Supreme Court E-Library
Information At Your Fingertips

  View printer friendly version

CALL TO ORDER

At 5:19 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. Jose Luis Martin C. Gascon, to wit:

Isang Pagbasa mula sa Ebanghelyo ni San Lukas:

At sinabi ni Maria: "Ang puso ko'y nagpupuri sa Panginoon at nagagalak ang aking espiritu dahil sa Diyos na aking Tagapagligtas sapagkat nilingap Niya ang Kaniyang abang alipin, at mula ngayon, ako ay tatawaging mapalad ng lahat ng saling-lahi. Dahil sa mga dakilang bagay na ginawa sa akin ng Maykapangyarihan, banal ang Kaniyang pangalan. Kinahahabagan Niya ang mga may takot sa Kaniya sa lahat ng saling-lahi. Ipinakita Niya ang lakas ng Kaniyang mga bisig; ipinangalat Niya ang mga palalo ang isipan; ibinagsak Niya ang mga hari mula sa kanilang trono at itinaas ang mga nasa abang kalagayan; binusog Niya ng mabubuting bagay ang mga nagugutom, at pinalayas Niya nang wala ni anuman ang mayayaman; tinulungan Niya ang Kaniyang bayang Israel bilang pagtupad sa pangako Niya sa ating mga magulang, kay Abraham at sa kaniyang saling-lahi magpakailanman."

Amang mapagmahal at mapagpalaya, sa araw na ito ay inaalay namin ang aming sarili, ang aming kahinaan at kalakasan. Gabayan Mo kami sa aming pagkukulang at tulungan Mo kami upang patuloy naming isulong ang sandigan at mithiin ng aming sambayanan ang isang malayang lipunan, upang makayanan naming ialay ang aming sarili sa pagbuo ng tunay na maka-Pilipino at maka-Diyos na pamayanan na nakatimo sa kalayaan, katarungan, katotohanan at pag-ibig.

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

With 46 Members present, the Chair declared the presence of a quorum.

Mr. Natividad appeared after the Roll Call.

Mr. Laurel was absent.

READING AND APPROVAL OF THE JOURNAL

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

REFERENCE OF BUSINESS

On motion of Mr. Calderon, 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. 274, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCLUDE IN THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION SECTIONS THREE AND FOUR, ARTICLE FOUR, OF THE 1973 CONSTITUTION WITH MODIFICATION TO MAKE THE PROTECTION MORE EFFECTIVE

Introduced by Honorable Treñas

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

Proposed Resolution No. 275, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCLUDE IN THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION SECTION ELEVEN PARAGRAPH (1) ARTICLE X OF THE 1973 CONSTITUTION WITH MODIFICATIONS AND WITH AN ADDITIONAL PARAGRAPH TO FURTHER STRENGTHEN THE COMPULSORY CHARACTER OF SAID PROVISION

Introduced by Honorable Treñas, Colayco, Romulo and Suarez

TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Proposed Resolution No. 276, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION FOR A NATIONALIST, SCIENTIFIC AND PEOPLE-ORIENTED EDUCATION   

Introduced by Honorable Quesada

TO THE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

Proposed Resolution No. 277, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION ON A NATIONAL HEALTH POLICY FOR A COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH CARE DELIVERY SYSTEM FOR THE ENTIRE COUNTRY

Introduced by Honorable Quesada, Suarez and Sarmiento

TO THE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL JUSTICE

Proposed Resolution No. 278, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE IN THE GENERAL PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT THE STATE SHALL NOT INTERFERE WITH THE RIGHT OF EVERY CITIZEN TO SELECT HIS PROFESSION OR COURSES OF STUDY

Introduced by Honorable Nolledo and Sarmiento

TO THE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

Proposed Resolution No. 279, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION THAT THE STATE SHALL FOSTER AND PROMOTE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF COOPERATIVES AND SUPPORTING SERVICES ALL OVER THE COUNTRY ESPECIALLY IN THE RURAL AREAS

Introduced by Honorable Nolledo

TO THE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL JUSTICE

Proposed Resolution No. 280, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO STRENGTHEN, INVIGORATE AND CONSTITUTIONALIZE THE OMBUDSMAN KNOWN AS THE TANODBAYAN

Introduced by Honorable Nolledo

TO THE COMMITTEE ON ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

Proposed Resolution No. 281, entitled:

RESOLUTION FLYING THE PERIOD WITHIN WHICH THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION SHALL DECIDE CASES BROUGHT BEFORE IT AND PROVIDING FOR APPEALS THEREFROM TO THE SUPREME COURT

Introduced by Honorable Davide, Jr.

