Supreme Court E-Library
Information At Your Fingertips

  View printer friendly version

CALL TO ORDER

At 5:07 p.m., the President of the Constitutional Commission, the Honorable Cecilia Muñoz Palma, called the session to order.

NATIONAL ANTHEM AND PRAYER

The National Anthem was sung followed by a prayer led by Mr. Vicente B. Foz, to wit:

Almighty God, give us the strength to work harder than ever before. Teach us to share further the little that we know and have, so we, Your servants, may achieve our common goal.

Make us forget our self-interests, prejudices, suspicions, intolerance and hatred, and listen to our people who are far wiser than us. Persuade those of our people who would still revere on a pedestal a fallen and false idol, to go the way of peace.

Help us, Lord, to meet our self-imposed deadline, for the sake of our nation and Your greater glory.    

Amen.

ROLL CALL

Upon direction of the Chair, the Secretary-General of the Commission called the Roll and the following Members responded: 

Abubakar, Y.R.	Lerum, E.R.
Alonto, A.D.	Maambong, R.E.
Aquino, F.S.	Monsod, C.S.
Azcuna, A.S.	Natividad, T.C.
Bacani, T.C.	Nieva, M.T.F.
Bennagen, P.L.	Nolledo, J.N.
Bernas, J.G.	Padilla, A.B.
Rosario Braid, F.	Muñoz Palma, C.
Brocka, L.O.	Quesada, M.L.M.
Calderon, J.D.	Rama, N.G.
De Castro, C.M.	Regalado, F.D.
Colayco, J.C.	De los Reyes, R.F.
Concepcion, R.R.	Rigos, C.A.
Davide, H.G.	Rodrigo, F.A.
Foz, V.B.	Romulo, R.J.
Garcia, E.G.	Rosales, D.R.
Gascon, J.L.M.C.	Sarmiento, R.V.
Guingona, S.V.C.	Suarez, J.E.
Jamir, A.M.K.	Sumulong, L.M.
Tadeo, J.S.L.	Uka, L.L.
Tan, C.	Villacorta, W.V.
Tingson, G.J.	Villegas, B.M.
Treñas, E.B.

With 45 Members present, the Chair declared the presence of a quorum.

The following Members appeared after the Roll Call: 

Bengzon, J.F.S.	Ople, B.F.
Mr. Laurel was absent.

READING AND APPROVAL OF THE JOURNAL

On motion of Mr. Alonto, there being no objection, the reading of the Journal of the previous session was dispensed with and the said Journal was approved by the Body.

REFERENCE OF BUSINESS

On motion of Mr. Alonto, there being no objection, the Body proceeded to the Reference of Business.   

REFERRAL TO COMMITTEES OF RESOLUTIONS

Upon direction of the Chair, the Secretary-General read, on First Reading, the titles of the following proposed Resolutions which were, in turn, referred by the Chair to the Committees hereunder indicated:

Proposed Resolution No. 216, entitled:

RESOLUTION DECLARING THE PHILIPPINES AS A NUCLEAR-FREE COUNTRY AND SHALL NOT BE USED FOR STORING OR STOCKPILING NUCLEAR WEAPONS OR DEVICES

Introduced by Honorable de los Reyes, Jr.

TO THE COMMITTEE ON PREAMBLE, NATIONAL TERRITORY AND DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES

Proposed Resolution No. 217, entitled:

RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR A CATEGORICAL COMMITMENT TO SECURE A BETTER MORAL ENVIRONMENT FOR OUR COUNTRY

Introduced by Honorable de los Reyes, Jr.

TO THE COMMITTEE ON PREAMBLE, NATIONAL TERRITORY AND DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES

Proposed Resolution No. 218, entitled:

RESOLUTION INCLUDING BETRAYAL OF PUBLIC TRUST AS ADDITIONAL GROUND FOR IMPEACHMENT

Introduced by Honorable de los Reyes, Jr,

TO THE COMMITTEE ON ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

Proposed Resolution No. 219, entitled:

RESOLUTION DECLARING THAT THE EXPLOITATION, DEVELOPMENT AND UTILIZATION OF FISHING GROUNDS AND MARINE PRODUCTS BE RESERVED TO FILIPINO CITIZENS

