affected.
That is why the voters in the City of Cebu have been crying for and
demanding their right to vote so that they could have a say as to who are
going to be the heads of the province. This is because the provincial
government
or the officials of the province affect their lives. As a matter of fact, their
right to vote is affected also. And in the case of the last election, for
instance, we could not go to certain towns because the warlords had control
of the province and we could not campaign for our presidential candidate.
So, this is a very real problem that cannot be solved by just going into the
vacuum of constitutional or philosophical arguments. The main thrust of the
provision now is to try to solve this great evil of warlordism which has thrived
and is still existing up to this time.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: I really would have wanted to discuss this proposed
amendment without any reference to a particular province or a particular city
because we
are talking here of a constitutional provision. If we start relating a
constitutional provision, which is supposed to set up certain standards and
guidelines to particular problems, we are going to get lost.
The honorable Floor Leader talked of warlordism. I do not want to waste the
time of the Commission, Madam President, but may I just remind
Commissioner
Rama that during the time of Senator Sergio Osmea, Jr., he used the City of
Cebu to control the whole province. He ran for city mayor; after two years, he
ran for Congress; after two years, he ran for senator; then, he went back as
city mayor and assigned a vice-mayor. Why? The theory was this: Whoever
controls the City of Cebu controls the whole Province of Cebu. And now, the
present officer-in-charge, who has the namesake of former Senator Osmea,
Jr.,
I think, has the intention do the same thing control the City of Cebu so
that the Province of Cebu can be controlled. However, I would like to discuss
this provision not on those terms, Madam President. I would like to discuss
this in a very logical and dispassionate manner.
Commissioner Davide said that Congress can no longer revise charters of the
cities because we inserted here the clause UNLESS THEIR RESPECTIVE
CHARTERS
PROVIDE OTHERWISE. I think we are reading different laws on statutory
construction. Congress can always revise laws, whether it is a charter a
resolution,
an ordinance or whatever. As long as it is a law, it can be revised, amended,
repealed by Congress. And so, there is no fear. Commissioner Davide also
mentioned the charters of different cities. I will repeat my argument here.
The reason why the charters of different cities have different provisions is
precisely that there were no criteria or standards set in the 1935
Constitution. We already started this in 1973. It is already incorporated in the
Local
Government Code. Why do we not leave it at that, Madam President?
MR. RAMA: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Tingson be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tingson is recognized
MR. RAMA: Madam President, just one statement. Could Commissioner
Tingson allow me just one statement?
It was mentioned here by Commissioner Maambong that Sergio Osmea, Jr.
abused or took advantage of the situation then, where the city voters were
allowed
to vote. But it must be realized, Madam President. that precisely, thanks to
the voters in the City of Cebu, Sergio Osmea, Jr. was able to end a reign of
terror at that time. Now, if the City of Cebu voters were not allowed to vote,
he could not have ended a reign of terror in 1949 or 1950. That was the
reason why the Cebu voters would like to vote, so that they would fight the
terrorists in the province.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, warlordism can be discussed from the
standpoint of the person who is accused of being a warlord. I served under
Senator
Osmea. I was one of his campaign managers way back. I have nothing
against him. He was one of the heroes of our country, but let us look at it in
this
manner. When he was holding on to the reins of power in the City of Cebu, he
had control of the Province of Cebu. He dictated everything. He ran for
mayor;
he ran for Congress, went back to being mayor, became senator, came back
as mayor, why? It was because the power situs was in the City of Cebu. Now,
if we
are talking of warlordism from the side of the Province of Cebu, the same
argument can be used; but I will not go on with this, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Let us listen to Commissioner Tingson.
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, I hate to mention this but these fellow
Cebuano Commissioners are exactly and specifically expressing the
predicament in
which we find ourselves in Negros Occidental.
Madam President, in that small Province of Negros Occidental, we have San
Carlos City, Talisay City, Silay City, Bago City, Bacolod City and La Carlota
City. If we eliminate all these people and do not allow them to select the
governor, who will be voting for the governor? I mean, literally, nobody.
Another interesting thing is, Madam President, the lives of these people in
these cities are so intertwined with the whole province that it is almost
ridiculous not to allow these people to vote for the person who will be ruling
their lives. I hate to mention Negros and the local political situation we
have there. That is why sometimes I think I am in favor of the amendment of
Commissioner Davide to delete Section 4 and then just give it to the local
charter and let the local assembly decide on it.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. MAAMBONG: I hate to interrupt, Madam President, and forgive me,
Commissioner Tingson, I think the Gentleman was following very well the
discussion. We
were talking about highly urbanized cities and component cities. We are not
going to disenfranchise the component cities in his province because,
precisely, they are component cities. If the component cities will be
disenfranchised, there will be nobody to vote for the governors the
Gentleman is
correct there.
But we are talking here of two different things. We are talking about
classifying cities into component cities and highly urbanized cities.
urbanized
cities aside from the provisions on income level and population level. So, I
find no fundamental difference between component cities and highly
urbanized
cities aside from the fact that these cities are unalterably located in the
provinces and their affairs are interlinked with each other, so much so that
the need for coordination on essential services like peace and order, urban
and rural planning, is irresistible.
Thank you, Madam President.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: Before we vote, may I ask whether we are going to vote on
the entire Section 3, the two paragraphs of the suggested amendment; and,
second,
whether when we vote, we vote with an understanding that the amendments
suggested by Commissioner Bernas are already included.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you for the reminder, Commissioner Bacani. My
coproponent, Commissioner Bengzon, has just given me a reformulation in
order that the
problem contemplated by Commissioner Bernas will be solved. And in the
draft amendment that we have presented to the Committee, we would like to
propose
the following: on the second line of Section 3, after the word cities, insert
the words AS WELL AS THOSE CITIES WHOSE CHARTERS PROHIBIT ITS
VOTERS FROM
VOTING FOR PROVINCIAL ELECTIVE OFFICIALS, to be followed by a comma
(,).
MR. NOLLEDO: What draft is the Gentleman using?
MR. MAAMBONG: The one I presented to the Committee. Let me repeat,
Madam President: EXISTING HIGHLY URBANIZED CITIES AS WELL AS THOSE
CITIES WHOSE CHARTERS
PROHIBIT ITS VOTERS FROM VOTING FOR PROVINCIAL ELECTIVE OFFICIALS,
AND THOSE DETERMINED BY REASONABLE STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY
LAW SHALL BE INDEPENDENT OF
THE PROVINCE. HOWEVER, THE VOTERS OF COMPONENT CITIES WITHIN A
that he has in mind so that that would be voted on. So, the first issue is
whether or not we are going to delete Section 3, including the proposed
amendments.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: What does Commissioner Davide say?
MR. DAVIDE: I agree that the deletion is an anterior amendment and I seek
for the deletion of the original Section 3, now Section 4, for the reason that I
had respectfully submitted, to the Local Government Code in the light of
what is provided for in Section 2, as follows:
The Congress shall enact a local government code which shall provide for a
more responsive and accountable local government structure instituted
through a
system of decentralization with effective mechanism, recall, initiative, and
referendum, allocate among the different local government units their
powers,
responsibilities and resources and provide for the qualifications, election,
appointment and removal, term, salaries, powers and functions, and duties
of
local officials, and all other matters relating to the organization and operation
of the local units.
The provision is broad enough to allow Congress to provide that highly
urbanized cities shall be independent of the province. As a matter of fact, in
the
proposed Section 4, the clause The Local Government Code may provide is
directory in character. This means to say that we concede to the plenary
authority of the Congress to provide in the Local Government Code
everything related to decentralization and local autonomy and their
respective relation,
not only with the different local units but also of its inhabitants with the other
units, for instance, cities in respect to the province. In short,
Section 3 is a superfluity. It is not necessary. So, my proposal is to delete the
whole of Section 3 or 4.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: I am, of course, against the deletion because as I have
mentioned earlier, it is necessary that the Constitution should provide a
classification of cities into highly urbanized cities and component cities;
otherwise, if we rely solely on the prerogative of Congress, what happened in
the past, Madam President, will happen again. If there is a politician who is
strong enough, he will sway Congress one way or another to allow one city to
vote, while another politician would not allow another city to vote, depending
on the winds of politics. So, I feel and I would agree with the statement
of Commissioner Bernas that there should be some form of classification,
but it should be limited to two classifications highly urbanized cities and
component cities.
I oppose the motion to delete, Madam President.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, may I ask a question?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: Commissioner Davides proposal to delete the proposed
Section 4, if it is carried out, means that all those cities whose charters
prohibit the
voters from voting for provincial elective officials and charters that allow
their city voters to vote for provincial elective officials will remain as
they are. Is this correct?
MR. DAVIDE: They will continue to do so until a new Local Government Code
shall have been enacted or until Congress shall have repealed these
particular
charters.
MR. BENGZON: Thank you.
MR. NOLLEDO: The Committee regrets that it cannot accept the amendment.
We prefer that it be submitted to the floor.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: We are now ready to vote on the proposed amendment of
Commissioner Davide.
As many as are in favor of the proposed amendment of Commissioner
Davide that the proposed Section 4 now be deleted, please raise their hand.
(Few Members
raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised
their hand.)
The results show 7 votes in favor and 12 against; the amendment is lost.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, it is all right with me, but I was thinking
that the phrase which Commissioner Bengzon proposes to insert should be
after
the word LAW in the third sentence, so it will read: Highly urbanized cities
as determined by LAW, AS WELL AS THOSE CITIES WHOSE CHARTERS
PROHIBIT ITS
VOTERS FROM VOTING FOR PROVINCIAL ELECTIVE OFFICIALS, shall be
independent of the province.
MR. BENGZON: I accept.
MR. MAAMBONG: I accept the amendment, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is the amendment accepted by the Committee?
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, the Committee regrets that it cannot
accept the amendment, because this will prohibit Congress from amending
the charter when
exigencies so demand.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other comment?
FR. BERNAS: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bernas is recognized.
FR. BERNAS: May I offer a different interpretation? This amendment does not
fossilize the charters. For as long as the charters are just charters, they are
amendable. The moment, therefore, that the voters are given the right to
vote in a province, then their cities become component cities. Their cities
become
component cities or these could graduate into becoming highly urbanized
cities. They have two options Congress can either make their cities highly
urbanized cities or component cities.
MR. BENGZON: That is right, Madam President. We do not fossilize the
charter. May we now ask for a vote?
MR. RODRIGO: Before voting, may I have one question?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: How about the present highly urbanized cities? Let us say that
Congress decides to change the definition of highly urbanized cities, may
Congress enact a law to the effect that an existing urbanized city no longer is
considered an urbanized city?
In the Committee draft, these were combined to state that the President shall
have general supervision over all local governments to insure that laws are
faithfully executed, and the amendment of Commissioner Bernas, as
accepted by the Committee, has now dropped that second part. So, we will
only have the
power of general supervision over local governments.
MR. OPLE: Yes, I think the functions in the 1935 Constitution are subsumed in
the general phrase general supervision.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President, may I also observe that in that sentence read
by Commissioner Azcuna with respect to local governments under the 1935
Constitution, two powers are really mentioned there; the power of general
supervision of the President and, in effect, the power of control of the
legislature over the local government. That is why in the 1935 Constitution
the power of the President over local government is as may be provided by
law
because the power and control over local governments was completely in the
hands of the legislature.
However, with decentralization and local autonomy now, that complete
control of the legislature over local governments is broken.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: May I raise a point of clarification in connection with the
question of Commissioner Bengzon regarding the autonomous regions in
relation to
the power of general supervision of the President over local governments.
I notice that in the creation of the present regional governments in Regions
IX and XII, Section 35 of Presidential Decree No. 1618 provides that The
President shall have the power of general supervision and control over the
autonomous regions. My question is: Under the present thinking of the
Committee, this power of the President will be limited only to general
supervision, and this power of control is already taken out, am I correct?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, that is correct.
MR. MAAMBONG: I would also like to put on record Section 3 of Presidential
Decree No. 1618 again in relation to the regional governments, and it reads:
Within the framework of the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of
the Republic of the Philippines and its Constitution, internal autonomy shall
which
have already been distributed for Third Reading, we have a provision exactly
the same as this. Section 17 of the Article on the Executive reads:
The President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus
and offices. He shall exercise general supervision over all local governments
as
may be provided by law and shall take care that the laws be faithfully
executed.
So, there is a duplication. As Chairman of the Committee on Style, I would
like to know if we have to delete.
MR. OPLE: We must admit a bias in favor of keeping this provision in the
Article on Local Governments.
MR. RODRIGO: In the 1935 Constitution, this power of the President was also
in the Article on the Executive Department.
MR. NOLLEDO: In that case, Madam President, after our attention has been
called by Commissioner Rodrigo, I think the best way is to align this provision
with what has been approved on Third Reading.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: It is my submission that in the spirit of recognizing autonomous
regions which is a breakthrough it is a new provision in this new draft
Constitution the provision should be retained. It will better allow for a
more thorough consideration of the concept of autonomous regions in the
context
of the general supervisory powers of the President.
MR. RODRIGO: Section 17, under the Article on the Executive, makes a
distinction between the authority of the President over departments, bureaus
and
offices and his power over local governments. Let me read it again. Section
17. The President shall have control of all the executive departments,
bureaus
and offices. Then it makes a distinction: He shall exercise general
supervision over all local governments . . .
Commissioner Guingona is here and this is more his line because he is the
Chairman of the Committee on Sponsorship.
intention anymore. That is why in my earlier remarks I said that under the
1935
Constitution, the President had general supervision over local governments
and Congress had control.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair believes that whatever is provided for in that
Article on the Executive should be adjusted to what will be approved here
with
respect to local governments.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, that is correct.
THE PRESIDENT: In other words, this should govern the matter whatever is
decided on the Article on Local Governments. So, what is important is for us
to
decide about the extent of the power of the President over local
governments.
MR. RODRIGO: The only difference is that in the Article on the Executive,
there is the phrase, as may be provided by law. It states that the President
shall exercise general supervision over all local governments as may be
provided by law and shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed,
whereas
in this section we are dealing with now, under the Article on Local
Governments, Section 7 reads:
The President of the Philippines shall exercise general supervision over local
governments to ensure that laws are faithfully executed.
MS. AQUINO: That was deleted.
THE PRESIDENT: The proposed amendment is to eliminate that last clause
and put a period (.) after Local Governments.
MS. AQUINO: I was supportive of the motion to delete, and now I move for
the retention of this section in this Article, if it is the clear intention of the
Committee that in this provision, the contemplation is just to recognize the
mere power of oversight over an inferior body and does not exclude a
restraining authority over the supervised body. Do I understand the
Committee correctly?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes.
MS. AQUINO: In which case, it also excludes the power of the President to
suspend or remove public officials.
