Supreme Court E-Library
Information At Your Fingertips

  View printer friendly version

Monday, June 30, 1986

CALL TO ORDER

At 5:21 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. Alberto M. K. Jamir, to wit:

Almighty God, we meet in Thy presence seeking divine guidance, that we may fashion a Constitution which will prevent a repetition of the shameless rape of our country by another Marcos; assure our people's freedom from fear of oppression; and vouchsafe for them equal opportunity in their pursuit of a better tomorrow to lighten the burden of their unceasing daily toil.

For this awesome task; Oh Lord, we pray Thee to keep our minds clear, our hearts pure, and our hands clean and steady, that the product of our labor may endure for all times and bring to fruition our country's driving dream of a higher horizon. Only then may we be truly worthy of Thy benediction: "Well done, good and faithful servants, enter thou into the Kingdom of thy Lord."

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

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

Messrs. Calderon and Rosales were absent.

On the June 18 and 27, 1986 sessions, Mr. Abubakar appeared after the Roll Call but was inadvertently listed as absent.

READING AND APPROVAL OF THE JOURNAL

On motion of Mr. Rama, 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. Rama, 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. 315, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A NEW ARTICLE ENTITLED "NATIONAL DEFENSE AND SECURITY"

Introduced by Honorable De Castro

TO THE COMMITTEE ON GENERAL PROVISIONS

Proposed Resolution No. 316, entitled:

RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO ADOPT IN THE CONSTITUTION A PROVISION DECLARING LAND REFORM A CORNERSTONE IN THE ECONOMIC REFORM OF THE COUNTRY

Introduced by Honorable Tingson

TO THE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL JUSTICE

Proposed Resolution No. 317, entitled:

RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO INCLUDE IN THE TRANSITORY PROVISIONS THE IMPOSITION OF A TWENTY-YEAR LOGGING BAN ON ENDANGERED FOREST LANDS ALL OVER THE COUNTRY

Introduced by Honorable Tingson

TO THE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY

Proposed Resolution No. 318, entitled:

RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION RENOUNCING WAR AS AN INSTRUMENT OF NATIONAL POLICY

Introduced by Honorable Tingson

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

Proposed Resolution No. 319, entitled:

RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION EXCLUSIVELY EMPOWERING THE LEGISLATURE TO DECLARE THE EXISTENCE OF A STATE OF WAR

Introduced by Honorable Tingson

TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE

Proposed Resolution No. 320, entitled:

RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION ON THE PROTECTION AND WELFARE OF WORKERS

Introduced by Honorable Tingson

TO THE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL JUSTICE

Proposed Resolution No. 321, entitled:

RESOLUTION PROPOSING FOR THE ADOPTION OF A BICAMERAL SYSTEM OF LEGISLATURE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION

Introduced by Honorable Tingson

TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE

COMMUNICATIONS
Communication No. 67 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Mr. Bienvenido A. Castillo of Pulilan, Bulacan, suggesting provisions on the bill of rights and suffrage, among others

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

Communication No. 68 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from the Economic Emancipation Association of the Philippines, Inc., signed by Mr. Vicente D. Gabriel, submitting a proposal on managed currency

TO THE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY

Communication No. 69 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Mr. Martin R. Reyes, of Vasra Village, Quezon City, submitting recommendations pertaining to forest resources

TO THE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY

Communication No. 70 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Third World Movement Against the Exploitation of Women signed by Sister Mary Soledad Perpiñan, proposing, "Women and men shall have equal rights," as a separate section in the Bill of Rights

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

Communication No. 71 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Mr. Rafael B. Hidalgo, Regional Trial Court Judge, Legaspi City, enclosing a draft article on the judiciary proposing a five-member board of judicial administrators

TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Communication No. 72 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Resolution No. 3 of the Family Planning Organization of the Philippines, Quezon Province Chapter, proposing the inclusion in the Constitution of a national policy on family planning and population control