Introduced by Honorable Sarmiento and Tadeo

TO THE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY

Proposed Resolution No. 220, entitled:

RESOLUTION FOR CREATING A MULTISECTORAL COMMITTEE IN EVERY PRIVATE SCHOOL TO OVERSEE FINANCIAL MATTERS

Introduced by Honorable Villacorta and Gascon

TO THE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

Proposed Resolution No. 221, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION DECLARING THAT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE STATE AND THE CITIZENS OF THE COUNTRY

Introduced by Honorable Quesada and Bennagen

TO THE COMMITTEE ON PREAMBLE, NATIONAL TERRITORY AND DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES

Proposed Resolution No. 222, entitled:

RESOLUTION ADOPTING PROVISIONS ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY FOR INCLUSION IN THE PROPOSED NEW CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Introduced by Honorable Quesada, Bennagen and Villacorta

TO THE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

Proposed Resolution No. 223, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION PROHIBITING ELECTIVE AND APPOINTIVE OFFICIALS FROM OBTAINING LOANS FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES FROM GOVERNMENT-OWNED BANKS OR FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

Introduced by Honorable Davide, Jr.

TO THE COMMITTEE ON ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

Proposed Resolution No. 224, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO FURTHER STRENGTHEN THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIARY BY GRANTING THE SUPREME COURT AUTOMATIC AUTHORITY TO AUGMENT ANY ITEM OF THE GENERAL APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE JUDICIARY FROM SAVINGS IN OTHER ITEMS OF SUCH APPROPRIATIONS    

Introduced by Honorable Davide, Jr.

TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Proposed Resolution No. 225, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO STRENGTHEN FURTHER THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS BY GRANTING IT EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY TO DEPUTIZE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES AND INSTRUMENTALITIES AND THE ARMED FORCES, IF NECESSARY, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ENSURING FREE, ORDERLY HONEST, AND CLEAN ELECTIONS

Introduced by Honorable Davide, Jr.

TO THE COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS AND AGENCIES

Proposed Resolution No. 226, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO ARRANGE THE PROVISIONS IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS IN LOGICAL SEQUENCE TO FACILITATE COMPREHENSION BY THE PEOPLE

Introduced by Honorable Villegas

TO THE COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP, BILL OF RIGHTS, POLITICAL RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS

Proposed Resolution No. 227, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INTRODUCE A SEPARATE ARTICLE ON SOCIAL JUSTICE AND TO SET CRITERIA FOR DISTINGUISHING ITS PROVISIONS FROM THOSE PROPER TO THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND OTHER ARTICLES

Introduced by Honorable Villegas

TO THE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL JUSTICE AND SOCIAL SERVICES

Proposed Resolution No. 228, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCLUDE AS SECTION ON THE ARTICLE STATING OUR DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES A COLLECTIVE VISION OF THE FILIPINO PEOPLE

Introduced by Honorable Rosario Braid

TO THE COMMITTEE ON PREAMBLE, NATIONAL TERRITORY AND DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES

COMMUNICATIONS
Communication No. 25 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Communication from the Deputy Executive Secretary, transmitting a draft constitution submitted by Mr. Floro S. Caritan, national nominee for the Constitutional Commission

TO THE STEERING COMMITTEE

Communication No. 26 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Communication from the Executive Secretary, transmitting a letter from Mr. Bernardo S. Ugsalan of Talakag, Bukidnon, requesting prerogatives for tribal chieftains in their respective localities and the preservation of ancestral lands of national cultural minorities   

TO THE COMMITTEE ON GENERAL PROVISIONS

Communication No. 27 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from the Honorable Froilan M. Bacuñgan, Commission on Elections, transmitting proposals focusing on civil, political and human rights

TO THE COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP, BILL OF RIGHTS, POLITICAL RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS

Communication No. 28 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from the Honorable Commissioner Cirilo A. Rigos, enclosing a resolution of the National Movement for Dual Filipino American Citizenship Status

TO THE COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP, BILL OF RIGHTS, POLITICAL RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS

CHANGES IN COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIPS

At this juncture, on motion of Mr. Alonto, there being no objection, the Body approved the election of Mr. Nolledo and Ms. Aquino as members of the Committee on General Provisions to fill the resignations therefrom as manifested in the previous session.