Constitution to see to it that laws are faithfully executed. This refers not only
to national laws but also to local laws.
I do not perceive any violation of the concept of decentralization that we
have accepted here, if we give to the President the power to see to it that
laws
are faithfully executed. The implication of the failure to give the President
that power would be the danger of creating an imperium in imperio where
we
could have a local official who refuses to implement or execute the laws
faithfully and the President unable to do anything about it.
So, I would not favor the dropping of the phrase but I would favor its
inclusion, as suggested by Commissioner Davide, in the Article on the
Executive.
Thank you.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Padilla is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: Commissioner Azcuna invited our attention to the 1935 or 1973
Constitution that there were two powers: one, general supervision; and two,
to
see to it that laws are faithfully executed. On the second sentence of this
provision under Section 17 of the Article on the Executive, we may omit the
phrase as may be provided by law, but I would prefer the text and shall
take care that all laws be faithfully executed instead of to ensure which is
the text in the draft of the Committee, because it seems that there are really
two powers not necessarily inclusive or exclusive of each other. So that
this proposed Section 7 should read: The President of the Philippines shall
exercise general supervision over local governments AND SHALL TAKE CARE
that
THE laws be faithfully executed. That simplifies the matter, I believe. So,
Section 17 of the Article on the Executive will just state as its first
sentence: The President shall have control of all the executive departments,
bureaus and offices. The next sentence should be transposed to be Section
7
of the Article on Local Governments with the elimination of the phrase as
may be provided by law. Does the Committee look upon this suggestion
with
favor?
MR. NOLLEDO: We sympathize with the provision but we already agreed with
the Bernas amendment. The Committee believes that the Bernas
amendment is good
enough without prejudice to the amendment suggested by Commissioner
Davide because I think the intention even of the 1935 Constitution is really
to
separate the second function. They were put in only in one sentence. The
second function is implementing the presidential oath, that the President
shall
execute all the laws of the land. So, I think the Davide suggestion is welltaken.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bernas is recognized.
FR. BERNAS: I would have no objection to the Davide amendment, and also
to incorporating the recommendation of Commissioner Padilla to put that in
the
Article on the Executive. But if we do that, I would suggest that we put in
Section 7 of the Article on Local Governments the specification of the
authority of local governments over interior local governments, the hierarchy.
I would suggest that if we take this out and put it in the Article on the
Executive, then we put in its place the old section from Section 4 (1), Article
XI of the 1973 Constitution which states:
Provinces with respect to component cities and municipalities, and cities and
municipalities with respect to component barrios, shall ensure that the acts
of their component units are within the scope of their assigned powers and
functions.
It just clarifies things and establishes this clear hierarchy.
MR. NOLLEDO: Is the Gentleman presenting that as an amendment?
FR. BERNAS: Yes.
MR. NOLLEDO: The Committee accepts the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: In other words, the whole of Section 4, Article XI of the 1973
Constitution?
FR. BERNAS: No, only the first sentence of Section 4 (1) because the second
sentence is already taken care of somewhere else, I think.
THE PRESIDENT: That is right. This will be in lieu of Section 7, as worded
now?
FR. BERNAS: We move Section 7 to the Article on the Executive. Then in lieu
of the present Section 7, we put the first sentence of Section 4 (1) of the
1973 Constitution.
MR. AZCUNA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Azcuna is recognized.
MR. AZCUNA: May I just inquire as to the wording of the provision in the
Article on the Executive? Would it be worded as Section 7 as worded in the
Article
on Local Governments or as originally worded minus as determined by law
under Section 17 of the Article on the Executive? So, it will read: The
President shall have control of all the ministries and general supervision over
local governments and shall take care that laws are faithfully executed.
That will be the wording of Section 17.
FR. BERNAS: I have no serious conceptual difficulty with that except that for
me, it is tautological.
MR. AZCUNA: I feel that the general supervision power should be separated
from the power to take care that the laws are faithfully executed rather than
merging the two. As worded in Section 17 of the Article on the Executive, it is
separated. We just delete the words as determined by law to remove
control by the legislature over local governments.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, in line with this, I thought the suggested
formulation of Section 17 and I do not know if this tallies with the thinking
of Commissioner Azcuna would be: The President shall have control of all
the executive departments, bureaus, and offices and shall take care that
laws
be faithfully executed. I understand that this exercise of general supervision
over all local governments is supposed to be transposed to the Article on
Local Governments or is it the reverse?
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Is the Committee ready to give any reaction? The proposal
is to transfer Section 7 to the Article on the Executive, and in lieu thereof, to
have this first sentence of Section 4 (1), Article XI of the 1973 Constitution in
the Article on Local Governments. Is that acceptable to the Committee?
MR. NOLLEDO: We leave it to the body to decide, Madam President, because
as far as we are concerned, we agree with Commissioner Aquino that there
should be
MR. NOLLEDO: I remember, Madam President, that there was a motion filed
by Commissioner Quesada that the provisions of the Article on the Executive
should
yield to what we should agree upon here with respect to the report of the
Committee on Local Governments. We are now deciding what should be
agreed upon by
us with respect to the power of general supervision of the President over
local governments.
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Guingona is recognized.
MR. GUINGONA: Perhaps, it would be best for us to refer to the record rather
than to our memory whether such a consensus was reached by this body.
The best
source of information would be the record, and I would submit that until we
have verified from the record, we should not act on this matter.
THE PRESIDENT: But the Chair believes that the body can now decide where
the provision will be best and appropriate: should it be in the Article on Local
Governments or should it be in the Article on the Executive? I think we can
decide on it now.
MR. GUINGONA: I thought we were relying on whether there was that
consensus. In view of the statement of the Chair, I respectfully submit.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, I think it is important that the Committee
call the attention of the Members of the Constitutional Commission that
there is
also a similar provision on autonomous regions in Section 3, lines 29 to 31,
page 3 of Resolution No. 470, the consolidated report of the Committee on
Local Governments, which reads:
The President of the Philippines shall exercise general supervision over
autonomous regions to ensure that laws are faithfully executed.
I would like that our decision should also take into account another similar
provision appearing with respect to autonomous regions.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, if the Bernas amendment as modified by the
Committee would be voted upon, I would make a reservation to introduce at
the
proper time the clause to ensure that laws are faithfully executed in the
Article on the Executive more particularly to Section 17 thereof.
THE PRESIDENT: So, the Chair believes that what is before the Body now is
the proposed amendment of Commissioner Bernas which has not been
withdrawn. I
believe that is in Section 7: The President of the Philippines shall exercise
general supervision over LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.
MR. NOLLEDO: Then I will continue, Madam President: PROVINCES WITH
RESPECT TO COMPONENT CITIES AND MUNICIPALITIES, AND CITIES AND
MUNICIPALITIES WITH
RESPECT TO COMPONENT BARANGAYS SHALL ENSURE THAT THE ACTS OF
THEIR COMPONENT UNITS ARE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THEIR ASSIGNED
POWERS AND FUNCTIONS.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that acceptable to Commissioner Bernas?
FR. BERNAS: Yes, Madam President.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: I would like to call the attention of the Committee that the
second sentence just read was actually lumped together with Section 4 (2) of
the
1973 Constitution, which starts with: Local government units may group
themselves . . . If we include that as a second sentence of Section 7, it has
absolutely no relation at all to the power of general supervision of the
President over local governments, whereas the original formulation in the
1973
Constitution referred to states:
SECTION 4 (1) Provinces with respect to component cities and
municipalities . . .
(2) Local government units may group themselves, or consolidate or
coordinate their efforts, services . . .
I am thinking that if we have to add that provision at all, we should add it to
the next section in order that it has relation to each other, because that
Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is
approved.
MR. NOLLEDO: Section 9, Madam President, which was formerly Section 6,
reads:
Local government units may group themselves, consolidate or coordinate
their efforts, services, and resources for purposes commonly beneficial to
them.
This is a reproduction of the identical provision in the 1973 Constitution,
Section 9.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: I move to amend this section by adding after the word them
the words IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE
MAJORITY OF THE
PEOPLE IN A PLEBISCITE CALLED FOR THAT PURPOSE which is in accordance
with the old Section 11 now being renumbered as Section 14.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the Commissioner please restate her amendment.
MS. AQUINO: After the word them, include the phrase IN ACCORDANCE
WITH LAW AND SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY A MAJORITY OF THE VOTES CAST
IN A PLEBISCITE, IN
THE POLITICAL UNIT OR UNITS DIRECTLY AFFECTED.
MR. NOLLEDO: So, the provision will read as follows: Local government units
may group themselves, consolidate or coordinate their efforts, services and
resources for purposes commonly beneficial to them IN ACCORDANCE WITH
LAW AND WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE MAJORITY OF THE VOTERS IN THE
POLITICAL UNITS
AFFECTED.
MS. AQUINO: MAJORITY OF THE VOTES CAST IN A PLEBISCITE, IN THE
POLITICAL UNIT OR UNITS DIRECTLY AFFECTED.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Will the proponent yield to a question or two?
MS. AQUINO: Yes, gladly.
local
governments will have to wait for legislation to be passed before they can
even begin to experiment on these things.
MS. AQUINO: Actually, this Representation contemplates it in the nature of a
general enabling act, for the creation of some kind of a developmental
authority or an amalgam of local governments to precisely undertake the
purposes provided for in what is now Section 9.
FR. BERNAS: But would it not be better for us to wait a little bit after some
experimentation on this before trying to formulate some kind of enabling
act?
There is nothing to prevent the legislature later on from formulating a law
governing this. Right now, it would seem to me to better leave them free to
seek ways of doing this unhampered by preexisting legislation.
THE PRESIDENT: What does Commissioner Aquino say?
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, I would insist on my amendment to insert in
accordance with law because whether we like it or not, in political dynamics
any
form of consolidation, amalgamation or aggroupment assumes a political
color which can create a bailiwick for a particular persuasion or particular
political party. The intention, therefore, of the amendment is to confine it
within the modicum of statutory restraints in the nature of a general enabling
act.
MR. OPLE: Madam President.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rosario Braid is recognized.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Will Commissioner Aquino yield to a clarificatory
question?
Since the Commissioner mentioned a regional development authority, will
the regional development council found in Section 10 be an appropriate
mechanism?
MS. AQUINO: No, not necessarily. I just mentioned the term developmental
authority at the instance of the suggestion of some of those who appeared
in the
Legislative Committee meeting; it was just a nomenclature. It is not
necessarily intended to define the powers.
other way, not in any way limited to a quasi-public corporation; they may
form an association which may be registerable other than a quasi-public
corporation for the same purpose.
MS. AQUINO: That would have to be covered precisely by the general
enabling act being contemplated in this amendment.
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes, but I was just thinking that if we really define it as a
quasi-public corporation and nothing else that may be limiting to Congress.
MS. AQUINO: But that is not simply possible.
MR. MAAMBONG: So, the answer is, it does not have to be a quasi-public
corporation. It could be another form, another vehicle for this purpose.
MS. AQUINO: Yes.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President, did I hear the proponent say that in the
absence of such an enabling law, the municipalities will not be able to do
anything?
MS. AQUINO: Yes, Madam President. On the one hand, it could be perceived
the way the Commissioner said it. It could stifle initiative. On the other hand,
in the context of Commissioner Oples comment, this could precisely vest
legal fiat on any effort or initiative that would be set in this trend.
FR. BERNAS: But if we put in accordance with law, would the Commissioner
at least agree to the interpretation that even before that law is passed, they
may begin a cooperative effort?
MS. AQUINO: I am concerned about a political adventure which would
assume a partisan political color. I am very aware of the experience of the
creation of
the Metro Manila Commission. It may be an overreaction, but if we could
make it clear for purposes of interpretation that this is not essentially a
self-executing provision, however, it does not intend to delimit or inhibit
initiatives that would lead to the creation of amalgam or consolidated bodies,
then I would concede to that kind of an interpretation.
MR. RAMA: The body is ready to vote, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Will Commissioner Aquino restate her amendment?
MR. NOLLEDO: I will read on behalf of Commissioner Aquino.
As amended, Section 9 should now read. Local government units may group
themselves, consolidate or coordinate their efforts, services, and resources
for
purposes commonly beneficial to them IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: What is now the interpretation if this proposal is passed? Will
it not prohibit political units and municipalities from starting an initiative
on their own?
MS. AQUINO: Yes.
MR. BENGZON: According to the interpretation of Commissioner Bernas?
MS. AQUINO: According to the interpretation of Commissioner Bernas.
MR. BENGZON: So, that is the sense of the Commissioner, as read into the
record.
MS. AQUINO: I have conceded to that interpretation.
THE PRESIDENT: In other words IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW does not deter
them from exercising their initiative and grouping themselves, is that
correct?
MR. OPLE: Yes.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Committee accept the proposed amendment?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, the Committee accepts the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
amendment is approved.
MR. NOLLEDO: Shall we proceed to Section 10?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, please.
MR. NOLLEDO: Section 10 states:
MR. OPLE: The regions are not recognized in the enumeration of political
subdivisions. But does the Commissioner think that through the process of
strengthening regional planning and consultations, they might rise someday
to the level of a political subdivision?
MR. MONSOD: That is possible, Madam President, and the reason we have
some information on this is that there are several nongovernmental
organizations that
are discussing with the ministries their possible role in the future as
nongovernmental organizations. In the process, they are already
participating and
being consulted in this bottom-up process.
MR. OPLE: Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Foz is recognized.
MR. FOZ: I would like to ask a question or two of the proponent of the
amendment.
I notice that the word Congress under the Commissioners amendment has
been substituted by the word PRESIDENT in the style of the sentence.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, for the reason that when it comes to administrative
decentralization or the thrust of the proposal, it should really be a
presidential
function. In other words, we should give the President greater flexibility. If we
leave it to Congress, Congress may not provide it at all. That is why I
said in my proposal, among others, that we should change the word may
to SHALL.
MR. FOZ: Does the Gentleman not think that even without a provision, as the
Gentleman would amend it, the President has the power to create, by
executive
order, certain administrative bodies or executive bodies that would achieve
the purpose of the Gentlemans amendment?
MR. DAVIDE: It can be left to his discretion; but in line with the policy we are
adopting that is, greater local autonomy and broader administrative
decentralization of executive functions I would propose, as the Committee
itself had originally proposed, that that should be a mandate so it could
really be organized.
MR. FOZ: But per information given by Commissioner Monsod that such
things are now going on and in a more creative manner as a matter of
fact, he
in
most of these RDCs and municipal development councils, only the elite
participated. It was a government effort with very little private participation. I
think this is what has encouraged many members of the private sector to
organize. We are aware of certain regions like Negros which have active
private
development councils.