TO THE COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS AND AGENCIES

Proposed Resolution No. 282, entitled:

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPEALS ON QUESTIONS OF FACT FROM DECISIONS, ORDERS OR RULINGS OF THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT

Introduced by Honorable Davide, Jr.

TO THE COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS AND AGENCIES

Proposed Resolution No. 283, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO FURTHER STRENGTHEN THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS BY EXPANDING THE SCOPE OF THE PROHIBITION ON MEMBERS THEREOF TO BE FINANCIALLY INTERESTED DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY IN ANY CONTRACT WITH, OR IN ANY FRANCHISE OR PRIVILEGE GRANTED BY THE GOVERNMENT

Introduced by Honorable Davide, Jr.

TO THE COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS AND AGENCIES

Proposed Resolution No. 284, entitled:

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPEALS ON QUESTIONS OF FACT FROM DECISIONS OF THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

Introduced by Honorable Davide, Jr.

TO THE COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS AND AGENCIES

Proposed Resolution No. 285, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN PUBLIC OFFICIALS, FROM RUNNING IN THE FIRST NATIONAL AND LOCAL ELECTIONS AFTER THE RATIFICATION OF THE NEW CONSTITUTION

Introduced by Honorable Suarez and Jamir

TO THE COMMITTEE ON AMENDMENTS AND TRANSITORY PROVISIONS

Proposed Resolution No. 286, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE IN THE CONSTITUTION OF 1986 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND FORMAL ADOPTION OF A COMMON NATIONAL LANGUAGE TO BE KNOWN AS FILIPINO; THE CREATION OF AN 11-MEMBER COMMISSION ON NATIONAL LANGUAGE AND INTERNATIONAL LANGUAGE; AND PRESCRIBING THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGES

Introduced by Honorable Uka, Alonto and Abubakar

TO THE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

Proposed Resolution No. 287, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION ON THE CITIZENS’ RIGHTS, AND DUTIES TO HEALTH

Introduced by Honorable Quesada and Suarez

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

Proposed Resolution No. 288, entitled:

RESOLUTION PROVIDING IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION THAT THE STATE SHALL RECOGNIZE THE PRIMACY OF LABOR OVER CAPITAL IN THE REGULATION OF THE ECONOMY

Introduced by Honorable Bacani

TO THE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY

Proposed Resolution No. 289, entitled:

RESOLUTION PROVIDING IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION THE TEACHING OF RELIGION IN PUBLIC ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS

Introduced by Honorable Bacani

TO THE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

Proposed Resolution No. 290, entitled:

RESOLUTION LIMITING THE PROHIBITION FOR LEGISLATORS TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL TO COURTS INFERIOR TO COLLEGIATE COURTS OF APPELLATE JURISDICTION AND MAKING SUCH PROHIBITION APPLICABLE TO THEIR FIRM PARTNERS OR ASSOCIATES BUT ALLOWING THEM AND SUCH PARTNERS OR ASSOCIATES TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL BEFORE THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, ALLOWING THEM, AS THEY WERE ALLOWED IN THE 1935 CONSTITUTION, TO APPEAR IN ANY COURT EXCEPT IN CERTAIN CASES WHEREIN THE GOVERNMENT OR AN OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE THEREOF IS INVOLVED

Introduced by Honorable Foz

TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE

Proposed Resolution No. 291, entitled:

RESOLUTION PROPOSING THAT JUDICIAL REVIEW OF DECISIONS, ORDERS, AND RULINGS OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION BE PROVIDED FOR IN THE CONSTITUTION

Introduced by Honorable Foz

TO THE COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS AND AGENCIES

Proposed Resolution No. 292, entitled:

RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL WHEN IT IS MANIFESTLY AGAINST THE EVIDENCE AND IS CONTRARY TO LAW

Introduced by Honorable Padilla

TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Proposed Resolution No. 293, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF VICTIMS OF CRIMES