Likewise, Mr. Alonto informed the Body that Ms. Tan had resigned from the Committee on Citizenship, Bill of Rights, Political Rights and Obligations and Human Rights.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY OF MR. SARMIENTO

In reply to Mr. Sarmiento's inquiry on the proposed franking privilege for letters, manifestos and position papers addressed to the Constitutional Commission, the Chair informed the Body that a communication to that effect had been sent to the Office of the President but that no action had yet been received. Thereupon, the Chair directed the Secretary-General to follow up the matter.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

On motion of Mr. Alonto, the session was suspended.

It was 5:21 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 5:36 p.m., the session was resumed.

AMENDMENT TO THE RULES OF THE COMMISSION

At this juncture, on motion of Mr. Bengzon, there being no objection, the Body approved the increase in membership of the 1) Committee on Preamble, National Territory and Declaration of Principles, 2) Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions, and 3) Committee on Local Governments, from seven (7) to eleven (11).   

Mr. Bengzon then invited the Members interested in joining these Committees to submit their names to the Office of the President of the Commission.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY OF MR. MAAMBONG

In reply to Mr. Maambong's inquiry, the Chair affirmed that a franking privilege is proposed to be extended to people who want to send letters to the Commission in accordance with the resolution filed by some Members.

MOTION OF MR. MAAMBONG

Thereupon, Mr. Maambong moved that the request sent to the Office of the President of the Philippines be amended to extend the same privilege to the Members.

Mr. Bacani objected on the ground that the Members' allowance would cover their mailing expenses, in reply to which, Mr. Maambong stated that he was not thinking in terms of allowances but of the principle behind the grant, considering that Members of the past Constitutional Conventions were given franking privileges.

On Mr. Rodrigo's comment that the Constitution being a fundamental law, the people should be able to communicate with the Commission free of charge without necessarily extending the same privilege to the Members, Mr. Maambong stated that the Members are duty bound to answer the letters they receive and that it would be very inconvenient for them to buy stamps each time they mail their replies. He also maintained that such franking privilege would not be too much loss of revenue to the Post Office.

Submitted to a vote and with 9 voting in favor and 26 against, the motion was lost.

CONTINUATION OF THE DISCUSSION ON CITIZENSHIP

Thereafter, on motion of Mr. Alonto, the Body continued the free-wheeling discussion on citizenship.

REMARKS OF MR. CONCEPCION

Taking his turn on the subject of citizenship, Mr. Concepcion focused attention to two important questions of policy: first, whether or not to liberalize the naturalization proceedings; and second, whether the government should look with favor on dual citizenship. Both, he said, carry certain inherent and vital problems and cited the difficulty of determining who are citizens of the Philippines. In the 1935 Constitution, Mr. Concepcion noted, children whose fathers are unknown but whose mothers are Filipino citizens, had been given the option to choose Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. In the 1973 Constitution, it is assumed that children born of unknown fathers and Filipino mothers, could choose to be Filipino citizens. He asked if the presumption should not be in favor of the child following the nationality of the father, firstly, because in most families the father is the hero and the family is dependent upon him; secondly, to declare the child a citizen of the Philippines since birth could create a problem in the family and lead to conflicts between the mother and the father; thirdly, giving the child of a Filipino mother and foreigner father the right to elect Philippine citizenship would put him on a more advantageous position since he could avail of the citizenship of his mother under Philippine law and the citizenship of his father under the nationality laws of the father; and fourthly, it could involve conflict of laws or private international law, as when the Philippine Civil Code follows the rule mobilia sequuntur personam but that Philippine law governs with respect to real estate situated in the Philippines.

Mr. Concepcion stressed that while the condition of citizenship of the child following the citizenship of the father is conducive to a number of problems apart from the national security problem earlier cited by Mr. Ople in the event of conflict between the states of the nationality of the father and the mother, the child of a foreigner father is, in fact, better situated than the child whose parents are Filipino citizens because the former enjoys two options.

Thereupon, Mr. Concepcion manifested a reservation to submit an amendment to revert to the pertinent citizenship provisions of the 1935 Constitution.

COMMENTS OF MS. AQUINO

Ms. Aquino observed that Mr. Concepcion's proposal implies that the principle of jus sanguinis is being unduly dichotomized as between the male and female parentage, and does not speak well of the equality of the sexes.