As a matter of fact, the present officer-in-charge in Negros is relying primarily
on the private development council as his main arm in going about his
planning in the government. The amendment that I would like to propose as
amendment to this provision reads: THE STATE SHALL FURTHER ENCOURAGE
THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT COUNCILS WHICH WILL
COOPERATE WITH THE REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT COUNCILS.
MR. DAVIDE: If this section will be approved, the President, in the exercise of
his discretion, would consider the inclusion in the development councils or
similar bodies members from nongovernmental organizations because it is
already included in my proposal. So, the private development council may
either be
represented in the council itself at the instance of the President. Besides, I
am sure that in the light of the answer given by Commissioner Monsod and
also in the light of the answer that we had given to the question of
Commissioner Nieva, all the sectors will be consulted by these development
councils.
The main problem is that under the Commissioners proposal, I understand
that in the Article on Social Justice, the role of peoples organizations has
been
recognized, and adequate consultative mechanisms have already been
provided for. So, they can complement each other.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: I think this amendment is made in the light of the
concept of subsidiarity or private initiative. Here, the initiative will come from
the private agencies rather than from the government taking the primary
responsibility in coordinating with the private sector.
I think the idea of more decentralization and less centralized planning,
lessening the role of NEDA and the government role in planning is to let the
private agencies be the main engine of growth in a worthwhile concept.
In the light of these and as we now can showcase our experiences of private
initiative in organizing itself for problem-solving in cooperation with the
regional development councils, I propose this amendment.
The concept is not for the RDCs to absorb private councils but for the latter
to organize themselves and to link their efforts with RDCs.
MR. DAVIDE: I would consider the very important provisions on peoples
organizations in the Article on Social Justice, which were originally Sections
19
and 20, the main proponent of which is Commissioner Garcia.
I take it to mean that these independent regional development councils, at
the instance of private initiative, can come in easily under what have been
approved originally as Sections 19 and 20 if I remember correctly in the
Article on Social Justice.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: That is true, but we would like to institutionalize these
private development councils so that they are able to work together with the
existing government RDCs.
MR. DAVIDE: As worded, all nongovernmental organizations are taken into
account in the proposal, not only that they can work side by side with, or
even be
members of the regional development councils or any other similar bodies.
But we will give the discretion to the President.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, may I just say that the manifestations of
Commissioner Rosario Braid are certainly meritorious, but she must also
remember
that there are other bodies like the peoples economic councils which are
also being organized.
So, there are many nongovernmental bodies that will play a part in this. We
need not focus on the private development councils because there are many
types
of nongovernmental organizations.
To constitutionalize private development councils individually rather than
subsumed under nongovernmental organizations would really veer away
from the
concept of the regional development councils, with private sector
participation because, after all, what is being talked about here are
government
expenditures, and the private sector even under our Constitution is free. It
has the initiative, and it has only a coordinative function with the
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (No Member raised his
hand.)
The results show 21 votes in favor and none against; the proposed
amendment is approved.
MR. DAVIDE: For the record, Madam President, the following are the
coauthors of the amendment: Commissioners Monsod, Bengzon and
Maambong.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that we proceed to Section 11.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, as far as Section 11 is concerned, I only
have one manifestation to make which I reserved when I presented the
amendment to
Section 1. On Section 11, the word barrio should be changed likewise to
BARANGAY.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Where is the word barrio?
MR. NOLLEDO: The Commissioner is referring to the old Section 11, which is
now Section 14.
MR. MAAMBONG: I was referring to the original draft. I am referring to Section
14 now.
THE PRESIDENT: May we inquire from the Chairman what is Section 11 now?
Is this the original section?
MR. NOLLEDO: Section 11, Madam President, reads: Each local government
unit shall have the power to create its own sources of revenues and to levy
taxes,
fees and charges subject to such guidelines as Congress may provide. A local
government unit shall likewise have the power to levy and collect charges or
contributions unique, distinct and exclusive to it.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: I have a proposal to reduce the original Sections 8, 9 and 10
which are now Sections 11, 12 and 13. The amendment reads: SEC. 11.
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT UNITS SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO CREATE ITS OWN
SOURCES OF REVENUES, AND TO LEVY, IMPOSE, AND COLLECT TAXES, FEES
AND CHARGES, SUBJECT TO THE
GUIDELINES AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED BY LAW BUT CONSISTENT WITH THE
BASIC POLICY OF AUTONOMY FOR SUCH UNITS, WHICH SHALL ACCRUE
EXCLUSIVELY TO SUCH UNITS.
SECTION 12. LOCAL GOVERNMENTS SHALL HAVE AN EQUITABLE AND JUST
SHARE, AS MAY BE DETERMINED BY LAW, IN THE NATIONAL TAXES, WHICH
SHALL BE PERIODICALLY AND
AUTOMATICALLY RELEASED TO THEM, AND IN TAXES, FEES AND CHARGES
IMPOSED AND COLLECTED FROM OR OTHER PROCEEDS OF THE
EXPLOITATION, EXPLORATION, UTILIZATION
AND DEVELOPMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE
AREAS.
MR. NOLLEDO: Therefore, the Gentleman deleted the second sentence of
now Section 11.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, for the reason that it is already included in the authority to
create its own sources of revenues, and to levy, impose and collect taxes,
fees and charges.
MR. NOLLEDO: The second sentence, Madam President, is not subject to the
guidelines as the Congress may provide. I find some superfluities with
respect to
the general rule on the levy of taxes, fees and charges. As far as I am
concerned, the provisions should be separated from each other in order to
recognize
the importance of each provision especially Section 13, which was based on
an Ople resolution.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, that is already included.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, the Committee would like to study the
amendment further.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, copies have already been distributed.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: So, the Committee is not ready to react on the amendment
this afternoon or does the Committee need time?
MR. DAVIDE: But before it is transposed, I request the deletion of the words
political unit or on line 8 so that the line will read: units directly
affected.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, I object to the deletion of the word
political. I can live with the deletion of unit or but not the word
political.
MR. DAVIDE: I agree, as modified. We retain political so it will only read
political units directly affected.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the proposed amendment of
Commissioner Davide? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is
approved.
Is there any objection to the transfer after Section 3? (Silence) The Chair
hears none; the amendment is approved.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Padilla is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: I am going back to Section 11, originally Section 8, with regard
to the power to levy taxes. I notice that the Committee changed the word
limitations as provided in Section 5 of the 1973 Constitution to
guidelines.
I suppose the proposed change is in line with more local autonomy. I am in
favor of more local autonomy but in considering or granting the power to tax,
some cases state that the power to tax includes the power to destroy. Does
not the Gentleman believe that in addition to guidelines, we should
reinstate
the word limitations because guidelines is sort of a prospective directive?
It does not give the Congress any power to revise or reverse some actions
that may be taken by the political units in the exercise of their power of
taxation. For example, there may be more taxes imposed by local units, and
the
Congress may not be able to prescribe certain reasonable limitations. The
Ministry of Finance may be against the imposition of certain taxes that may
be
considered inimical not only to the economic expansion of the region but
even to that of the national economy. The Congress, and even the executive,
will
have no authority or power to regulate nor limit this very extensive power of
taxation.
R.C.C. NO. 60
Tuesday, August 19, 1986
OPENING OF SESSION
At 9:52 a.m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia Muoz Palma, opened the
session.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is called to order.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please rise to sing the National Anthem.
Everybody rose to sing the National Anthem.
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please remain standing for the Prayer to be
led by the Honorable Alberto M.K. Jamir.
Everybody remained standing for the Prayer.
PRAYER
MR. JAMIR: Let us pray.
Merciful God, we approach the end of our pilgrimage in search of a
constitution which will embody the highest ideals and aspirations of our
people with
increasing unease. While we, all of us, are sincere in our efforts to apply the
proper solutions to the pressing problems of our country, we find ourselves
divided in the manner of solving them. There are those amongst us who
would channel our countrys course along lines that are in keeping with and
respectful of the rights of others. There are those, however, who prefer a
different path by dangling before our peoples eyes a hope for economic
emancipation without regard to its effects upon others.
In such a time as this, we implore Thy divine guidance that we may avoid
creating an unattainable Utopia which, in the end, will only disillusion our
people and thereby increase their discontentment. We beg of Thee to show
us the way so that no seed may find a place in the Constitution we are
making
which may one day be the cause of a fratricidal class struggle among our
countrymen, so that this beloved land may not be drenched with the blood
and tears
of its own children.
It is inevitable that one of these precepts would fail to find acceptance.
Should this come to pass, show us, O Lord, how to bear the resulting
disappointment in good grace. Keep us together in spite of our differences in
outlook, so that we can continue to fashion a constitution which will come
from Thy hands, through ours, that our people may have a vibrant and living
Present *
Natividad
Present *
Alonto
Present *
Nieva
Present
Aquino
Present
Nolledo
Present
Azcuna
Present *
Ople
Present *
Bacani
Present *
Padilla
Present
Bengzon
Present *
Quesada
Present
Bennagen
Present *
Rama
Present
Bernas
Present
Regalado
Present
Rosario Braid
Present
Reyes de los
Present
Brocka
Absent
Rigos
Present
Calderon
Present
Rodrigo
Present
Castro de
Present
Romulo
Present
Colayco
Present
Rosales
Present
Concepcion
Present
Sarmiento
Present
Davide
Present
Suarez
Present
Foz
Present
Sumulong
Present
Garcia
Present
Tadeo
Present
Gascon
Absent
Tan
Present
Guingona
Present *
Tingson
Present
Jamir
Present
Treas
Absent
Laurel
Present
Uka
Present
Lerum
Present *
Villacorta
Present *
Maambong
Present *
Villegas
Present
Monsod
Present
and XII; and Resolution No. 04-86 urging inclusion in the Constitution of a
provision recognizing Arabic as one of the basic Filipino languages in
Southern Philippines and authorizing and encouraging the teaching thereof in
both
public and private schools and the same to be regulated by the national
government
(Communication No. 581 Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Steering Committee.
COMMITTEE REPORT
Committee Report No. 39 on Proposed Resolution No. 542, prepared jointly
by the Committee on Social Justice and Committee on Human Resources,
entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A SEPARATE
ARTICLE ON FAMILY RIGHTS,
recommending its approval in substitution of Proposed Resolution No. 272.
Sponsored by Hon. Nieva, Villacorta, Gascon, Uka, Tadeo, Garcia, Lerum, Tan,
Bennagen, Bengzon, Jr., Rodrigo, Guingona, Rigos, Rosario Braid and Treas.
To the Steering Committee.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 470
(Article on Local Governments)
Continuation
PERIOD OF AMENDMENTS
MR. RAMA: I move that we continue the consideration of Proposed Resolution
No. 470 on the Article on Local Governments.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
motion is approved.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, Commissioner Padilla would like to add the
words AND LIMITATIONS to guidelines.
MR. PADILLA: Yes, Madam President, I made the observation that in the
previous Constitutions, the word limitations is used. However, the word
limitations was substituted in the committee report by the word
guidelines. I suggested that we add after the word guidelines the words
AND
LIMITATIONS. I stated that while we agree to give political subdivisions local
autonomy and, perhaps, increase the same, we must be careful that the
power
to tax by local governments may not be without limitation because it is said
that the power to tax may include the power to destroy. Local autonomy is
intended for the purpose of giving local subdivisions more authority to
promote general welfare and to solve their peculiar problems by allowing
them
discretion and even jurisdiction to adopt measures for the common good
within their territorial jurisdictions, but an unlimited jurisdiction or unlimited
power of taxation without limitations by Congress may be dangerous. It may
not foment or promote the common weal. It may be resorted to by some
local
executives as an arbitrary means to exact more contributions by way of
levies, taxes, fees, and others to the detriment of the general public. Hence, I
have no objection to the word guidelines but I would prefer that we retain
the word LIMITATIONS also.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, the Committee deeply regrets that it
cannot accept the amendment of the honorable Vice-President for the
following reasons:
By adding LIMITATIONS to guidelines, we will unduly restrict the local
power to tax. In yesterdays session, I manifested before the honorable
Commission that this recommended provision of the Committee is in
favorable reaction to the unanimous request of the members of the League
of Governors and
City Mayors who appointed Governor Melanio Singson as their spokesman,
asking the Committee to please delete the word LIMITATIONS in view of the
many
limitations set forth in P.D. No. 231, the Local Tax Code, which practically
negated the power of local governments to tax. So I think I am echoing the
urgent request of the governors and the city mayors before this honorable
Commission.
Madam President, that dictum of 1803 of Chief Justice Marshall that the
power to tax includes the power to destroy is misinterpreted by some
lawyers. As
MR. OPLE: The power of taxation under a rule of law also brings with it
certain principles that may not be denied, including the principle of taxation
for
a public purpose and uniformity of standards.
When Commissioner Padilla proposes the use of LIMITATIONS in addition to
guidelines, is he implying that it would more clearly guarantee that these
principles of taxation are observed?
MR. PADILLA: We have a rule in the 1935 Constitution, Section 22 (1) thereof,
that the rule of taxation shall be uniform, and this same principle was
followed in Section 17 (1) of the 1973 Constitution with the addition: and
equitable. In other words, it is uniform and equitable. The latter section
also states about adopting a progressive system of taxation. This is the
power of the legislative department for national taxes. It is natural for the
executives of local governments, governors and mayors to claim that they
exercise the power of taxation that is really delegated to them by the
Congress
and the Constitution. If this power of taxation by the local units is in
accordance with this standard of being uniform and equitable and even
progressive, then there would be no problem. But when local executives are
given, through their municipal councils or provincial boards, the power of
taxation without limitations, that means should they disregard this basic
principle not only of being uniform and equitable but also of being
progressive,
then there is a danger that local units will not only overtax the people but
even duplicate many national internal revenue taxes. And that will be a
burden
to the people.
MR. OPLE: Will the Committee object to spelling out these same principles of
uniformity, equitable and progressive standards in an appropriate place in
the
Article on Local Governments? I remember that yesterday the Chairman of
the Committee, Commissioner Nolledo, said that he could entertain an
amendment
which would make these rules explicit to modify the word guidelines in lieu
of LIMITATIONS. Does Commissioner Nolledo confirm this?
MR. NOLLEDO: I have no objection if the amendments are presented to us.
MR. OPLE: Thank you, Madam President.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bernas is recognized.
I was not the author of the adjective REASONABLE but I would accept that
word. That does not mean limitations on the power of Congress. It is more a
limitation on the power of the local units to tax.
So, there was a significant relevance when the former Constitutions provided
for limitations. I hear now that some say it is nonsense to include
LIMITATIONS because it is understood that these are reasonable limitations;
but, Madam President, when the word limitations which existed in the
former
Constitutions is deleted and it is substituted with another word guidelines,
the implication may be that there will be no more limitations on the power
of the local units to tax which may be prescribed by Congress. That is the
sad significant implication because when an existing word that is meaningful
is
eliminated, then it might give the wrong impression that Congress may only
provide for guidelines but never for limitations on the local power to tax.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President, the limitations are already in the
constitutional requirements just like uniformity of taxation and so forth. And
aside from
that, there is also the limitation of political dynamics. The legislative
authorities of local governments which will pass these laws will be subject to
the pressures of their locality. That, by itself, will also act as a limitation.