Introduced by Honorable Natividad

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

Proposed Resolution No. 294, entitled:

RESOLUTION PROVIDING IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION DISQUALIFICATIONS TO RUN FOR ELECTIVE POSITION

Introduced by Honorable Suarez and Jamir

TO THE COMMITTEE ON AMENDMENTS AND TRANSITORY PROVISIONS

Proposed Resolution No. 295, entitled:

RESOLUTION STRESSING THAT THE CONCEPT OF THE STATE INCLUDES THE PEOPLE AS THE SUPREME ELEMENT

Introduced by Honorable Villacorta, Suarez and Bennagen

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

COMMUNICATIONS
Communication No. 53 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Nichols Airmen's Village Residents Association, Inc. signed by Ms. Rosario B. Martizano proposing, among others, a bicameral legislature

TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE

Communication No. 54 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Messrs. Oscar Musni, Mariano Carrasco and Ike Macias, all of Cagayan de Oro City, requesting that a public hearing be held in Cagayan de Oro City

TO THE AD HOC PLANNING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC HEARINGS

Communication No. 55 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from the People's Organization Working for Effective Reforms, Inc., Intramuros, Manila, signed by Mr. Armando P. Francisco, expressing their desire to attend the scheduled public hearings and submitting their proposals on social justice    

TO THE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL JUSTICE

Communication No. 56 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from the Honorable Commissioner Ahmad Domocao Alonto submitting a copy of the lecture of the late Senator Benigno Aquino, Jr., at the King Abdul Aziz University, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, on May 12, 1981 and requesting that the same be made part of the records of the Constitutional Commission

TO THE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

Communication No. 57 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Mr. Marino M. Mena, College of Engineering, University of the Philippines, proposing provisions on science and technology, education, and environment

TO THE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

Communication No. 58 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Communication from the Honorable Neptali A. Gonzales, referring a paper of Mr. Nicolas A. Gerochi, Jr., Regional Trial Court Judge, Makati, Metro Manila, with a specific recommendation for a bicameral legislature

TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE

Communication No. 59 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from the Samahan sa Kultura at Sining signed by Ms. Julie Borromeo, transmitting a proposal for a Ministry of Culture

TO THE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

Communication No. 60 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Mr. Vicente Bengzon, Jr., c/o Supreme Court, Padre Faura, Manila, proposing judicial funds be placed under the supervision and control of the Supreme Court to ensure the independence of the judiciary

TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Communication No. 61 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Mr. Felino C. T. Leon of Potrero, Malabon, Metro Manila, submitting a paper on a proposed form of government, its structure and process

TO THE STEERING COMMITTEE

Communication No. 62 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Mr. Napoleon B. Sayson of 2428 Dapdap St., Parañaque, Metro Manila, suggesting, among others, a speedy judicial process and a vice-president each for Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao

TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

MOTION OF MR. ALONTO

Adverting to his letter dated June 24, 1986 addressed to the President of the Constitutional Commission regarding the lecture of the late Senator Benigno Aquino, Jr. delivered at the King Abdul Aziz University Science Auditorium, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, entitled "The Historical Background of the Moro Problem in the Southern Philippines", Mr. Alonto pointed out that the said lecture, aside from being an important historical document, is a pronouncement embodying an essential formula for the solution of one of the most persistent problems in the country. In view thereof, Mr. Alonto moved that the said lecture be inserted as part of the Record of the Constitutional Commission and that the same be re produced and distributed to the Members of the Commission.

The Chair, however, stated that the letter adverted to which was denominated as Communication No. 56 in the Order of Business, had already been referred to the Committee on Human Resources, to which Mr. Alonto replied that he was presenting a motion to insert the said lecture as part of the Record and that the same be reproduced and distributed to the Members of the Commission.  

There being no objection, the motion was approved by the Body.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE OF MR. SARMIENTO

At this juncture, Mr. Sarmiento sought recognition to speak on a question of collective privilege relative to a news item in the June 25, 1986 issue of one of the dailies which, he opined, affected the integrity and dignity of the Constitutional Commission.

On the Chair's query whether it was a matter of urgency which could not be postponed to a Friday, Mr. Sarmiento stated that he was indeed raising an urgent matter.