She questioned the undue distinction between the male and the female parentage, considering that the formulation of the citizenship article already recognized three basic principles, 1) the continuation of citizenship at the time of the adoption of the 1986 Constitution; 2) the recognition of naturalization as a legal procedure of acquisition of citizenship; and 3) the principle of jus sanguinis.

COMMENTS OF MR. BERNAS

Mr. Bernas stated that behind the modification of the 1935 rule was a recognition of the fact that it reflected a certain male chauvinism. He explained that the idea was not to penalize the mother of the child simply because she fell in love with the father. There is no way of knowing what citizenship child would eventually prefer, but Mr. Bernas maintained that if the infant's right to choose is recognized, he should be allowed to choose his citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.    

Mr. Bernas pointed out that although the rule on citizenship is a reality imposed on the country because it has no control on the citizenship laws of other countries, the government has the right to impose at a certain point that the child be made to choose.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. RODRIGO

In reply to Mr. Rodrigo's query as to what would be the age of majority, Mr. Bernas stated that for purposes of electing Philippine citizenship, it is 21 years.

As for the time within which the option to choose citizenship may be exercised, Mr. Bernas stated that following established jurisprudence, it must be within a reasonable time, which, in some extraordinary cases, had extended up to three or four years after reaching the age of majority as when person was all along under the impression that he w a natural-born citizen.

COMMENTS OF MR. PADILLA

Mr. Padilla expressed concurrence with the views given by Mr. Concepcion. He observed that while the 1935 Constitution contained separate provisions on the father and the mother, the 1973 Constitution lumped these provisions into one. He stated that Section 1 (3) in the 1973 Constitution provides for those who elect Philippine citizenship, but it appears incongruous in that while the 1973 Constitution mentions nothing about election, it makes reference to the right of election in accordance with the 1936 Constitution.

Mr. Padilla stated that the 1973 provision which put the father and mother on equal footing was at the instance of female lawyers who advocated equal rights for men and women.

He observed, however, that when a Filipino marries a foreigner, he has the choice of residence and more often than not, they reside in the Philippines and their children are born here. On the other hand, a Filipina who marries an American usually follows the residence of her husband and resides abroad. Thus, the principle of jus soli is applied to a child who would be an American but adherence to the jus sanguinis principle followed in the Philippines would make the child Filipino, giving rise to dual citizenship and to complications.

Mr. Padilla maintained that while there must be respect for equality of rights between male and female, the fact is that it is only mothers who give birth. He then suggested that with the restoration of Section 1 (3) and (4) of the 1935 Constitution, particularly the retention of paragraph (4), providing that if the child is born in the country, his right to Filipino citizenship is recognized, paragraph (3) would have some meaning considering that it expressly mentions those who elect Philippine citizenship

INTERPELLATION OF MR. DE LOS REYES

Mr. de los Reyes invited attention to the fact that under the 1935 Constitution, an illegitimate child follows the citizenship of his mother, and that the illegitimate child of a Filipina by an alien to whom she is not married, would enjoy better rights than that of a legitimate child. He observed that if the Commission were to revert to the previous concept in the 1935 Constitution, it would encourage alien fathers to continue their illicit relations with the Filipino mothers so that their children would have Filipino citizenship.

Replying thereto, Mr. Padilla agreed that the relationship should be legitimate; however, if they are not married, the Civil Code provides that the status of the child follows that of the mother. He pointed out that, although he does not encourage illegitimacy or non-celebration of marriage between a Filipina and a foreigner, the fact remains that if the Filipina is not married to the foreigner, there is really no clear relation between the child and the father unless there are grounds for compulsory acknowledgment.

COMMENTS OF MR. GUINGONA

Mr. Guingona observed that, with reference to Section 1 (2) of the proposed Resolution on citizenship, it would be better to state "Those born of a Filipino father or mother" instead of "Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines," in order to avoid some questions that may arise. He explained that a child's citizenship may be challenged if during his minority the father becomes a naturalized citizen of another country.

On another point, Mr. Guingona raised the query whether the Committee had considered the effect of legal adoption on the citizenship of the child.