THE PRESIDENT: Are we ready to vote now?
MR. PADILLA: May I just say one word. The limitations in the legislative
department are limitations on the power of Congress. Why are we not going
to apply
the same limitations to a lower political unit?
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The proposed amendment of Commissioner Padilla is very
clear on line 23, page 2 of the proposed Section 11 of the committee report
which is
to change the word guidelines to REASONABLE LIMITATIONS.
MR. PADILLA: It is not exactly to change.
My amendment should read: . . . subject to such guidelines AND
LIMITATIONS.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Vice-President insist on the phrase REASONABLE
LIMITATIONS?
MR. COLAYCO: Will the Commissioner mention a particular purpose for the
alleged voluntary contributions which have been given by the local
community? Let
us say, for instance, it is customary at least in our province that when a
person dies, instead of sending flowers the people give abuloy in cash. Is it
something like that?
MR. ALONTO: Something of that nature.
MR. COLAYCO: But we cannot make it compulsory.
MR. ALONTO: There are different indigenous tribes in this country that have
already developed this practice to the extent not only of a customary law but
as an obligatory imposition among the members of the community.
MR. NOLLEDO: This provision was copied from the UP draft.
THE PRESIDENT: One at a time, please.
MR. COLAYCO: It is all right.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, I would like to inform Commissioner
Colayco that this was copied verbatim from the UP draft after studies of
various customs
and traditions in different parts of the country were made. This is also in
response to the request of the indigenous communities.
MR. COLAYCO: I have the Commissioners answer. However, I am not
satisfied.
Thank you.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: May I propound some more questions on this matter. Let us
suppose that in a Muslim community there is a custom particular to the
Muslims but
there are Christian residents in that community. Let us say that the
community is 80 percent Muslim, 20 percent Christian. Will the tax based on
Muslim
customs be imposed also on the Christian residents of that community?
MR. ALONTO: I can assure the Commissioner that not only because it is not
within the spirit of the Constitution to impose a different custom on a
different
indigenous tribe but also because as far as the Muslim community is
concerned, we have this fundamental belief in Islam: You cannot impose
your way of
life on others other than on yourself. And so, in a Muslim community the
Muslims will never impose this on their Christian brothers who are living with
them in the same community.
MR. RODRIGO: But this sentence provides that the levy will be made by the
local government. And those who live in the locality under the local
government
might not be all indigenous people. As a matter of fact, in most communities
the population is mixed.
MR. ALONTO: I agree with the Commissioner, but the wordings of this
sentence could be improved to clearly define that the indigenous customs of
a group of
people cannot be forced upon others.
MR. RODRIGO: So, this first sentence of the section refers to communities
and local governments in general.
MR. ALONTO: Yes.
MR. RODRIGO: After this, there are some sections regarding autonomous
regions. Why not confine this provision to autonomous regions?
MR. ALONTO: I will have no objection to that proposal of transferring that
particular provision to the autonomous regions if the consensus of the
Members
of the Constitutional Commission is that those other tribes in this country like
the Tagalogs would not like to constitutionalize their good customary laws
and traditions.
MR. RODRIGO: Thank you.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, I am constrained to object to the motion to
delete the sentence in that resectioned Section 11. I appreciate the position
of
the Committee that the intention here is to grant the local governments with
the reasonable latitude of fiscal autonomy. Besides, it has been mentioned
that it is already being practiced in some local governments in view of
specific practices and traditions. So this provision would just give legal
imprimatur to an already accepted practice. I would suggest, however, that
this section be transposed to the Article on Autonomous Regions.
THE PRESIDENT: Are we ready to vote? Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President, I just would like to know whether we have
to put this in the Constitution. If it is already a custom that is flourishing
without any objection, do we have to constitutionalize its continuance? Can
we not allow them to flourish? In fact, it may later on be putting a
straitjacket on them or be making it unhealthy for other groups.
So, for that reason, I would not also want this to be in the Constitution.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: If the reluctance is in view of possible abuse, it is my
submission that there are sufficient safeguards in the Constitution itself. In
the
Article on the Bill of Rights, any possibility of arbitrary classification can be
effectively circumscribed by the provisions on the equal protection of
the laws. In the Article on the Legislative, we have a provision which states
that all taxation shall be uniform.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President, the objection is not only from the point of
view of abuse but on the more basic question: Do we need to put such a
thing
in the Constitution?
MR. BENNAGEN: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bennagen is recognized.
MR. BENNAGEN: I am supporting the motion to transpose it in the Article on
Autonomous Regions. The idea really is to codify, as it were, existing
customary
laws, so that these customary laws as they are integrated into the national
law will strengthen the whole body of national laws. It is true that customary
laws have a power of their own without the necessary coercion that is
associated with bureaucracy. The idea really is to help strengthen the
existing body
of national laws by integrating what we call ethnic laws.
sections
under Autonomous Regions.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bernas is recognized.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President, although I would be amenable to transposing
this section, I would oppose removing it, especially after listening to the
explanations of Commissioner Alonto. This is a kind of tax which is not
uniformly applicable, and that being so, it is necessary to make a special
authorization for it so that it does not run afoul with the equal protection
clause. So, in effect, it would be an exception to the equal protection
clause, and because it is an exception, it would seem necessary to specify it.
THE PRESIDENT: May we hear from Commissioner Suarez?
MR. SUAREZ: I think we have discussed the matter thoroughly, Madam
President, except with respect to the matter of possible transposition of this
particular provision to the Article on Autonomous Regions, but even if we
reach that point, this humble Representation would still submit a motion for
the
deletion of this particular provision.
THE PRESIDENT: So I think we can proceed to vote on it.
MR. SUAREZ: Yes.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President, before we vote may I just ask one
question? Are charges or contributions really equivalent to the power to levy
and collect
charges or contributions?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, they have the nature of taxes.
MR. COLAYCO: Madam President, I would like to know from the Committee if
it is agreeable to transpose this last sentence to another section on the
Article
on Autonomous Regions or to stick to the present configuration. I ask so
because the first paragraph is no problem. Why risk a division simply on this
particular last sentence when we can consider that later on under the Article
on Autonomous Regions?
MR. NOLLEDO: I adopted the opinion of Commissioner Alonto. My only fear is
that if we will transfer it to the portion on Autonomous Regions, there may be
other tribes involved who are not included in the two autonomous regions
that we are recognizing and, therefore, we limit the applicability of the
provision.
Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is
approved.
MR. DAVIDE: On line 20 of Section 9, I propose for its division . . .
MR. NOLLEDO: That is now Section 12.
MR. DAVIDE: We will make the first sentence to be reworded as the second
sentence of Section 11. It would read as follows: SUCH TAXES, FEES AND
CHARGES
SHALL ACCRUE EXCLUSIVELY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, the Committee accepts the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the proposed amendment?
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, before we vote I think Commissioner Rodrigo
was ahead.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: I am not an expert on taxation, so I just want to know. Even a
municipality levies local taxes. Does the province have a share?
MR. SUAREZ: May I state that I have the same question, so I would like to join
Commissioner Rodrigo in that inquiry.
MR. RODRIGO: I ask so because if a municipality levies taxes, it is impossible
for the province to share in those taxes.
MR. NOLLEDO: I am not aware of any rule that says so but I know that even
the province has also the power to levy taxes.
MR. RODRIGO: That is correct. But is it then the purpose of this amendment
that taxes imposed by a municipality should be exclusively for that
municipality
and the province may not share at all in the taxes? Is that the purpose of this
amendment?
MR. NOLLEDO: I think the question should be directed to the proponent.
MR. DAVIDE: Even under the Committees wording, it would clearly appear
that if a municipality levies a particular tax, the province is not entitled to a
share for the reason that the province itself, as a separate local
governmental unit, may collect and levy taxes for itself.
MR. NOLLEDO: Besides, the national government also shares national taxes
with the province.
MR. RODRIGO: But if we approve that amendment, the national government
may not share in the taxes levied by the province?
MR. DAVIDE: The national government may impose its own national taxes.
The concept here is that the national government must share these national
taxes
with the other local governmental units. That is the second paragraph of the
original Section 9, now Section 12, beginning from lines 29 to 30.
MR. RODRIGO: Do I get it then that if the national government imposes taxes,
local government units share in those taxes?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, the local government shares in the national taxes.
MR. RODRIGO: But if the local government imposes local taxes, the national
government may not share?
MR. DAVIDE: That is correct because that is precisely to emphasize the local
autonomy of the unit.
MR. NOLLEDO: That has been the practice.
MR. RODRIGO: Then let us go back to my original question. If a municipality
imposes municipal taxes, the province may not share?
MR. DAVIDE: That is correct.
MR. RODRIGO: Is that the purpose?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, because the province itself may impose taxes affecting
properties or persons within this particular unit.
MR. RODRIGO: So if the provincial government imposes taxes, the
municipalities may not share? Is that it?
MR. DAVIDE: They may not share; but it is a matter of strategy on the part of
a province to improve the collection so that a certain percentage be given to
the municipality. It is now a matter of political strategy.
care of in
legislation.
MR. GUINGONA: I submit, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: We will submit this to a vote.
MR. GUINGONA: No, Madam President, I will not insist.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you, Commissioner Guingona.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, before we proceed to Section 13, may I
move that we vote on the whole Section 8, now Section 11, as remolded and
reformulated? May I ask the Chairman of the Committee to read the whole of
Section 11.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, Section 11 should now read as follows:
EACH LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO CREATE ITS
OWN SOURCES OF REVENUES
AND TO LEVY TAXES, FEES AND CHARGES SUBJECT TO SUCH GUIDELINES
AND LIMITATIONS AS CONGRESS MAY PROVIDE, CONSISTENT WITH THE
BASIC POLICY OF LOCAL AUTONOMY.
SUCH LOCAL TAXES, FEES AND CHARGES SHALL ACCRUE EXCLUSIVELY TO
THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may we now vote on Section 11?
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of Section 11, as read by the
Chairman, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (No Member raised his
hand.)
The results show 28 votes in favor and none against; Section 11, as
amended, is approved.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I ask Commissioner Nolledo to read
the whole of Section 9, now Section 12, as amended.
THE PRESIDENT: Please proceed.
MR. NOLLEDO: Section 9, now Section 12, reads as follows: LOCAL
GOVERNMENT UNITS SHALL HAVE A JUST SHARE, AS DETERMINED BY LAW, in
MR. ALONTO: Will that also include the hiring and the employing of the local
inhabitants who are qualified for the work and process of exploitation and
development of this national wealth?
MR. OPLE: Yes, Madam President. In the broader contemplation of the sharing
in the proceeds of natural resources and direct benefits to the population, a
priority for the employment of local people is among the direct benefits to
the population contemplated in this amendment.
MR. ALONTO: In that case, in behalf of the population of the island of
Mindanao which is the source of the Maria Cristina electric power, I share
with the
Commissioners amendment and strongly support the proposal.
MR. OPLE: Thank you, Madam President.
I just would like to put some caution into priority for local employment. It is
also a fact that given a hydroelectric project, we need minimum technical
skills that may not be locally available. However, although this section
contemplates priority for local hiring it will not prejudice the viability of a
project based on local natural resources if certain skills have to be imported,
let us say, from Manila or Cebu in the case of a project in Mindanao.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, I support this proposal and it certainly is
meritorious but I just wanted to make a manifestation that the new
government has
adopted in the case of electric power, within its framework for economic
reforms, what they call grid pricing rather than a national pricing formula for
electricity. This means that those with some natural resources, like Mindanao
where the cost of power is lower, can set the price of power corresponding to
the cost of power generation. In other words, there would be differences in
the pricing of power depending on the grid and recognizing the natural
resources behind such generation of power. So, this is meritorious. I just
wanted to say that this is already the policy of government.
THE PRESIDENT: What does the Committee say?
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, I would like to ask Commissioner Ople if he
is amenable to the rewording of his amendment. After areas on line 2 of
page 3,
we add the words: IN THE MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW INCLUDING SHARING
WITH THE PEOPLE BY WAY OF DIRECT BENEFITS TO THEM.
the
royalties that may be derived but it is not clear to me who shall direct the
manner by which these benefits should be extended to the inhabitants.
Would it
be Congress or would it be the local government?
MR. OPLE: It may be both, Madam President. I think Congress may have to
pass an enabling legislation that will fix certain standards and proportions of
sharing, but this Section can operate in a self-executory manner without
benefit of legislation. For example, Commissioner Monsod pointed out that
under
the regional grid system, it is already being done by the incumbent
government, but I would assume that the local government will initiate a
process
whereby, for example, the National Power Corporation can consider a
petition of the local people for a price rebate on the basis of this new Section
13.
MR. SUAREZ: To concretize the mechanism, let us say a particular political
unit would be entitled to P1-million worth of royalties in a year. In order to
determine how this P1 million will be extended by way of direct benefits to
the people at the first instance, the local government will have to initiate
the process, but to be concretized in a legislation to be passed by Congress.
MR. OPLE: It is very correct, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the honorable Chairman read Section 13 once more so
that we can vote on this?
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, Section 13 now reads as follows: Local
governments shall be entitled to share in the proceeds of the exploitation
and
development of the national wealth within their respective areas IN THE
MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW INCLUDING SHARING WITH THE INHABITANTS BY
WAY OF DIRECT
BENEFITS TO THEM.
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President, before we call for a vote, I manifested my
intention to the Floor Leader to introduce one more amendment to this
section and
I was about to be called after Commissioner Ople.
THE PRESIDENT: So, it will be a proposed amendment to the amendment of
Commissioner Ople.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: I raise the question, Madam President, because it says
here that the criteria are those established by the Local Government Code. I
looked up the Code but it does not state those criteria I mentioned but only
the criteria of size and income.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes. I think the criteria in the Local Government Code are
insufficient, Madam President. I subscribe to the Commissioners statement
that the
factors mentioned should likewise be considered.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Should not these criteria be included here?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, I think they should be considered.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Therefore, could we amend this section to include those
factors as additional criteria?
MR. NOLLEDO: I think we are only urging Congress to consider those criteria
mentioned without necessarily amending this provision. The Commissioner
told me
that she is merely inquiring and if I would say affirmatively that those factors
should be considered, necessarily there is no need for amending this
section.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Thank you.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Davide be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, this will be on Section 1, for the autonomous
regions.
THE PRESIDENT: May I just be clarified? Was this Section 14 now transferred
to be known as Section 4?
MR. DAVIDE: That was the Maambong proposal, I guess.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, my proposed amendment to that was already
accepted by the Committee and it is only the deletion of the words unit or
on line
8.