In view thereof, the Chair allowed Mr. Sarmiento to take the floor on a question of privilege.

Thereupon, Mr. Sarmiento read the news item which alleged that “the initial public hearings on the proposed Constitution confirmed earlier predictions that they will be dominated by cause oriented and other pressure groups, among which was the left-wing National Democratic Front and that it was indicative of the weakness and lack of popular acceptance of the Commission as evidenced in Baguio City fiasco where the public hearing was turned into a ‘gripe session’.” Likewise in another item, it was alleged that a walkout was averted in one of the public hearings because the format was waived by the Commissioners.

Mr. Sarmiento informed that he was in Naga City together with Mr. Nolledo during the last weekend and that no group, organization or party monopolized the proceedings called by them. He stated that on the contrary, the workshops and plenary sessions were well-attended and the response of the people was overwhelming.

Mr. Sarmiento stated that he checked the veracity of the reports from the Commissioners concerned and he found out that they were not true.

Finally, he pointed out that these reports could affect public confidence in the Constitutional Commission and if it remained unchecked, the Members would be at a loss as to what really happened in the provinces. In view thereof, Mr. Sarmiento suggested the presentation of an urgent motion to give each team through their leader, three to five minutes every Monday to make its report about their trips in the provinces.   

MOTION OF MR. SARMIENTO

Upon request of the Chair, Mr. Sarmiento restated his motion to allot three to five minutes during Monday plenary sessions, for each team, through its leader, to make a report on their public hearings in the provinces subject to questions by other Members of the Commission.

There being no objection, the motion was approved by the Body.

At this juncture, Mr. Ople manifested his intention to present an amendment to include written reports of the team. However, he did not insist on his amendment on the understanding that the motion would cover his suggestion.

INQUIRY OF MR. MAAMBONG

On Mr. Maambong's query as to what would be his recommendations to counter the slanderous reports, Mr. Sarmiento suggested that the Committee on Public Relations make representations with newsmen who made the reports.

On the identity of the newspaper, Mr. Sarmiento named the Manila Bulletin, specifically its issues of June 23 and 25, 1986.

Mr. Maambong informed that he has in his possession another report claiming that the Constitutional Commission is just a "palabas" because an alleged draft Constitution had already been prepared. He sought further recommendations, aside from what had already been suggested, in reply to which, Mr. Sarmiento proposed that the Commission may ask the writer to make a public apology for his slanted report.

COMMENTS OF MR. RIGOS

Mr. Rigos made the observation that the Commission had been overly sensitive to media reports, and, correcting whatever misinformation had been written about the Commission could only be a waste of time. He suggested that it would perhaps be more expeditious to simply call the attention of the Committee concerned for it to make whatever representations are necessary.

MOTION OF MR. GUINGONA

Thereafter, adverting to the observation of Mr. Miguel Genovea in the June 25, 1986 issue of Philippines Daily Express that the Members of the Constitutional Commission, being appointed by the President, had less contact with the people and that they should feel the public pulse by encouraging civic groups to conduct mini-referenda in order to avoid the risk of having a half-baked Constitution, Mr. Guingona stated that he had in fact expressed the same view in the motion he presented a week or two ago.

He pointed out that the Members held public hearings only in one site in one province, thus covering a very limited area thereof. He stated that if mini-referenda were conducted by civic groups with nationwide clubs or units, there would be no need of waiting for the weekend to hold public hearings; the public hearings could be made not only during the day but even in the evening; and these would be more accessible for the people to attend.

In view thereof, he reiterated his motion that the Commission, through the President, solicit the assistance and cooperation of prestigious civic, professional, religious and other organizations with nationwide network to appeal to their local units to conduct mini-referenda within two weeks and to submit to the Commission their reports on or before July 12, 1986; and that an Ad Hoc Committee be created by the President to classify, collate and summarize the reports received and to present their report either on the floor or in writing on July 21, 1986.

In reply to the Chair's observation that the motion would further delay the timetable of the Commission, Mr. Guingona stated that the reports would just be supplementary and that they would be submitted before the commencement of out-of-town public hearings on July 13.

Thereupon, Mr. Bacani registered his objection to the motion, explaining that the Commissioners could conduct public hearings on their own initiative, and that the proposal would only duplicate the work in the public hearings to which probably the same people would be invited.