TO THE COMMITTEE ON GENERAL PROVISIONS

Communication No. 73 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Communication from Mr. Selwyn Clyde M. Alojipan of Capitol Green Village, Tandang Sora, Quezon City, proposing, among others, the election of the vice-president of the Philippines, the provincial vice-governor and the municipal vice-mayor for six-year terms, who shall automatically take over as president, governor and mayor, respectively, after the first three years in office

TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE EXECUTIVE

Communication No. 74 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Mrs. Pura Kalaw-Ledesma of Legaspi Village, Makati, Metro Manila, enclosing proposed constitutional provisions on science, arts and letters and on a Commission on Culture  

TO THE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

Communication No. 75 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Mr. Albino V. Arriero of Provident Village, Marikina, Metro Manila, proposing provisions on citizenship, bill of rights, the legislature and term and tenure of elective and appointive officials, among others

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

Communication No. 76 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Communication from Rev. Fr. Ever Cansancio, Mr. Luis S. Hervas and Ms. Noemi Deocampo, all of Tanza, Iloilo City, proposing provisions on the preamble, family unity, social integrity, poverty and reforms, among others

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

Communication No. 77 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Filipino Crusaders World Army, Inc., signed by Cirilo T. Demetria proposing incorporation in the Constitution of its Man's Moral Concept

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

Communication No. 78 — Constitution Commission of 1986

Communication from the Minister of Local Government referring Resolution No. 1473 of the Sangguniang Panglungsod of Cotabato requesting the inclusion of a provision for the appointment of representative districts and the constitution of Cotabato City into a separate district.

TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE

Communication No. 79 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Mr. Francisco O. Javines of 348 Gov. Forbes, Sampaloc, Manila, enclosing an article proposing provisions on initiative, referendum and recall

TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE

Communication No. 80 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Mr. Ruben A. Ferrer of 2251-C Adonis St., Pandacan, Manila, proposing a manner of ratification of the Constitution

TO THE COMMITTEE ON AMENDMENTS AND TRANSSITORY PROVISIONS

Communication No. 81 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Lingkod-Tao-Kalikasan signed by Sr. Ma. Aida Velasquez, OSB, requesting the inclusion that would promote ecological and environmental consciousness and participation

TO THE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY

Communication No. 82 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Resolution No. 1 of the Pambansang Konsultasyon ng Maralitang Taga-lungsod, with attachments, urging attention to issues affecting the urban poor

TO THE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL JUSTICE

Communication No. 83 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter of the Honorable Commissioner Ambrosio Padilla, expressing heartfelt appreciation for the unanimous adoption by the Constitutional Commission of Resolution No. 5, entitled:

RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE PROFOUND CONDOLENCE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION ON THE DEATH OF HONORABLE SABINO PADILLA, FORMER JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE PHILIPPINES

TO THE ARCHIVES

Communication No. 84 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Mr. Melquiades de la Cruz, Presidential Staff Director, Malacañang Records Office, transmitting a copy of Executive Order No. 23 dated June 26, 1986, entitled:

GRANTING THE PUBLIC FRANKING PRIVILEGES ON ALL COMMUNICATIONS BEING SENT BY THEM TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION

TO THE ARCHIVES

COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report No. 5 on Proposed Resolution No. 264, prepared by the Committee on the Executive, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION LIMITATIONS ON THE EXERCISE OF THE AUTHORITY TO PROCLAIM MARTIAL LAW OR SUSPEND THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS BY LIMITING ITS DURATION AND REQUIRING CONCURRENCE BY THE LEGISLATURE, EXPRESSLY VESTING UPON THE SUPREME COURT JURISDICTION TO INQUIRE INTO THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE BASIS OF SUCH PROCLAMATION OR SUSPENSION AND TO SET ASIDE THE SAME IF NO BASIS EXISTS, AND GRANTING THE LEGISLATURE THE AUTHORITY TO REVOKE OR EXTEND A PROCLAMATION OR SUSPENSION,

recommending its approval in substitution of Proposed Resolutions Nos. 9, 107, 151, 152 and 158.