THE PRESIDENT: So, do we still have a Section 14?
MR. DAVIDE: That was supposed to be transferred to an earlier portion,
Madam President.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, while this is denominated as Section 14,
this should be transferred after Section 3 and should now be Section 4.
Transposition was made upon motion of Commissioner Foz.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: While we have already approved the deletion of unit or, I
would like to inform the Committee that under the formulation in the present
Local Government Code, the words used are actually political unit or units.
However, I do not know the implication of the use of these words. Maybe
there
will be no substantial difference, but I just want to inform the Committee
about this.
MR. NOLLEDO: Can we not adhere to the original unit or units? Will there
be no objection on the part of the two Gentlemen from the floor?
MR. DAVIDE: I would object. I precisely asked for the deletion of the words
unit or because in the plebiscite to be conducted, it must involve all the
units affected. If it is the creation of a barangay, the municipality itself must
participate in the plebiscite because it is affected. It would mean a
loss of a territory.
THE PRESIDENT. What is now to be considered?
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, we will now proceed to the autonomous
regions.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Suarez be
recognized for an anterior amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
MR. BENGZON: We are now on Section 14, line 10, page 3 of the draft. Before
the first word There, I suggest that the following phrase be placed, namely,
SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL IN A PLEBISCITE BY A MAJORITY OF THE VOTERS
OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS AFFECTED and put a comma (,) after.
That would be my
first amendment because I will have another amendment on line 12.
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner has denominated this as Section 14. Do I
understand now that we are not following the numbering of the sections in
the
Committee Report?
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, the numbering is not consecutive with
respect to autonomous regions. So we may refer to that as Section 1 of
Autonomous
Regions or can we refer to that as Section 14?
MR. BENGZON: Considering that this is one article, perhaps we should have a
continuous numbering.
MR. ALONTO: Madam President, at the start of the discussion on the report of
the Committee on Local Governments, the Chairman stated that this report
on
local government consists of two parts: The first part refers generally to all
local government units; and the second part refers to autonomous regions. In
the second part, we start with Sections 1, 2, 3, 4 and so on.
MR. BENGZON: It does not matter with me, Madam President. That is another
issue which the body can consider at the proper time.
THE PRESIDENT: So let us adhere to the draft Section 1 of the Autonomous
Regions.
MR. BENGZON: Yes, Madam President. May I repeat my amendment to
Section 1, Autonomous Regions. Before the word There on line 10, put the
following
phrase: SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL IN A PLEBISCITE BY A MAJORITY OF THE
VOTERS OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS AFFECTED, and then continue
with There shall
be created autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and the Cordillera
consisting of provinces . . .
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, may I be recognized to clear up one point?
THE PRESIDENT: Please proceed.
MR. SUAREZ: May I call the attention of Commissioner Bengzon to lines 26,
27 and 28 which read:
The creation of the autonomous region shall be approved in a plebiscite by a
majority of the voters of the constituent units.
Will this not operate to solve the problem which the Commissioner raised
under Section 1?
MR. BENGZON: It depends on how we interpret this, Madam President. In the
way I envision it, there are two sets of plebiscite. We have to know first which
are those provinces in one region that would wish to be a part of the
autonomous region. Subsequently, Congress will enact the organic act which
will be
the constitution of this autonomous region, and this organic act will
thereafter be presented to the people for approval in a plebiscite.
MR. SUAREZ: If I understand the Gentleman correctly, what he is suggesting
is the first step.
MR. BENGZON: What I am suggesting is the first step.
MR. SUAREZ: And the second step is the one contemplated under lines 26,
27 and 28 and this will be undertaken or resolved and determined by the
voters of
the constituent units in other words, the constituent political units which
have already agreed.
MR. BENGZON: These are the units which have already opted to be part of
the autonomous region. They will now be ratifying that organic act which, in
effect, will be their constitution.
MR. SUAREZ: This is pursuant to Commissioner Bengzons suggested
amendment to Section 1.
MR. BENGZON: Yes, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
MR. BENGZON: May I be allowed to explain, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Please proceed.
MR. BENGZON: It may be true that historically there are a lot of our brothers
in these areas who have wanted to become autonomous. Precisely, for that
very
reason, we should not deprive them of the right to express categorically their
desire to be a part of the autonomous region. This is a rare and historic
moment in their lives and in our history as a whole. Therefore, we should
respect that right and we should give them every opportunity to express
individually this desire of theirs to become a part of the autonomous region.
Secondly, we have seen quite a number of people here who have come and
who have expressed their desire to be part of the autonomous regions. We
have the
Ifugaos; the Kalingas and those from Apayao, but we do not know what is the
feeling of the other brothers we have in the other parts of the provinces that
may be affected by this move. There may be other indigenous communities
in other provinces, perhaps, in La Union or in Pangasinan, and we do not
know what
their feelings are about this. If they do agree to become part of the
autonomous region, well and good, and, therefore, we should give them that
rare
opportunity in this history of our country to express affirmatively their desire.
In the same manner, those who may not wish to become part of this
autonomous region should also be given this opportunity to express in black
and white their desire not to join the autonomous region. All provinces and
municipalities which will form part of the autonomous region would be very
clearly seen to have expressed categorically their desire to become part of
the
autonomous region.
Our brothers in Mindanao should have no problem insofar as this is
concerned, particularly those in Region IX and in Region XI because they
have been given
the local autonomy they now have. But then let us give every generation
that is still living this great opportunity in our history to express affirmatively
their right, their desire to become part of the autonomous region. In this
manner we cannot be said to have rammed autonomy down the throats of
our
brothers in these areas just because a majority of them have said that they
want to be autonomous. Those who do wish to be part of the autonomous
region
should be given the opportunity to express that desire. After we shall have
gotten their votes and after we shall have determined that these provinces
wish
to become part of the autonomous region, that is the time when Congress
will now enact the organic act that would spell out the details on the creation
of
this autonomous region. This will be presented thereafter again in a
plebiscite, this time to approve the organic act that has been prepared by
Congress.
MR. ALONTO: Madam President, will the Gentleman yield to some questions?
MR. BENGZON: Gladly, Madam President.
MR. ALONTO: The Committee feels that Section 1 is the general provision
which merely points out and mandates the Congress to organize two
autonomous
regions Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras.
MR. BENGZON: Yes.
MR. ALONTO: The process by which Congress shall start to reorganize is
found in the other sections under the heading Autonomous Regions as stated
and
already pointed out by Commissioner Suarez. In Section 2, the Congress shall
organize this in such a manner that all those units that wish to join the
autonomous region shall be consulted because Congress would not be
enacting an organic act without consulting the multisectoral body that is
involved in
these two regions. And so, what the Commissioner is trying to prevent is
already stated in this section that has been presented to the body. So, a few
would suggest to put that phrase there that will give a different meaning to
this section which is of general application to the rest of the country.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, the Committee deeply regrets that it
cannot accept the amendment, because it is emasculating the entire set of
provisions on
Autonomous Regions. It will be unwieldy to create the autonomous regions
because we are contemplating on two kinds of plebiscite. I think the
provisions on
lines 26 and 28 are clear enough with respect to Section 2, because we have
to consult the multisectoral bodies for each autonomous region. Public
hearings
will be conducted, and then when the organic act is passed, it is only after
this organic act has been passed that the people will be able to determine
whether the provisions thereof will really redound to their benefit. If we go to
a plebiscite for the first time, telling them whether they wish to create
autonomous regions, the people may be misinformed and, therefore, there
will be no basic issues to be defined.
This Chairman regrets that that kind of amendment presented is not in
accordance with what has been agreed upon in a caucus.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, may I reply?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: There is no need to be very emotional about this whole thing.
I do not think that the Chairman really got my point here.
In this body, we have approved that autonomous regions will be created for
Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras. That is definite. There is no quarrel
about
that. It is definite. The only purpose in my amendment is to find out which
among those provinces would wish to become part of the autonomous
region. We
have several provinces that will be involved. So, let us find out from those
provinces if all of them are willing to be part of the autonomous region. We
cannot ram it down their throat. I am sure that there are several provinces
that are willing, that would wish to become part of this autonomous region.
But
it should be stated in black and white. They should be given that rare
opportunity to express their affirmative belief.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: May we hear Commissioner Bacani.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President, this is in response to what Commissioner
Nolledo said. In Section 2, what is being mandated is that Congress shall
enact an
organic act in consultation with multisectoral bodies for each autonomous
region, defining the basic structure of government for the region. I think what
is being asked by Commissioner Bengzon and I would like to second him in
that is that the people would also be able to exercise self-determination as
to whether they would themselves in a particular town or province be willing
to be included in the autonomous region. I think that was basically answered
by Commissioner Alonto at one time when we were asking him about the
constitution of this autonomous region. He said that in cases where the
places are
inhabited not only by Muslims, then people can determine whether or not
they want to join the autonomous region. But how are we going to find out
whether
the people want to join the autonomous region, if we do not do it by a
plebiscite?
MR. AZCUNA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Azcuna is recognized.
MR. AZCUNA: Madam President, I wonder if Commissioner Bengzon and the
Committee would accept a slight suggestion which would necessitate only
one
MR. AZCUNA: Madam President, the formulation of the organic act will be
through a method of consultation with local leaders. So, presumably, it will
distill the consensus of the regions and the inhabitants therein, so that it will
probably be acceptable to most, if not to all, of the inhabitants of that
region. It will really be left to whether or not they want to be included in the
autonomous region rather than on a term that they do not like. Anyway, the
basic powers are already defined in this Article, so it will just be really details
of the region, inclusion of certain territories that will be
legislated. My proposal would simplify it by having only one plebiscite, and
then determining in that plebiscite whether a certain province or a certain
city voted in favor, in which case it will be included.
MR. BENGZON: May I have then the suggested amendment of the
Commissioner.
MR. AZCUNA: Madam President, I suggest that lines 26 up to 28 be reworded
as follows: The creation of the autonomous region shall be EFFECTIVE WHEN
approved by majority of the voters of the constituent units IN A PLEBISCITE
CALLED FOR THE PURPOSE: PROVIDED, THAT ONLY CONSTITUENT UNITS
VOTING FAVORABLY
IN THE SAID PLEBISCITE SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE AUTONOMOUS
REGION.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, if the Committee is willing to accept that, I
am willing to withdraw my amendment on Section 1, line 10.
THE PRESIDENT: Or the Commissioner can join in this particular amendment.
MR. BENGZON: Yes, Madam President, I will join Commissioner Azcuna in that
amendment.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
MR. NOLLEDO: May I ask for a suspension, Madam President, in order to
consult the other members of the Committee for what involves a
transcendental
question.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.
It was 12:08 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 12:21 p.m., the session was resumed.
about this inversion of the historical process, which means that some kind of
a
reversed discrimination can emerge from the autonomy status. One of them
believes that that is a projection of the Christian-Muslim relationship in the
case of the South, and of the lowlander-highlander relationship in the North.
They agreed in their deliberations that they will abide by the principle of
full equality and nondiscriminatory practices for that is the principle that
they are trying to work by. The details of this have to be worked out in the
organic act and in all other acts that would emanate from this autonomy
status.
In any case, the feeling is that they have learned enough from these
centuries of struggle not to repeat or to invert that kind of historical process.
If
that is a consoling thought, then I wish to share that with the body.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
Are we now ready to vote on this particular proposed amendment of
Commissioners Azcuna and Bengzon?
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, before we vote, may I just ask a question?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: I had to be out on important matters, so if my question has
already been answered, please tell me.
Once the autonomous region is formed and because of migration, may a
certain province decide later on, say ten years from now, to secede from the
autonomous region?
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, that is the subject of an amendment which
Commissioner Davide will propose a little later. But in the meantime, we
would like
to get through with our amendment which has already been approved by the
Committee. The fact of withdrawal, I think, is the subject of another
amendment.
MR. RODRIGO: Thank you.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of this proposed amendment of
Commissioners Azcuna and Bengzon, please raise their hand. (Several
Members raised
their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (No Member raised his
hand.)
The results show 36 votes in favor and none against; the amendment is
approved.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, there are still proponents for this section
but since it is already past twelve, may I move that we suspend the session
until two-thirty this afternoon.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended until two-thirty this afternoon.
It was 12:33 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 2:53 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: We are still on Section 14. May I ask that honorable
Commissioner de Castro be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de Castro is recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you, Madam President.
I have a minor observation on Section 1, page 3, lines 10 and 11, which
reads: There shall be created autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao . . .
Upon
first reading, it will appear that the whole Mindanao is composed of Muslims
because Muslim is used as an adjective for Mindanao. If the Committee will
agree, I would rather change it FOR THE MUSLIMS OF MINDANAO instead of
Muslim Mindanao. So, the provision will read: There shall be created
autonomous
regions FOR THE MUSLIMS OF MINDANAO and the Cordillera . . .
MR. DE CASTRO: I will agree to that, just to content ourselves and just to be
sure that Mindanao is not all Muslim area.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Alonto is recognized.
MR. ALONTO: Madam President, the amendment being proposed does not
really alter what is really the meaning of Muslim Mindanao because when
we read the
section in relation to the other sections, it will definitely show that only those
areas whose population or inhabitants that have a common historical,
cultural, linguistic, ethnic, communal, economic or other characteristics will
vote for the autonomous region.
So, whatever area is not predominantly occupied by inhabitants of the same
common historical, cultural, linguistic, ethnic, communal, economic or other
characteristics will not vote.
MR. DE CASTRO: There really is.
MR. ALONTO: Without even altering, Madam President, the wordings of the
first sentence of this section, that would definitely guarantee whatever the
Gentleman has in mind. It might include people or inhabitants that are not
within the concept of the definition stated in Section 1.
MR. DE CASTRO: If the Gentleman will please listen, it does not change the
meaning of granting autonomous regions to the Muslims in Mindanao. I
would only
like to correct the impression of the phrase Muslim Mindanao because it
will appear that the whole Mindanao is a Muslim area. My amendment
FOR THE
MUSLIMS OF Mindanao does not affect the cultural, linguistic and ethnic
characteristics. It is only for a better understanding of what we intend to
make
as autonomous regions in Mindanao.
I submit, Madam President.
MR. NOLLEDO: If that is the fear of Commissioner de Castro, why do we not
eliminate Muslim and use only Mindanao?
THE PRESIDENT: What does Commissioner de Castro say?
MR. DE CASTRO: It will change the whole thing, Madam President. It will
grant the Misamis Oriental group autonomy. The third presidential candidate,
Mr.
Canoy, is waiting for that because he is working for a federal state in
Thank you.
MR. DE CASTRO: May I ask a question of the Honorable Ople? I heard him say
that there is now an autonomous region in Mindanao because of the Tripoli
Agreement. Is that correct?