Submitted to a vote, and with the majority voting against, the motion was lost.

MOTION OF MR. CALDERON

Thereafter, Mr. Calderon moved that the Body terminate the free-wheeling debate on Citizenship.

Thereupon, Mr. Bengzon invited attention to the fact that the Body was already in the period of sponsorship and interpellation on Committee Report No. 4 on Proposed Resolution No..7. He then moved that the said sponsorship and interpellation be terminated to pave the way for the consideration of Committee Report No. 3 on Proposed Resolution No. 263 on National Territory.

Thereupon, in reply to Mr. Suarez' inquiry on whether the motion would preclude the turno en contra, Mr. Bengzon stated that should any Member desire to speak against the resolution, he would withdraw his motion.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

At this juncture, the Chair suspended the session.

It was 6:02 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 6:11 p.m., the session was resumed.

TERMINATION OF THE DEBATE

Upon resumption of session, with no Member registering a turn to speak against the resolution, on motion of Mr. Bengzon, there being no objection, the Body terminated the period of sponsorship, interpellations and turno en contra.   

COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 3 ON PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 263 ON NATIONAL TERRITORY

Thereupon, on motion of Mr. Bengzon, there being no objection, the Body proceeded to the consideration of Committee Report No. 3 on Proposed Resolution No. 263, entitled:

Resolution to incorporate in the new Constitution an article on National Territory.

On motion of Mr. Bengzon, there being no objection, the reading of the text of Proposed Resolution No. 263 was dispensed with, without prejudice to its insertion into the Record of the Constitutional Commission

CORRECTION ON RESOLUTION NO. 268

At this juncture, on request of Mr. Calderon, the Chair recognized Mr. Tingson who made the following correction on Resolution No. 268:

On page 2, lines 2-4, the proviso should read:

"PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT THE LEASE ON THOSE BASES EXTENDABLE FROM ONE PERIOD TO ANOTHER UPON THE CONCURRENCE OF THE PARTIES SHALL BE BASED ON JUSTICE, THE HISTORICAL AMITY OF THE PEOPLES OF THE PHILIPPINES AND THE UNITED STATES AND THEIR COMMON DEFENSE INTEREST."

There being no objection, the same was approved by the Body.

SPONSORSHIP REMARKS OF MR. NOLLEDO ON PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 263

Mr. Nolledo stated that the Committee on Preamble, National Territory and Declaration of Principles had the opportunity of listening to the enlightening remarks of Ambassador Juan Arreglado and officials of the Bureau of Coast and Geodetic Survey.

He also pointed out that the Committee Report was a consolidation of the Proposed Resolutions of the Proposed Resolutions authored by Messrs. Davide, Tingson and himself. Moreover, he explained that the Committee adopted the definition of National Territory in the 1973 account the economic zone recognized by the Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982, which definition reads as follows:

"ARTICLE I .   The National Territory

"SECTION 1. The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territories belonging to the Philippines by historic right or legal title, including the territorial sea, the air space, the subsoil, the seabed, the insular shelves and the other submarine areas over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction. 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. Sovereignty or jurisdiction of the Philippines shall also extend to straits connecting these waters with the economic zone provided for in the Convention on the Law of the Sea."

Mr. Nolledo explained that the definition amended the provision on National Territory found in the 1935 Constitution which defined the country's territories as those ceded to the United States by the Treaty of Paris on December 10, 1898; the islands embraced in the treaty concluded between the United States and Spain on November 7, 1900; the islands embraced in the treaty between the United States and Great Britain on January 2, 1930; and all other territories over which the present government exercises jurisdiction.

He said that the Committee adopted in toto the 1973 Constitution's definition of national territory with the addition of the word "archipelago" to project the country's adherence to the archipelagic doctrine; a statement referring to specific areas suggestive of the air and undersea world within the jurisdiction and sovereignty of the Philippines; and a statement on the inclusion of all other territories belonging to the Philippines by historic right or legal title.   

Mr. Nolledo underscored the importance of Philippine waters as a consideration which led to the adoption of the archipelagic doctrine despite the resistance of world powers. He stressed that the sea is a vital source of food, minerals, oil, pearls, silica and cobalt as well as an ideal trade and transportation link to other nations.