Sponsors: Hon. Sumulong, Regalado, Davide, Jr., and Foz

TO THE STEERING COMMITTEE

Committee Report No. 6 on Proposed Resolution No. 273, prepared by the Committee on the Executive, entitled:

RESOLUTION PROVIDING FURTHER LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER OF THE PRESIDENT TO GRANT PARDONS,

recommending its approval in substitution of Proposed Resolution No. 55.

Sponsors: Hon. Sumulong and Davide, Jr.

TO THE STEERING COMMITTEE

Committee Report No. 7 on Proposed Resolution No. 322, prepared by the Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCLUDE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION AN ARTICLE PROVIDING THE PROCEDURE FOR ITS AMENDMENTS,

recommending its approval in substitution of Proposed Resolution No. 148, subject to the reservation that Section 1 (c) of this substitute resolution shall only be incorporated if and when Proposed Resolution No. 161 is approved by the Committee on Citizenship, Bill of Rights, Political Rights and Obligations and Human Rights.

Sponsors: Hon. Suarez and Jamir

TO THE STEERING COMMITTEE

Committee Report No. 8 on Proposed Resolution No. 324, prepared by the Committee on the Executive, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION PROHIBITING THE PRESIDENT FROM EXTENDING APPOINTMENTS WITHIN TWO MONTHS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE TERM OF THE NEW PRESIDENT,

recommending its approval in substitution of Proposed Resolution No. 56.

Sponsors: Hon. Sumulong and Davide, Jr.

TO THE STREERING COMMITTEE

Committee Report No. 9 on Proposed Resolution No. 128, as reported out by the Committee on the Executive, entitled:

RESOLUTION PROHIBITING THE PRESIDENT, VICE-PRESIDENT AND MEMBERS OF THE CABINET AND THEIR DEPUTIES FROM HOLDING ANY OTHER OFFICE AND FROM ENGAGING IN ACTIVITIES WHICH MAY GIVE RISE DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY TO CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN THE CONDUCT OF THEIR OFFICE, AND TO PROHIBIT THE PRACTICE OF NEPOTISM BY SAID OFFICIALS,

recommending its approval with amendments in consolidation with Proposed Resolution No. 183.

Sponsors: Hon. Sumulong and Maambong

TO THE STEERING COMMITTEE

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

At this juncture, the Chair suspended the session.

It was 5:36 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 5:42 p.m., the session was resumed with the Honorable Jose E. Suarez presiding.

REMARKS OF MR. BERNAS

Mr. Bernas called the attention of the Body to his note to the President of the Commission inviting the Members to a presentation of a nationwide public opinion survey on July 1 (Tuesday) at 1:00 p.m. at the caucus rooms. He explained that the survey was sponsored by the Ateneo Center for Public Affairs and Social Policy and the Social Weather Stations, Inc. to determine the public pulse on certain vital issues and concerns such as quality of life, employment, government and administration. He stated that Dr. Mahar Mangahas would preside during the presentation and that the Members would have the opportunity to ask questions.

CHANGES IN SCHEDULE OF CONSIDERATION AND TIME OF PLENARY SESSIONS

On motion of Mr. Bengzon, on behalf of the Steering Committee, there being no objection, the Commission decided: 

1)	That the Body proceed to the period of amendments on Committee Report No. 4 on Citizenship on July 3, 1986 after the period of sponsorship and interpellation on Committee Report No. 3 on National Territory shall have been terminated; and
2)	That beginning Monday, July 7, 1986, the plenary sessions would start at 2:30 p.m. to give more time for the consideration of the various Committee reports, with the mornings to be devoted to Committee meetings if there is still need for such meetings.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS: COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 3 ON PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 263

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

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

MR. NOLLEDO’S REPLY

Thereupon, Mr. Nolledo continued his sponsorship of Resolution No. 263. However, before doing so, he explained that his absence in the last session was not due to illness but because of the consultations he and Mr. Gascon had conducted in Butuan City.