MR. OPLE: Yes, Madam President.
MR. DE CASTRO: May I know the legislative body in the autonomous region of
Mindanao based on the Tripoli Agreement?
MR. OPLE: There is a legislative assembly, and a so-called Lupong
Tagapagpaganap.
MR. DE CASTRO: Is that legislative assembly recognized by our present
government?
MR. OPLE: Apparently it is recognized, Madam President.
MR. DE CASTRO: I do not believe so; otherwise, Muslim Mindanao must be
operating independently now of the Philippines.
MR. ALONTO: Madam President.
MR. ABUBAKAR: May I intervene for clarification?
MR. OPLE: Yes, I want to assert the fact that the autonomous region in
Mindanao is recognized by the present government, Madam President.
(Applause)
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Abubakar is recognized.
MR. ABUBAKAR: Yes, there is an autonomous region now in Mindanao. It is
composed of the provinces of Sulu, Zamboanga, Basilan and Zamboanga del
Norte. I am
not sure if Lanao and Tawi-Tawi are included.
MR. NOLLEDO: Tawi-Tawi is included in Region IX.
MR. ABUBAKAR: This is the Southern Mindanao Autonomous Region; it has a
legislative body with a Speaker and is located in Zamboanga. This legislative
body
drafts laws and resolutions for the Southern Mindanao region. I even know
the Speaker personally. He is Mr. Sali Ututalum, Jr., and he resides in
Zamboanga
and presides over this legislative body. If there is any clarification or any
question as to the existence of this body, then many of us do not know the
present governmental setup in Mindanao.
MR. ALONTO: Madam President, I have stated from the start of our
consideration of this Article on Local Governments that the autonomous
region exists now
in this country. There is a de facto existence of an autonomous government
in what we call now Regions IX and XII. Region IX is composed of the
provinces
of Tawi-Tawi, Sulu, Basilan, Zamboanga City, Zamboanga del Sur and
Zamboanga del Norte, including all the component cities in the provinces.
Region XII is
composed of the Provinces of Lanao del Norte, Lanao del Sur, Maguindanao,
Sultan Kudarat and North Cotabato. This autonomous region has its central
governmental quarters in Zamboanga City for Region IX and in Cotabato City
for Region XII. In fact, it is stated by Commissioner Ople that it has an
executive commission and a legislative assembly.
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President.
MR. ALONTO: These two regions have been organized by virtue of P.D. No.
1618 of President Marcos, as amended by P.D. No. 1843.
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President.
MR. ALONTO: If the Gentleman will bear with me, I will explain to him. That is
why I said that there is a de facto autonomous government existing in
Mindanao.
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: May we please allow Commissioner Alonto to finish his
remarks before any interruption?
MR. DE CASTRO: Yes, Madam President.
MR. ALONTO: Madam President, this autonomous region is recognized by the
present regime for the very reason that the present regime is now in the
process
of a negotiation with the Moro National Liberation Front. In a way, what we
are doing is to give a constitutional basis for the President of this country
today to proceed with that negotiation with the Moro National Liberation
Front.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Uka is recognized.
MR. UKA: Madam President, not only that. President Corazon C. Aquino has
appointed Mr. Albert Tugum as the Chairman of Region IX and Mr. Datu
Zakaria
Candau as Chairman of Region XII. They are doing their work well right now.
So, there are two recognized autonomous regions. They have also a
complete
regional assembly as the legislative body. So, it is only a matter of putting
this in the Constitution.
THE PRESIDENT: So, what is before the body is the proposed amendment on
line 11 of Section 1.
Commissioner de Castro is recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President, if there is now an autonomous region in
Mindanao and if, according to the Honorable Ople, this has the recognition of
the
central government, what then is the use of creating autonomous regions in
Muslim Mindanao and going through the process of a plebiscite and enacting
an
organic act?
My amendment is simply to clarify the term Muslim Mindanao. I really did
not expect that this will go this far that it is being placed in the
Constitution, that it is a fait accompli and that all we have to do here is say
amen to the whole thing and if we do not say amen, they will still
continue to be autonomous regions. I insist on my amendment, Madam
President.
MR. OPLE: May I provide more information to Commissioner de Castro
concerning this matter.
First of all, we have to correct his misimpression that the autonomous
regions, such as they now exist in Mindanao, do not enjoy the recognition of
the
central government. Secondly, may I point out that the autonomy existing
now in Regions IX and XII is a very imperfect kind of autonomy. We are not
satisfied with the legal sufficiency of these regions as autonomous regions
and that is the reason the initiative has been taken in order to guarantee by
the Constitution the right to autonomy of the people embraced in these
regions and not merely on the sufferance of any existing or future
administration.
It is a right, moreover, for which they have waged heroic struggles, not only
in this generation but in previous eras and, therefore, what we seek is
constitutional permanence for this right.
May I also point out, Madam President, that the Tripoli Agreement was
negotiated under the aegis of foreign powers. No matter how friendly and
sympathetic
they might be to our country, this is under the aegis of the 42-nation Islamic
Conference. Should our brothers look across the seas to a conclave of
foreign governments so that their rights may be recognized in this
Constitution? Do they have to depend upon foreign sympathy so that their
right can be
recognized in final, constitutional and durable form?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople, the consensus here is to grant
autonomy to the Muslim areas of Mindanao.
MR. OPLE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The only point is, shall we change the wording of line 11 of
Section 1? That is all. The words Muslim Mindanao are stated in the
committee
report. Commissioner de Castro seeks to amend the words. The Committee
does not accept, so let us put it to a vote.
MR. OPLE: I am willing to have it submitted to a vote, Madam President.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Nolledo is recognized.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, before we vote on this, the amendment
recommended by Commissioner de Castro will be a retrogression because he
will be
concentrating the autonomy only to the Muslim-dominated areas. The
presently constituted autonomous regions consist of Muslim-dominated and
Christian-dominated areas where, according to Commissioner Alonto, they
live in harmony and love. So, we will be retrogressing; we will be limiting the
autonomy to Muslim Mindanao if we will adopt the de Castro amendment,
Madam President.
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President, it is only a clarification of the words
Muslim Mindanao. I did not really expect it to be carried to this extent. It is
not a retrogression because we will have a plebiscite in that area. So, if all
the Christians there want to have autonomous regions, so what? It will still
be the same.
But to say Muslim Mindanao means that the whole Mindanao is Muslim
populated.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, that has been stated already, Commissioner de Castro.
May we have the proposed amendment so we can submit it to a vote.
MR. DE CASTRO: As worded, and as amended by the Honorable Bacani, the
amendment reads: There shall be created autonomous regions in THE
PREDOMINANTLY
Muslim AREAS OF Mindanao.
MR. BENNAGEN: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bennagen is recognized.
MR. BENNAGEN: I think we use Muslim Mindanao here in the sense that we
also use Christian Philippines to refer to our country in relation to the Asian
context. When we use Christian Philippines, we do not deny the existence
of other religious groups. So, I think we should take the term in that context.
Also, we should recognize the fact that there are areas in Muslim Mindanao
where several groups of ethnic origins, of ethnic religious language and
characteristics harmoniously coexist. We should encourage that kind of social
harmony in the region.
Thank you, Madam President.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of the proposed amendment of
Commissioner de Castro, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their
hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised
their hand.) (Applause)
We request our visitors to please refrain from any demonstration here in the
session hall.
The results show 5 votes in favor and 22 against; the amendment is lost.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Villacorta
be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Villacorta is recognized.
MR. VILLACORTA: Madam President, this is an amendment by substitution to
lines 12 and 14 of Section 1. We have distributed copies of the proposed
amendment
which is cosponsored by the Honorable Ople, Bennagen, Uka, Alonto,
Abubakar, Villegas, Sarmiento, Davide, Aquino and Suarez.
As amended, this section will read as follows: There shall be created
autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and the Cordillera consisting of
provinces,
cities and geographical areas SHARING DISTINCTIVE OR UNIQUE historical,
cultural, linguistic, ethnic, communal, economic or other characteristics
within
the framework of the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the
Philippines. So, the amendments are to delete with common and
substitute it
with SHARING DISTINCTIVE OR UNIQUE, and to delete and respecting.
If the Committee wants an explanation, I would like to offer the justification
for this amendment, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Gentleman may proceed.
MR. VILLACORTA: The justification for using the phrase SHARING
DISTINCTIVE OR UNIQUE is to highlight the rationale for the granting of
autonomy to Muslim
Mindanao and the Cordilleras, which have distinctive characteristics that
distinguish them from the dominant national community which is
predominantly
Christian and which make them deserving of the special attention and
treatment from the State.
Moreover, this amendment is to emphasize that regional autonomy is
reserved only to those regions which have distinctive and unique
characteristics, and
not to regions which have characteristics common to the dominant national
community.
This will reflect the sense of the Commissions not favoring the idea of
federalism which would make regional autonomy open to all regions.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: I have an amendment to the amendment, and I am
sponsoring this because I have lifted this from a draft presented to me by
Commissioner Alonto
and was, in turn, suggested by a gentleman who was with us in the 1971
MR. DAVIDE: I have no objection. So, the provision will read: within the
framework of THIS CONSTITUTION and the national sovereignty AS WELL AS
territorial integrity of the Republic of the Philippines.
MR. NOLLEDO: The Committee accepts the amendment, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this proposed amendment?
(Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is approved.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Azcuna be
recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Azcuna is recognized.
MR. AZCUNA: Madam President, my amendment has already been taken up
and approved.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. NOLLEDO: I thank Commissioner Azcuna.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, before we vote on the whole Section 1,
now Section 14, may I ask Chairman Nolledo to read Section 1, as amended.
MR. NOLLEDO: May we ask Commissioner Bennagen to read Section 1.
MR. BENNAGEN: I will read it on behalf of the Chairman. There shall be
created autonomous regions FOR Muslim Mindanao and FOR the
CORDILLERAS consisting
of provinces, cities, MUNICIPALITIES and GEOGRAPHIC areas SHARING
common AND DISTINCTIVE historical AND cultural HERITAGE, economic AND
SOCIAL STRUCTURE
AND other RELEVANT characteristics within the framework of THIS
CONSTITUTION and the national sovereignty AS WELL AS territorial integrity
of the Republic
of the Philippines.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of this particular section, as
amended, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (No Member raised his
hand.)
The results show 28 votes in favor and none against; Section 1, as amended,
is approved.
MR. SARMIENTO: For Section 2, now Section 15, may I ask that the honorable
Commissioner Foz be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Foz is recognized.
MR. FOZ: In our amendment to the original Section 2 under the autonomous
regions, now Section 15, there will be a transposition and some additions. So,
I
will just read the section, particularly the first paragraph, as sought to be
amended. It shall read: THE CONGRESS SHALL IN CONSULTATION WITH
MULTISECTORAL
BODIES IN EACH AUTONOMOUS REGION ENACT AN ORGANIC LAW DEFINING
THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE REGIONAL GOVERNMENT. IT SHALL CONSIST
OF THE REGIONAL EXECUTIVE
DEPARTMENT HEADED BY AN ELECTIVE CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND A REGIONAL
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY. THE ORGANIC ACT SHALL PROVIDE FOR SPECIAL
COURTS WITH FAMILY AND
PROPERTY LAW JURISDICTION WITHIN THE REGION EXCEPT OVER ITS
CHRISTIAN INHABITANTS SUBJECT TO THE APPEAL PROCEDURES PROVIDED
BY NATIONAL LAW AND THE
PROVISIONS OF THIS CONSTITUTION.
We would like to get the response of the Committee to the provision as
sought to be amended.
THE PRESIDENT: What does the Committee say?
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, there is a proposed amendment to this
section by Commissioner Ople which covers practically the entire section. So,
I am now
at a loss on whether to accept the amendment or not until the Ople
amendment is considered. May I also observe, Madam President, that the
words APPEAL
PROCEDURES would seem to be irrelevant. With due respect to
Commissioner Foz, we are talking only of jurisdiction here; besides the
procedural rules on
personal law and property law jurisdiction of the special courts may be
provided for in the Rules of Court or in other special rules. So, I would prefer
not to mention APPEAL PROCEDURES.
MR. BENNAGEN: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bennagen is recognized.
directly vested with the authority to proceed and draft, and finally enact such
an organic law after consultations with multisectoral bodies in the region?
After all, the Congress is not expected to draft it without consultations. That
is a very express provision, a requirement in Section 15, that Congress
shall proceed only in consultation with the multisectoral bodies in the region.
So, it would be a roundabout way to first authorize the setting up of a
regional constitutional commission whose work, after all, would have to fall
onto the lap of Congress which will have the final authority to pass such a
law.
MR. OPLE: Yes, Madam President. The idea is to put the stamp of authentic
participation of the autonomous region right upon the act of creation; and
while
the Congress has the power to pass an organic act, there is no reason why
the autonomous regions should not be given the privilege of participating in
their own creation from the beginning by drafting the organic act for the
consideration and approval by the Congress. May I submit that while
Congress is
in no way barred from introducing any changes that it will consider necessary
to reflect the national popular will, the process of regional leaders
themselves including multisectoral representatives drafting an organic act
for the consideration of Congress falls in place as a very symbolic act
dramatizing the principle behind autonomy.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, may I add to Commissioner Oples
statement? Under the Ople amendment, the consultation with multisectoral
representatives is
not prohibited. Even the constitutional commission created under the Ople
amendment can conduct the consultation before it actually drafts the organic
act
for the region.
MR. OPLE: There is nothing here to impede any manner and degree of
consultation with the people, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Madam President. May we address a few
clarificatory questions to the honorable proponent?
MR. OPLE: Very gladly, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
bothered by this particular section because it is stated here that this will only
be
initially drafted by a regional constitutional commission to be nominated by
multisectoral bodies and appointed by the President, et cetera. But will this
particular section serve any purpose after this would have been enacted?
MR. OPLE: Yes, the principle is established that in the future beyond the
autonomy granted to two specific regions now, if there is an application for
such
regional autonomous status, the same principle will be observed.
MS. QUESADA: So, this is a principle or a guideline that needs to be retained
here even after Congress shall have enacted an organic act?
MR. OPLE: Yes, in the indefinite future when more regions with common and
distinctive ethnic, cultural, economic and other characteristics decide to seek
autonomous status, then the same principle will apply.
MS. QUESADA: So, we will not leave it to Congress to provide for these
details?
MR. OPLE: Actually, Congress will not be barred from providing for a law that
will spell out the details of this principle, Madam President.
MS. QUESADA: Thank you.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: Will Commissioner Ople yield to two questions, Madam
President?
MR. OPLE: Gladly, Madam President.
BISHOP BACANI: First, on the authority of the draft to be submitted by the
regional constitutional commission, will it be much more than the authority
of,
let us say; the draft constitution of the UP that was given to us? Or will it be
at par with that draft constitution as regards its binding force?