He quoted Mr. Bernas' grouping of the Philippine territory into 1) the Philippine archipelago; 2) other territories belonging to the Philippines; and 3) the Philippine waters, airspace and submarine areas. He added that according to Mr. Bernas, Philippine territory has a horizontal reach consisting of land and water; an upward reach consisting of airspace over land and water; and a downward reach covering submarine areas.

Finally, Mr. Nolledo stressed that the definition of Philippine territory symbolizes national unity and asserts the territorial integrity of the Republic.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. OPLE

Mr. Nolledo agreed with Mr. Ople's observation that the territorial jurisdiction of the Philippines comprises only those areas ceded to the United States by Spain in the treaties of Paris and Washington, and those subsequently incorporated as a result of the treaty between the United States and Great Britain, and that these treaties did not include the Batanes Islands and if not for the clause "by historic right and legal title" in the 1973 Constitution, its ambiguity as part of the Philippines would not have been conclusively resolved, thereby demonstrating the danger of relying on foreign treaties to define the limits of Philippine territory.

Mr. Nolledo also confirmed Mr. Ople's statement that the clause "historic right or legal title" in the 1973 Constitution pertains not only to territories over which the Philippines exercises jurisdiction but also to other territories over which it may not have actual jurisdiction, like those over which the Philippines had filed a claim or those on which a future claim could be filed.

Mr. Nolledo stressed that the inclusion of the clause "historic right or legal title" in the definition of national territory was not influenced by any foreign power and that it was intended to leave open the pursuit of Philippine claims over Sabah, Freedom land and possibly the Marianas Islands.

Mr. Nolledo, likewise, affirmed Mr. Ople's statement that the Philippine Government had already relinquished its claim over Sabah during the ASEAN Summit Meeting in 1977. Mr. Ople explained that the Philippine President then took that action upon recommendation of three foreign ministers, namely Messrs. Pelaez, Romulo and Tolentino because the claim had become self-defeating in terms of national objectives. Besides, Mr. Ople pointed out that when the United Nations conducted a referendum in 1963 at the behest of the Philippine and Indonesian Governments, the people of Sabah overwhelmingly voted to become part of Malaysia. He added that the unfriendly atmosphere under which 140,000 Filipino refugees in Sabah live might exacerbate because of the claim.

Mr. Ople also informed the Body that during the incumbency of President Magsaysay, British North Borneo, now known as Sabah, had wanted an assured yearly supply of 10,000 Filipino immigrant workers but it unilaterally backed out from the agreement after hearing reports of imminent Philippine claims over Sabah. The continuation of this claim, Mr. Ople opined, would have a bearing on possible closer labor and trade exchanges between the Philippines and Malaysia, a prospect that would greatly affect the Muslims in Mindanao. 

On whether the retention of the clause "historical right or legal title" in the proposed territorial provision specifically refers to Sabah, Mr. Nolledo stated that it does not, although it could embrace the Philippine claim over the area. He explained that when Mr. Marcos relinquished the claim over Sabah, the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu raised vigorous objections because, in line with the doctrines involved, namely: 1) the doctrine of imperium under which the state may stake a claim on behalf of the heirs, and 2) the doctrine of dominium which refers to the claim of the heirs themselves, there must be a basis for the monetary claim of the heirs although the Philippine Government may have relinquished its own claim.

Mr. Ople manifested his support for the position taken by the Committee which segregates private claims from the official government claim.

Reacting to Mr. Nolledo's request for support of his resolution to authorize the President of the Philippines to resolve the Sabah issue, Mr. Ople stated that he could only support the Committee's interpretation of the clause "historic right or legal title" and would leave to the Executive what steps it should take on the matter.

On the Kalayaan Islands, in reply to Mr. Ople's query whether the Philippine Government exercises effective jurisdiction over it, considering the establishment of a military garrison and local civil government units thereat, Mr. Nolledo agreed that there is such effective jurisdiction and that the islands should be considered part and parcel of the Republic of the Philippines.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. ABUBAKAR

Mr. Abubakar stated that the issue on Sabah started with the lease of the Sabah territories to a British commercial company which, in turn, transferred its right to the British Government. He stated that the Lease Treaty signed by the Sultan of Sulu was a perpetual lease and practically a secession of the territory to the British North Borneo Government from which the British Government acquired the right. He stated that the claim has caused friction between Sabah and the Philippine Government.