Finally, Mr. Guingona suggested that the Commission discuss at length the issue of dual citizenship.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. DE LOS REYES

In reply to the query of Mr. de los Reyes, Mr. Guingona clarified his earlier remark by stating that the citizenship laws invariably provide that the woman follows the citizenship of the husband and that nowhere could one find a provision stating that the husband follows the citizenship of the wife.

REPLY OF MR. BERNAS

Replying to Mr. Guingona's request for clarification on the effect of legal adoption on the citizenship of the child, Mr. Bernas stated that the Committee proceeded on the assumption that the rule on adoption is a civil and not a political rule.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. REGALADO

Mr. Bernas confirmed Mr. Regalado's observation that the Committee would liberalize Section 4, with an amendment that would consider as a natural-born Filipino a child of mixed marriage who elects Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of majority. However, the Committee had not considered whether a natural-born Filipino who loses his citizenship by naturalization, and subsequently regains it through repatriation would come within the liberal terms of the amendment, although Mr. Bernas opined that the status of being a natural-born citizen, like a balloon, once pricked is gone forever.

With respect to the child who would be a Filipino citizen by election and who under the proposed Committee amendment would be considered a natural-born citizen, replying to Mr. Regalado's observation that all the child had at the time of birth was an inchoate right to make the choice, Mr. Bernas pointed out that the difference between him and the natural-born citizen who lost his citizenship is that while the former never had a chance to choose, the latter lost it voluntarily.

In the case of a natural-born Filipino citizen who serves in the military service of a friendly foreign country, Mr. Bernas recalled that under the Naturalization Law, service in the armed forces of a nation with which the Philippines has a mutual defense treaty does not strip him of Philippine citizenship, although it could be a different case if he takes an oath of allegiance to said foreign country.    

On whether the Committee had ascertained the number of foreigners who were naturalized by legislative process under the previous regime as a pertinent information to determine the added workload of the courts, Mr. Bernas stated that the Committee did not make an official effort to ascertain, although, it did make an effort to recollect.

On the possibility that there were irregularities even in judicial naturalization and, more so, on a number of people conferred citizenship by legislative fiat which could pose danger to the security of the country, Mr. Bernas stated that this is a matter which could easily be answered by the Ministry of Justice.

FURTHER REMARKS OF MR. CONCEPCION

Thereupon, Mr. Concepcion commented that prior to 1935 when nobody paid attention to the matter of citizenship and there were very few cases of petitions for naturalization in spite of a sizeable population of foreigners who had resided in the Philippines for many years, the framers of the 1935 Constitution realized that foreigners were getting more and more control of practically everything in the Philippines and so, the 1935 Constitution adopted a partial Filipinization policy in the enjoyment of natural resources and in the operation of public utilities.

He stated that citizenship as a backdoor to the enjoyment of natural resources and operation of public utilities was manifested in the marked increase of applicants for naturalization, although the 1935 Constitution did not make any of them more sympathetic to the Filipinos or to the Philippines than they were before. He stressed that business and trade were dominated by many naturalized citizens and this domination was considerably worsened by the 1973 Constitution and certain decrees issued by the then President of the Philippines.

Mr. Concepcion stressed that there would be no problem with respect to citizenship if the Commission were to adopt the cause of the limitation on the enjoyment of natural resources and operation of public utilities in pursuance of the Filipinization policy.

Mr. Concepcion maintained that by giving the right of equal enjoyment of natural resources and the utilization of public utilities to the children born of Filipino mothers and fathers who are foreigners would give them better rights than natural-born Filipinos as what had happened under the Parity Rights Amendment to the 1935 Constitution when foreigners with better financial backing enjoyed undue advantage over their Filipino counterparts. He stressed that poor aliens do not usually apply for naturalization and, if they do, they do not live up to the requirements of the naturalization law, one of which is a lucrative occupation.

Finally, Mr. Concepcion pointed out that if the naturalization laws continue to be liberalized, there would come a time when not only the economy but also the population would be controlled by foreigners. He then underscored the need of extending greater protection to the Filipinos.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. OPLE

Mr. Ople prefaced his interpellation with the observation that Mr. Concepcion had touched on a subject of great importance to national development which is citizenship as the key to economic opportunities and that the grant of citizenship to foreigners should be tightened up by more stringent naturalization laws. He inquired whether this insight would no seem a bit too late considering that most of the over seas communities referred to were already naturalized

Mr. Ople opined that the 1935 Constitution had put into effect an assimilation policy which resulted in the enrichment of the national community by fresh infusion from the Chinese, thus the resurgence of the celestial Filipinos.