MR. OPLE: We say that Congress has the final say but in the nature of what
Commissioner Bernas this morning called the political dynamics of the
situation,
I would assume that Congress would put the utmost weight on this draft
BISHOP BACANI: But, Madam President, my fear is that there may be some
decisions where the difference in the number of votes was very slight, like
the
decision on adopting a bicameral or unicameral form of legislature. I was told
that officially there was only a difference of two votes. When it becomes an
act of a regional constitutional commission, people may really expect that
something like that will also be approved by Congress. But later on, Congress
may decide otherwise. So, the level of expectation may be brought very high
when the proposals come from a regional constitutional commission, while a
less
formal convention of multisectoral bodies may actually be able to propose
effectively without, at the same time, unnecessarily raising the expectations
at
a level which cannot be met.
MR. OPLE: Just one brief reply to that, Madam President. I visualize the
situation by that time as being one where Mindanao and the Cordillera have
their
own representatives. Members of the House of Representatives and Members
of the Senate will then be in close touch all the time with the leadership and
membership of both Houses. Because of this close rapport, I think we can be
sure that the level of attainability of a draft organic act prepared at the
regional level will have been very much improved and the same
representatives and senators representing these regions will make sure that
there are very
few gaps in the perceptions of what can be attained as the final output in
terms of an organic act.
BISHOP BACANI: Thank you very much, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair believes that the subject has been sufficiently
discussed.
MR. NOLLEDO: The Committee, Madam President, is asking for a suspension
of the session to consolidate the amendments.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: Commissioner Nolledo requests a suspension of session to
harmonize the Foz amendment.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended for a few minutes, and will
Commissioner Foz please confer with the Committee for his amendment.
It was 4:18 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 4:53 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, Commissioner Foz and Commissioner
Ople have harmonized their amendments.
May I ask that Commissioner Nolledo read the reformulated section.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, may I ask Commissioner Bennagen to read
the amended section.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bennagen is recognized.
MR. BENNAGEN: Thank you, Madam President.
We have come to a happy agreement on the formulation of Section 2 and it
reads: The Congress shall enact an Organic Act FOR EACH AUTONOMOUS
REGION WITH
THE ASSISTANCE AND PARTICIPATION OF A REGIONAL CONSULTATIVE
COMMISSION. THE ORGANIC ACT SHALL DEFINE THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF
GOVERNMENT FOR THE REGION
CONSISTING OF THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT AND LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
BOTH OF WHICH SHALL BE ELECTIVE AND REPRESENTATIVE OF THE
CONSTITUENT POLITICAL UNITS. THE
ORGANIC ACT MAY LIKEWISE PROVIDE FOR SPECIAL COURTS WITH
PERSONAL, FAMILY AND PROPERTY LAW JURISDICTION CONSISTENT WITH
THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CONSTITUTION
AND NATIONAL LAW. THE CREATION OF THE AUTONOMOUS REGIONS SHALL
BE APPROVED IN A PLEBISCITE BY MAJORITY OF THE VOTERS CAST.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: What happened to the other paragraph amended by
Commissioners Azcuna and Bengzon?
MR. BENNAGEN: We approved that earlier.
Muslim provinces. There are two kinds of judges: the executive judges and
the municipal judges of the Sharia Courts. Their jurisdiction covers Muslim
personal laws on family and property. Those judges already appointed took
seminars conducted under the supervision of the Supreme Court. And many
of them
are my former students. Before they are appointed judges, they have to take
seminars and some of them were sent to Cairo, Egypt to study the Islamic
law or
Sharia. These is Judge Corocoy Moson, who is now in Cotabato City as
Sharia executive judge. There is also one executive judge in Marawi, another
one in
Zamboanga City and the others are Sharia municipal judges in some
municipalities. These courts were created because of the peculiar laws or
provisions
under the Islamic jurisprudence or Sharia. That is why during the meeting of
the Committee on the Judiciary, I even asked what may happen if a case is
appealed from the special Sharia Courts to the Supreme Court or the Court
of Appeals, as the case may be. How will the Supreme Court decide or
resolve it
when there is no Muslim justice in the Supreme Court? Of course, the only
thing that could possibly be done is to appoint a Muslim justice in the
Supreme
Court because through all the years from the Spanish time up to the present,
there was not a single Muslim justice in the Supreme Court, not because
there
are no qualified Muslim lawyers but I really do not know why. Maybe a Muslim
may be appointed justice this year, maybe next year, maybe never. So, there
are still some important things to be done to make the Sharia Courts
functional. The Supreme Court in the meantime postponed the giving of the
so-called
Sharia mini-bar examinations conducted by it but many are now preparing
for the examinations. They call it mini-bar which means small, like
minimized,
mini-skirt, and things like that. So, there is really a reason for the creation of
the so-called Sharia Courts in the Muslim areas of the Philippines. In
fact, there is already issued by decree a personal code of the Muslims which
is being applied by these Sharia Courts. What should be done in case this
provision on Sharia Courts be deleted? What shall we do with those Sharia
Courts already established? And what about the mini-bar examinations to be
conducted by the Supreme Court? Shall we order the Supreme Court to stop
the examinations and shall we abolish these special courts? I was about to
stand
up earlier to propose an amendment to the amendment so that the provision
will read: The Organic Act shall likewise provide for SPECIAL courts with
personal law and property law jurisdiction within the autonomous region
consistent with the provisions of this Constitution on Judicial Power. I would
change the word may to SHALL to make it mandatory. But that would
depend upon the wish or decision of the body as expressed by the
Committee.
MR. NOLLEDO: The Committee accepts the amendment.
MR. UKA: What about the amendment of my good friend, Commissioner
Padilla?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Padilla is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: May we inquire from Commissioner Uka whether these
appointments were done during the Marcos regime or during the Aquino
administration?
MR. UKA: Let me refresh my memory. Some were appointed during the past
administration and some were appointed to fill some of the vacancies during
the
present administration.
MR. PADILLA: As to the question of what will happen to these judges, they
can always be the regional trial judges or the municipal trial judges.
MR. ALONTO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Alonto is recognized.
MR. ALONTO: The suggestion of Commissioner Padilla is really quite
something to think about. However, the amendment of this section as
already read to the
Gentleman has provided for all that he has in mind. The last sentence reads:
The Organic Act may likewise provide for SPECIAL courts with FAMILY and
property law jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of this Constitution
AND NATIONAL LAW.
So, the organization of special courts is actually an implementation of that
basic and essential reason why we are granting autonomy to these particular
regions which, as we have stated in Section 1, is the nonviolation of
historical, cultural, linguistic, ethnic, communal, economic and other
characteristics. In order to implement this and strengthen the basis or reason
why we should, as we have done, grant autonomy to these regions, those
particular cultural differences between the cultural minorities and the
cultural majority in this country should be implemented. One of the most
important
differences between the dominant cultural community and the cultural
minority in this country is the law that governs personal, family and property
them
were even sent to Cairo by the government.
MR. FOZ: For special training, yes.
MR. UKA: Those who passed with good grades were sent there, and when
they came back, they became executive judges. Again, let me cite Corocoy
Moson, and
all the others who passed that examination. This year, as I said, there will
again be a mini-bar examination to be conducted by the Supreme Court. It
was
supposed to be given last December, but then they had to postpone it. And
many are now actually preparing for that.
MR. FOZ: Madam President, because of that serious shortage of qualified
personnel even for practice before the Muslim courts, I think it would be also
a
little inconceivable for Christian lawyers of the regular courts we are
speaking of the regular courts to handle special questions involving the
Sharia law. It is really out of the question; it is impossible. If most of the
Muslims themselves are not qualified to be appointed judges or even to
practice Muslim law before the Muslim courts, it would be really quite difficult
for judges of regular courts, let us say, of the RTCs, to apply the
Sharia law. It would take several months and years of training.
MR. UKA: Madam President, Commissioner Padilla posed a nice and beautiful
question: Suppose the litigation is between a Muslim and a Christian? What
does
the Committee say about that?
MR. ALONTO: When the litigation is regarding a question that could be
resolved by a national law, naturally the national law will apply.
MR. UKA: That is what I was going to answer.
MR. ALONTO: But this is a case where the persons involved are all belonging
to the same ideological culture; both litigants are Muslims.
MR. UKA: In other words this is only a special court for Muslims to solve the
problem of property and personal laws.
MR. ALONTO: With regard to what Commissioner Foz said, I would like to
invite the Commissioners attention to the provision which says: The
Organic Act
may likewise provide for special courts. But with this provision, the
implementation is going to take time, and in the meantime, we would have
to provide
for qualified people to man those special courts.
THE PRESIDENT: So the matter can be left to Congress. There should be no
quarrel about that.
MR. ALONTO: Yes, so why are we fighting over this?
MR. UKA: I see. Now, what happens to my amendment which is to use SHALL
instead of may?
MR. ALONTO: It is accepted by the Committee.
MR. NOLLEDO: The Committee has accepted that amendment.
MR. ALONTO: We are mandating Congress to provide for a special court.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Before we vote on these amendments, may I seek
clarification from either Commissioner Alonto or Commissioner Uka? I
understand that this
codification of Muslim personal laws was done to allay the Muslim Filipinos
feeling of alienation from the countrys cultural mainstream. As a matter of
fact, this decree provided for the formal codification of Muslim personal laws
based on its adat (customary) and Sharia (religious) laws. My first
question of Commissioner Alonto is this: Does the Commissioner find a
necessity in the future of also codifying the Muslim criminal laws?
MR. ALONTO: Preliminarily I would like to inform the Commissioner that I
myself have not read this book on Muslim personal laws authored by
President
Marcos, not believing in whatever he has done because he deceived the
Muslims in this country.
But there is a provision here which directs the legislative assemblies of the
autonomous regions to codify their customary or local laws.
MR. MAAMBONG: In other words, in the future there is the possibility that
there will be a code of Muslim personal laws to suit the Muslims and a code
of
Muslim criminal laws?
in accordance with their Islamic Sharia law, especially on family rights. But
must it be done by special judges and special courts?
Madam President, in conflict of laws, a municipal court what I mean by
municipal court is a domestic court may not be fully aware of the foreign
law
applicable but if that law is alleged and proven, and if the law is applicable,
the local court should adopt the foreign law applicable as part of the
municipal law. And when there is a conflict of laws, justice demands that the
proper law in accordance with the rules of private international law be
applied but it need not be applied by a foreign judge; it can be applied by our
own judge, our own courts.
And this question should not be made part of the Constitution. The Article on
the Judiciary says our judicial system is vested in the Supreme Court and
other lower courts that may be created by law. But here we are preempting
or we are placing a priori the requirement of a special court which should be
left to Congress rather than constitutionalizing the decrees of President
Marcos which not only would recognize their existence and validity but would
raise them to a higher category. I do not think there is necessity for that.
That is the point of my amendment. I want to make it clear that I am not
against Muslim autonomy, particularly the application of proper personal law
on
litigations among them, but that can be applied within our judicial system.
MR. UKA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner may proceed.
MR. UKA: In order to implement the nice suggestion of my friend,
Commissioner Padilla, why do we not require the Sharia and other laws to be
part of the
curricula of the colleges of law in this country? In that way every lawyer or
would-be lawyer will be able to know what is Sharia law and other
customary
laws so that nobody will be ignorant about them. If we can add to our legal
curricula international law or other laws for that matter, why could we not
integrate also this Muslim law and other customary laws? They do this in
Indonesia where they have what they call unity in diversity.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. That would be submitted to the Supreme Court
for whatever action it may deem proper to take.
Now, the Chair thinks there has been too much time already consumed on
this question of whether or not to have special courts.
MR. FOZ: With this amendment, this would leave Congress to find out if there
is really a need for establishing special courts or for the regular courts to
handle what it is that may arise involving customary law.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, the courts are now existing. This is just a
recognition of the existence of Sharia courts which are actually functioning
according to Commissioner Uka.
MR. FOZ: But we have to realize that even before the formal establishment of
these Sharia courts, disputes over the same matters were being resolved in
the old customary ways of the Muslims. It was just formalized with the
promulgation of those Marcos decrees. So we leave to Congress the
discretion to
study further whether special courts are really necessary.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, we do not inhibit Congress from amending
these decrees or even totally disregarding them and passing other laws
similar to
these decrees.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Madam President, may I ask Commissioner Padilla two
clarificatory questions?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de los Reyes is recognized.
MR. DE LOS REYES: I recall that in previous practice, the courts of first
instance, acting as special courts with special jurisdiction, act as land
registration courts. We have now established the Judicial and Bar Council. Is
it the Commissioners intention that, for example, an appointee to the RTC or
CFI in Mindanao will have to be determined by the Judicial and Bar Council,
keeping in mind that judges for appointment in those places should know
something about Muslim laws? Is that the concept of Commissioner Padilla
without the necessity of creating a specialized court?
MR. PADILLA: Yes, without the necessity of creating or continuing to maintain
these special courts.
Regarding the appointment of judges, we have approved the Article on the
Judiciary requiring that such appointment by the President come from a list
of
recommendees. Naturally, the autonomous region will also propose
nominees who are not only qualified, honest, good dispensers of justice, but
also with
some knowledge of the Islamic Sharia law. But even if a particular judge
does not master or does not know so much about the Islamic law, a good
judge can
always decide with honesty the legal issues involved and the proper law
applicable.
MR. DE LOS REYES: With the explanation of that concept, I would like to
support the stand of Commissioner Padilla.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, I have accepted the amendment to the
amendment of Commissioner Foz.
THE PRESIDENT: So the amendment is no longer to delete but to adopt the
proposed amendment of Commissioner Foz?
MR. PADILLA: Yes, because my idea, after all, as correctly stated by
Commissioner Foz, is not to deny the Muslim community their rights.
THE PRESIDENT: Will Commissioner Foz read his proposed amendment to the
third sentence in lieu of the third sentence of the Ople amendment.
MR. FOZ: The sentence reads: The Organic Act may provide THAT THE
CUSTOMARY LAW ON FAMILY RELATIONS AND PROPERTY MAY BE MADE
APPLICABLE, etc.
MR. ALONTO: Madam President, that is putting completely a different thing
from the essence of this provision. And besides that, we had been creating
special courts, juvenile courts and circuit courts. There has never been any
opposition to this. These special courts have been created to deal on special,
particular cases. We are merely suggesting the creation of a special court in
the autonomous region to deal on particular, special cases. Why the
objection
to this? I cannot understand, Madam President.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended for a few minutes.