Mr. Nolledo clarified that the problem would not have arisen had the rental been paid continuously by the British Government. He stated that the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu felt aggrieved and considered the nonpayment of the rent as a violation of the contract, which violation, they felt, rescinded the contract.

Mr. Nolledo explained that the claim of the Philippine government over Sabah is, based on the doctrine of imperium which springs from the right of sovereignty. He stated that the Philippine Government had no property rights over Sabah but since the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu are Filipino citizens, the Philippine Government is bound to protect their property rights over the territory.

Mr. Abubakar stated that the treaty effected the transfer to the British Government of both sovereignty and physical right to the territory of Sabah, something which weakened the position of the Philippines to pursue its claim. He stated that the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu were allowed to continue negotiating to enable the heirs to ask for an increase of the yearly rent.

Mr. Nolledo noted that during the time of President Macapagal, when the Philippines laid its claim over Sabah in the Bangkok Conference and in the London Conference, the Philippine Government was exposed to embarrassment since the Constitution at that time contained no indication supporting such claim. He stated that it was precisely for this reason that the 1971 Constitutional Convention included the words "historic right or legal title" in the Constitution as a basis for negotiations of the Sabah claim.

Mr. Abubakar noted that to maintain cordial relations between Sabah and Southern Philippines, the stand of the Philippine Government over the Sabah claim had changed to the extent that it did not pursue the claim and that Sabah had become part of Malaysia.

REMARKS OF MR. TINGSON

At this juncture, Mr. Tingson sought recognition to address a question on the Sabah issue which could touch the national pride of the Filipinos.

In reply to the Chair's query on whether he intended to interpellate the sponsor or give his own sponsorship speech, Mr. Tingson stated that as a member of the Committee, he wanted to register an exception to the Committee report,

Thereupon, with Mr. Nolledo temporarily relinquishing the floor, the Chair recognized Mr. Tingson.

Mr. Tingson advanced the view that the Sabah claim was intrinsically a private claim of the Sultan of Sulu which the Constitutional Convention of 1971 accommodated.

Pondering on the question on whether it was wise and prudent to have set aside the claim of the Sultan of Sulu which was enshrined in the Constitution and whether it served the national interest to tinker with the Constitution to accommodate the private legal claim of a Filipino citizen over a piece of real estate which lies outside of the territorial limits of the nation when it gained its independence on July 4, 1946, Mr. Tingson stated that it would be up to the Body to pass judgment on the action of the 1971 Constitutional Convention. He, however, opined that reluctance to drop the Sabah claim constitutes the biggest obstacle to the achievement of a harmonious and mutually beneficial relationship with the people of Malaysia. He stated that trade between the Filipinos in the South and that of Borneo had slumped due to the claim. He stated that the inclusion of the claim in the Constitution had placed the Southern regions on a shaky footing and destabilized the prospects of regional prosperity.

He stressed that the instinct to survive and pros per requires regional cooperation which compels the country to extend its collective prospects to the nations of Southeast Asia. He said that this demand a greater sensitivity to the rights and feelings of the neighboring countries.

To be part of a larger community of nation he maintained that it is inevitable for the country to bend its rights to conform with international law and that the right to self-determination by people is an honored principle of international law. He stressed that the land itself could not supersede the right of any people to self-determination for land was created for man and that man was not created for the land.

He recalled that when the United Nations Mission conducted a referendum to determine the people’s opinion as a prelude to the establishment of a Federation of Malaysia by the British, the people of Sabah expressed their desire to be part of the Federation.

Finally, Mr. Tingson stated that "by giving up Sabah, we do lose so much of a legal claim as we gain a friend: the good people of Malaysia".

INQUIRY OF MRS. QUESADA

In reply to Mrs. Quesada's query on whether Mr. Tingson's statement was a sponsorship speech, Mr. Nolledo stated that he was through with his sponsorship speech but that the period of interpellation was still in progress.

On whether the statements expressed by Mr. Tingson was being adopted as part of the sponsor ship, Mr. Nolledo stated that he was not in favor o dropping the Sabah claim and that he was not adopting Mr. Tingson's views.