On the correlation between a policy of assimilation through naturalization and economic opportunities, Mr. Ople recalled that in the earliest decades of Spanish colonization, the Chinese in the Philippines were prevented from engaging in agriculture for which reason they went into commerce and industry, and eventually emerged as the new class of business and industry. He pointed out that under the law nationalizing the retail trade, there was massive displacement because these Filipinos of Chinese descent who once dominated the sari-sari stores graduated into banking to a degree that they now hold the levers of power while their Filipino counterparts inherited their dominance in the retail trade business.

He noted that any law or policy seeking their displacement had only propelled them to graduate to a higher rank of control and prominence in the economy. This, he stated, justifies the contention that the insight might have come too late and that the assimilation policy seemed not to be a total failure.

In reply, Mr. Concepcion stated that 1) if the country wants to maintain a policy of relative Filipinization of the natural resources and public utilities acquisition of citizenship by naturalization should be made as strict as possible; and 2) Filipinos today, although the country seems to be more prosperous are actually poorer, while the foreigners are richer, for which reason, the nation should decide what policy to adopt. He pointed out that double citizenship would give the child of a foreigner better opportunities than a natural-born citizen aside from the problem in private international law known as conflict of laws.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. VILLACORTA

Reacting to Messrs. Concepcion's and Bernas’ remarks, Mr. Villacorta suggested that in order to genuinely integrate the naturalized citizen into the mainstream of society, the applicants for naturalization should be required 1) to adopt a Filipino name learn the national language and send their children or school age to Philippine schools; and 2) to respect Filipino customs and traditions and to refrain from any act of discrimination against natural-born Filipinos, particularly with respect to commerce and employment.

He maintained that this two-fold proposal would provide an incentive to naturalized citizens to assimilate themselves into the mainstream of Philippine society and reduce two-way discrimination. He proposed that for the purpose, there should be a probation period for naturalized citizens to prove themselves worthy of being conferred the status of natural-born citizens in line with the idea of building a just and humane society.

In reply thereto, Mr. Concepcion stated that rather than emphasize the disposition of naturalized citizens to be integrated into the community he would prefer that one of the conditions for naturalization should be proof that after a number of years of residence, the naturalized citizen really feels like a Filipino. He pointed to a possible recurrence of the time when the government was induced by the Americans to withdraw recognition of the Chinese government in Taiwan and recognize the People's Republic in Mainland China, and all members of the Chinese Nationalist group in the Philippines applied for citizenship in order to avoid being under Communist rule in the same manner that those who applied for naturalization under the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions were motivated by the provision on the conservation of the country's natural resources and the utilization of public utilities.

COMMENTS OF MR. PADILLA

Responding to Mr. Villacorta’s proposals, Mr. Padilla stated that the same are already contained in Commonwealth Act 473, otherwise known as the Revised Naturalization Law. He pointed out that the said law provides enough safeguards for naturalization through executive or administrative proceedings where it may not be possible to cancel the certificate of naturalization.

On Mr. Regalado’s observation regarding naturalization through legislative proceedings, Mr. Padilla pointed out that during his tenure in Congress, only a few were granted naturalization through legislation and they were persons who practically spent their entire lifetime in the Philippines and who had rendered valuable services to the nation.

On Mr. Guingona's proposal to change the phraseology to "children born of Filipino fathers or mothers" in lieu of saying "those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines", Mr. Padilla pointed out the danger that it may imply recognition of the principle of jus soli when Philippine legislation and jurisprudence have always adhered to jus sanguinis.    

ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION

Thereafter, on motion of Mr. Alonto, there being no objection, the Chair declared the session adjourned until five o'clock in the afternoon of the following day.

It was 7:07 p.m.

I hereby certify to the correctness of the foregoing.

(SGD.) FLERIDA RUTH P. ROMERO
Secretary-General

ATTESTED:

(SGD.) CECILIA MUÑOZ PALMA
                 President

Approved on June 24, 1986