It was 5:50 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 6:01 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Madam President, may I be recognized?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de los Reyes is recognized.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Upon consultation with Commissioners Padilla, Uka, Foz
and members of the Committee on Local Governments, we are offering this
proposal
which will meet the ideas and objections of the authors of these different
proposals. The sentence will read: The Organic Act may likewise provide for
A
JUDICIAL SYSTEM THAT WILL APPLY PERSONAL, FAMILY and property law
consistent with the provisions of this Constitution AND NATIONAL LAW.
MR. FOZ: Madam President, may we change the word will to SHALL?
MR. DE LOS REYES: That is accepted, Madam President. Does the Committee
accept the amendment?
MR. OPLE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: Is it understood that the special courts now existing will be
preserved, and this is without prejudice to more special courts to be created
as
may be determined necessary in the future?
MR. DE LOS REYES: Special courts now existing, pursuant to the provision in
the Transitory Provisions which we intend to propose to this honorable
Commission, will not be automatically abolished. This provision precisely will
give us a certain leeway, more elbowroom, for the creation of more
specialized courts but within the provisions of our Constitution and the
national law.
MR. NOLLEDO: The Committee accepts the amendment, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: So we preserve the phrase on Judicial Power?
MR. NOLLEDO: No, the phrase on Judicial Power is already embraced in the
phrase with the provisions of this Constitution AND NATIONAL LAW.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Padilla is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: I would like to state that if by that term judicial system the
interpretation is not only to preserve and maintain the special courts but
even to organize more special courts, I am not in agreement with the
proposal as drafted because precisely my main point was to eliminate special
courts so
that the regular trial courts, both regional and municipal, may undertake the
enforcement and application of the personal customary laws of these special
regions.
MR. OPLE: But that is the meaning attached to the amendment.
MR. NOLLEDO: With due respect to Commissioner Padilla, Commissioner
Oples observations find support among the members of the Committee.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: This matter has been sufficiently discussed by the Members
of the Commission. May I ask that we vote on this amendment as proposed
by
Commissioners de los Reyes, Foz and others?
THE PRESIDENT: Will Commissioner de los Reyes read the third sentence?
MR. DE LOS REYES: The Organic Act may likewise provide for A JUDICIAL
SYSTEM THAT SHALL APPLY PERSONAL, FAMILY and property law consistent
with the
provisions of this Constitution AND NATIONAL LAW.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, before we vote, may I ask a question?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo may proceed.
MR. RODRIGO: We now have a judicial system all over the country, national
in scope. Now, when judicial system is mentioned in this proposed
amendment,
does this mean a separate judicial system from our present existing judicial
system?
MR. NOLLEDO: No, it shall not be separate.
MR. RODRIGO: It is not separate.
MR. NOLLEDO: The judicial system exists within the autonomous region. It
says there consistent with the provisions of this Constitution AND NATIONAL
LAW.
So it is not separate.
MR. RODRIGO: What is the wording again?
MR. DE LOS REYES: The Congress may likewise provide for A JUDICIAL
SYSTEM THAT SHALL APPLY PERSONAL, FAMILY and property law consistent
with the
provisions of this Constitution AND NATIONAL LAW.
MR. RODRIGO: That is it. Is that judicial system distinct from the regular
national judicial system that we have now: Supreme Court, Court of Appeals,
Regional Trial Courts, et cetera?
MR. NOLLEDO: No, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: It is not distinct?
MR. NOLLEDO: It is part of that judicial system.
MR. OPLE: It is part of the judicial system of the Republic of the Philippines
under this Constitution, but at the same time, it has the flexibility to
accommodate the special needs of the autonomous region, Madam
President.
MR. RODRIGO: But it is within the judicial system.
MR. OPLE: It is within the Constitution and the law.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: In the light of the statement of Commissioner Ople and the
explanation given by him, I would propose an amendment. Instead of
consistent with
the provisions of this Constitution AND THE NATIONAL LAW, it should read:
SUBJECT TO the provisions of this Constitution ON JUDICIAL POWER AND
THE
NATIONAL LAW.
THE PRESIDENT: What does Commissioner de los Reyes say?
MR. DE LOS REYES: The fact of the matter is that I do not see much of a
difference; I think it is a matter of style, but I have no real objection to the
proposal of Commissioner Davide.
THE PRESIDENT: It is stronger, SUBJECT TO the provisions etc.
MR. OPLE: I accept the amendment, and I hope the Committee does the
same, Madam President.
Court. That is what we were saying. So if that is the case, we might as well
go to our original formulation of special courts.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, in this context the judicial system is really a
subsystem or a subset of the national judicial system. And the reason this is
employed as a proposal from the President earlier was precisely because it
could accommodate innovative forms of the dispensation of justice in the
future
as Congress may determine It will partake of some legal self-sufficiency and
to that extent, it is congruent with the special needs of an autonomous
region. So, it is congruent with the special needs and conditions of an
autonomous region but subject to the provisions of the Constitution on
judicial
power and national law.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: I would like to call for a vote on these two issues: First,
whether or not to use the term judicial system. If that is defeated, then we
will call for a vote on the use of special courts.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to that?
MR. PADILLA: I am against the use of special courts and object more
against the use of judicial system within our judicial system.
MR. BENGZON: But those are the two issues that are before the floor.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President.
MR. BENGZON: I have a motion, Madam President.
MR. NOLLEDO: I think the issue, Madam President, is whether we revert to
the original provision using special courts or we adopt the de los Reyes
amendment using JUDICIAL SYSTEM.
MR. PADILLA: My amendment is to delete the whole sentence.
THE PRESIDENT: Let us vote first whether we will delete or not.
MR. BENGZON: Yes, Madam President.
VOTING
I understand from the Journal that, with respect to Section 5 of the first
portion of this Article, the same words were used except that it ended with
the
word regions, to read: The President of the Philippines shall exercise
general supervision over autonomous regions, plus the other statements
made
therein.
In the approved resolution on the Article on the Executive, in Section 17
thereof, the second sentence states:
The President shall exercise general supervision over all local governments
as may be provided by law.
This phrase as may be provided by law, which is supposed to be the
delimitation on the power of general supervision of the President over all
local
governments, does not appear in either Section 5 or Section 3 of this Article
on Local Governments. Now, this makes a lot of difference because the
present
rule is that the power of general supervision of the President under the
Constitution is not self-executing. There must be an implementing law. It was
so
understood under the 1935 Constitution, and it was so understood and
adopted by reference in the 1973 Constitution, that the use of the phrase as
provided
by law was a limitation on the power of general supervision of the President
over local governments. As a matter of fact, it was pointed out in the case
of Planas vs. Gil, in the decision penned by Justice Laurel, that this general
supervision over local governments as provided by law is actually in the
nature of a compromise resulting from the conflict of views in that body,
mainly between the historical view, which recognizes the right of local
self-government, and the legal theory which sanctions the possession by the
State of absolute control over local governments.
In the previous cases decided by the Supreme Court the case of Planas vs.
Gil, and the case of Villena vs. Secretary of the Interior the Court just
proceeded on the assumption that with or without a statutory provision
granting the President general supervision over local governments, the
President had
a residual power to discipline officers of the local governments. But in the
subsequent case of Lacson vs. Roque, which appears to be the case in point
now, and which was promulgated on January 10, 1953, the Supreme Court
pointed out that, unlike control over the ministries, with respect to local
governments the power of general supervision of the President over such
local governments shall only be insofar as the same may be provided by law.
That
was the reason it held that President Quirino did not have the power to
suspend Mayor Lacson, because neither the Charter of Manila nor any other
law gave
him that power of suspension.
I am wondering whether the Commission or the Committee has made a
complete turnaround by now merely providing that the President, with or
without a law,
shall have the power of general supervision over local governments,
meaning, the so-called residual powers of the central government over the
local
governments, or whether there must be an enabling law because, as pointed
out by Justice Tuazon: It is one thing to control, and another to suspend.
The Supreme Court even pointed out that insofar as supervision of local
governments is concerned, there must only be a limited authority. That is
why the
law says only general supervision as provided by law, because such a
limited authority would not be in contravention of, but is precisely in
adherence
to, the provisions intended to safeguard local autonomy. The trend in our
formulations here is to give more and more local autonomy to local
governments.
If we eliminate the phrase as provided by law insofar as the general
supervision over local of officials by the President of the Philippines is
concerned, then we are delimiting instead of expanding local autonomy.
And that was precisely why in a resolution I submitted to the Committee on
the Executive I saw to it that that phrase general supervision is to be
maintained, as distinguished from control over Ministries and only as
provided by law. Otherwise, the President may exercise the so-called
general
supervision untrammeled by any provision of law which restricts his power
and it will virtually eliminate the line or the distinction between control and
supervision.
THE PRESIDENT: So, in brief, what is Commissioner Regalados point with
respect to Section 3? Does it conflict with any other provision?
MR. REGALADO: Madam President, my point is that it conflicts with the
second sentence of Section 17 of the Article on the Executive which has
already been
passed on Second Reading and which I believe should be the proper wording
for the reasons I have given, and such a case has already been decided.
THE PRESIDENT: The new Section 8 of the Article on Local Governments also
states that The President of the Philippines shall exercise general
supervision
over local governments.
MR. REGALADO: Period. Whereas under Section 17, Madam President, the
second sentence says, He shall exercise general supervision over all local
governments as may be provided by law and shall take care that the laws be
faithfully executed.
THE PRESIDENT: And that is the Commissioners point.
FR. BERNAS: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bernas is recognized.
FR. BERNAS: I think in our deliberations yesterday, the intention was clearly
not to expand the power of the President but rather, precisely, to limit the
power of the President towards ensuring that laws are followed. The
interpretation was given that general supervision simply means that the
superior sees
to it that the inferior acts within the powers granted by law. Moreover, when
we amended Section 8, there was also a clarification in order to further
emphasize autonomy vis-a-vis the President. We also said that there is a
hierarchy of supervisions: municipalities over barangays, provinces over
municipalities and component cities, and then the President, over provinces
and highly urbanized cities, and I suppose now also over autonomous
regions.
But the object is mainly that the President, as executive, and by virtue of his
oath to make sure that laws are complied with, would only have this power
of general supervision, not of control. His power is mainly to ensure that laws
are followed. So, clearly, the intention is not to expand the power of the
President.
The cases just cited are correct; precisely, the power to discipline was not
recognized on the part of the President because the existing law at that time
gave disciplinary power, initiation of disciplinary authority, to somebody else.
I think the case involved the question of whether the President could
initiate disciplinary action against an elective official.
MR. REGALADO: That was the case of Planas vs. Gil.
FR. BERNAS: Yes. And since the charter said that only the provincial board
could initiate it, since that was the law, then that had to be applicable.
MR. REGALADO: In the case of Lacson vs. Roque, there was no provision
whatsoever in the Charter of the City of Manila. In the case of Villena vs. the
Secretary of the Interior, they applied the Administrative Code. Actually, my
only question is: Why have we eliminated the phrase as provided by law
which is actually a safeguard for local autonomy?
FR. BERNAS: The intention, as I recall, was that the power of general
supervision should be dependent on existing law because supervision means
making sure
that the laws are followed.
MR. REGALADO: I agree that the power of supervision is dependent on
existing law but the extent of supervision must be spelled out by law.
FR. BERNAS: I think what we were saying is that when we speak of
autonomy, we are speaking of autonomy not just vis-a-vis the President but
also vis-a-vis
the Legislature. So that while we are curtailing the power of the President,
we are also curtailing the power of the Legislature.
MR. REGALADO: I am referring here only to the power of the President not
with respect to the provincial government over the municipalities constituent
thereof. I am only wondering, and I am sure there will be questions because
of the disparity of the expression used therein, why under the Article on the
Executive, the power of general supervision is subject to and as may be
provided by law whereas here, that phrase which assumes some vital
importance
is completely eliminated in two sections.
FR. BERNAS: That is why I think when we discussed this yesterday, the
Chairman of the Committee on Style and also the Chairman of the
Sponsorship Committee
saw the possible necessity of reconciling the two. In other words, by dropping
the phrase as may be provided by law, we are cutting the discretion of
Congress to give or not to give authority to the President. The intention was
not to strengthen the President but rather to strengthen autonomy vis-a-vis
the Legislature.
MR. REGALADO: Was it therefore the understanding of the body and of the
Committee because I was not here at that time that the power of
general
supervision of the President over local governments lies purely on the fact
that he is the national head of the government and not because it is a power
vouchsafed to him by provision of law, in other words, a rethinking, a 360degree turn from the present conventional rule?
MR. REGALADO: In other words, was it the sense of the body that the present
Section 3 under the Article on Autonomous Regions and Section 5 under the
preceding provision on Local Governments will be deleted and that the
second sentence of Section 17 will be transposed to the Article on Local
Governments
minus the phrase as may be provided by law?
MR. RODRIGO: Yes.
MR. REGALADO: And was it the sense of the body that the power of general
supervision by the President over local governments is no longer dependent
upon
any statutory fiat but inheres from his position as head of the government?
MR. RODRIGO: I am not in a position to answer that. All I was interested in
was to find out which I should delete because of the duplication.
THE PRESIDENT: What does the Committee say?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes.
MR. OPLE: The answer is yes.
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: May we first allow the Chairman of the Committee to react
to the statement of Commissioner Regalado about the basis.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, my answer is yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The answer is affirmative.
Commissioner de Castro is recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you, Madam President.
On my notes on the proceedings yesterday, the observation of Commissioner
Rodrigo on Section 17 of the Article on the Executive is correct. And on
Section
7, formerly Section 5, we stated that: The President of the Philippines shall
exercise general supervision over local governments. And this is followed by
the provisions of Section 4.1 of the 1973 Constitution which states:
Provinces with respect to component cities and municipalities, and cities and
municipalities with respect to component barrios, shall ensure that the acts
of their component units are within the scope of their assigned powers and
functions.
That is what I got in our proceedings yesterday.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. SARMIENTO: That is correct.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any proposed amendment to Section 3?
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, I ask that we vote on Section 3, as
amended, which is now Section 16. May we ask the Chairman of the
Committee to read it?
MR. NOLLEDO: Section 3 on Autonomous Regions reads: The President of
the Philippines shall exercise general supervision over autonomous regions
to ensure
that laws are faithfully executed.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to this particular section? (Silence)
The Chair hears none; Section 3, as amended, is approved.
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, the Committee believes that the next three
sections may take a lot of time to discuss, and so we ask that the Floor
Leader
move for adjournment until tomorrow morning.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, I just want to put on record the proponents of
Section 2: Commissioners Ople, Nolledo, Foz, Monsod, Rama, Bennagen,
Alonto,
Villacorta, Azcuna, Uka and Muoz Palma.
Thank you.
ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, there are so any proponents for Section
4. So I join the manifestation of our Chairman, Commissioner Nolledo. I move
that
we adjourn the session until tomorrow at nine-thirty in the morning.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the
session is adjourned until tomorrow at nine-thirty in the morning.
It was 6:39 p.m.