Mrs. Quesada then stated that it was the position of the Committee not to drop the Sabah claim but just to retain the historic and legal right and that the position of Mr. Tingson was never discussed in the Committee deliberations.

By way of rejoinder, Mr. Tingson stated that the records would show that he had specifically asked that he be given a chance to express his contrary opinion.

In reply to the Chair's query on whether Mr. Tingson registered a dissenting vote on the report of the Committee, Mr. Nolledo stated that Mr. Tingson had made a reservation to speak on the Sabah issue which was duly noted by the Committee.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. DE LOS REYES

In reply to Mr. de los Reyes' query on the difference between continental shelf and insular shelf, Mr. Nolledo stated that insular shelves cover continental shelves.

He stated that continental shelf refers to a certain area from an island going downwards without limits and that it is elongated and unaltered in contrast to an insular shelf, which is not elongated because of some irregular areas.

On whether the deletion of "airspace," "sub soil" or "seabed" from the provision would in any way diminish the territory of the country, Mr. Nolledo opined that it would. He stated that in the Convention on the Law of the Sea duly ratified by the Batasang Pambansa, Senator Tolentino enumerated several reservations as authorized by a provision thereof. He pointed out that the meaning of internal waters becomes nebulous as the Convention on the Law of the Sea mentions the word "archipelagic waters" and that it was for this reason that Ambassador Arreglado requested the Committee not to refer to said Convention since many of its provisions could prejudice the claim over Philippine territory. He stated, however, that on the representations made by Mr. Davide, the Committee did not fully agree with Ambassador Arreglado's opinion.

On the meaning of economic zone, Mr. Nolledo explained that it is the zone beyond and adjacent to the territorial sea which may not extend more than 200 nautical miles from the archipelagic base lines. He said that the state has sovereign rights over the exclusive economic zone to explore, manage and exploit all the natural resources, living and nonliving, in its waters, the seabed and subsoil. He stated that the concept expands the country's territory as against the three-mile rule which used to be observed.

On the query relative to the right of innocent passage, Mr. Nolledo pointed out that innocent passage was guaranteed even before the Law of the Sea was formulated. He stated that innocent passage is not an infringement of a country's territory since it may be necessary to save human lives because of a fortuitous event.

As to whether there is still any need to state the particular provision regarding the economic zone provided for in the Convention on the Law of the Sea inasmuch as this is already covered in the Declaration of Principles that the Philippines will adopt international law as part of the law of the land, Mr. Nolledo underscored the importance of said provision by adverting to Mr. Tolentino's opinion that the internal waters under the Philippine Constitution would refer to those waters between and around the islands and such would include both the archipelagic waters and internal waters under the Convention on the Law of the Sea. Mr. Nolledo also stated that should the country adopt this pertinent provision, there is a possibility of innocent passage across Philippine internal waters. He recalled that one of the reasons why Mr. Tolentino made several reservations or understandings before signing the Convention had to do with fact that such signing would not in any manner affect the sovereign right of the Philippines over any territory on which it exercises sovereign authority including the Kalayaan Islands and the waters appurtenant thereto.

On Mr. Nolledo's claim that Mr. de los Reyes participated during the consideration of the Convention on the Law of the Sea in the Batasang Pambansa, the latter denied any participation stating that it was not deliberated on during his tenure.

Mr. Nolledo informed that the Committee followed the recommendation of Ambassador Arreglado that no express reference be made on the Convention on the Law of the Sea as this would create confusion and that specific attention be made on the reservations of Mr. Tolentino. He reiterated that when the Batasang Pambansa ratified the Convention on the Law of the Sea in 1982, the reservations or understandings made by Mr. Tolentino were duly considered.

Mr. Nolledo confirmed, upon inquiry of Mr. de los Reyes, that the word "archipelago" was used specifically to emphasize the archipelagic principle.

As to whether Mr. Macapagal's definition of the national territory in the 1971 draft Constitution would affect the archipelagic theory, Mr. Nolledo stressed that Mr. Macapagal's use of the particular phrase “ancestral home” would include all lands covered by the Majapahit Empire including Borneo and part of Indonesia.

ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION

On motion of Mr. Rama, there being no objection, the Chair declared the session adjourned until nine o'clock in the morning of the following day.

It was 7:25 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 27, 1986