Replying then to certain issues raised in the previous session, firstly, on Mr. Regalado's query with respect to the internal waters of the Philippines, Mr. Nolledo adverted to the wordings of Article I of the 1973 Constitution, which the Committee adopted, defining "internal waters" as "the waters around, between and connecting the islands of the archipelago, irrespective of the breadth and dimensions". In this connection, he also stated for the record, the observations of Ambassador Juan Arreglado which referred to the island territory as a compact and closely-knit group spread out in a triangle under which and around its perimeter lies a submarine platform connecting Luzon, Visayas, Mindanao and the other island groups, thus showing the original unity of the island formulations.

Secondly, with respect to the contention that the definition of the national territory should not make reference to the economic zone provided for in the Convention on the Law of the Sea on the ground that it is already governed by international law, Mr. Nolledo explained that Mr. Arreglado felt that there are many provisions in the Convention on the Law of the Sea which could adversely affect the definition of the country's national territory as contained in existing treaties like the Treaty of Paris of 1898.

Mr. Nolledo also invited attention to Ambassador Arreglado's arguments which led to the definition of national territory in the then Quintero Committee, to wit: 1) that the straight base lines which were drawn around the coastlines were designed primarily to establish and indicate the outer limits of all waters around, between and connecting the constituent islands, islets and other land formations and were not intended to provide base lines for measuring the so-called territorial seas as defined in the Convention on the Law of the Sea, the reason being that all the sea areas lying inside the international treaty limits are national waters forming an integral part of the national territory; 2) that it is not within the contemplation of the Convention on the Law of the Sea to prescribe rules for the regulation or limitation of the sovereign authority vested in and exercised by the State over the sea areas which form an integral part of its national territory because to do so would violate the fundamental rules of international law underlying the principles of consent, independence, sovereignty and equality of states; 3) that the Philippine archipelago is not just a group of islands but an island-studded sea whose territorial boundaries were delineated and set forth in the Treaty of November 7, 1900, the treaty between the United States and Great Britain of January 2, 1930, and the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions; 4) that under international customary law, international treaties involving changes and transfers of state territories are of general interest and concern not only to the parties directly involved but also to all third states which, in case of silence on their part, would be deemed to have given tacit recognition of such treaties as binding upon all members of the international community of states; 5) that the understandings embodied in the Philippine Declaration are statements of interpretation placed by the Philippine Government upon certain provisions of the Convention on the Law of the Sea which are deemed to be per se not applicable to the internal and territorial waters within the international treaty limits defining the territorial boundaries of the Philippine archipelago and could not in any manner impair or prejudice the sovereign rights exercised by the Philippines over all the sea areas forming an integral part of its national territory as defined and delimited in the Philippine Constitution.

Finally, Mr. Nolledo pointed out that Article 310 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea permits the setting forth of understandings or reservations before the treaty is signed by the representative of a nation which is party to the Convention, which was the reason why Mr. Tolentino made reservations that were taken into account when the Convention on the Law of the Sea was ratified by the Batasang Pambansa.  

INTERPELLATION OF MR. SARMIENTO

In reply to Mr. Sarmiento's contention that the silence of a Constitution regarding the national territory would not deprive a country of sovereignty over-any portion of territory it is entitled to under international law, Mr. Nolledo pointed out that the Philippines, in the absence of a national territory provision, could still invoke the Treaty of Paris which set forth the country's boundaries. He maintained, however, that it would be inadvisable to leave out the national territory provision because it could cause some embarrassment in future conferences, as when Great Britain, during the Bangkok and London Conferences, asked under what provision of the Philippine Constitution was the Sabah claim being pursued. Mr. Nolledo pointed out that the 1971 Constitutional Convention decided to put the phrase "by historic right or legal title" precisely to open the avenue to the pursuit of the Philippine claim over Sabah.

On Mr. Sarmiento's suggestion of a more positive indication that "historic right or legal title" would include a claim on Marianas Islands, based on historical data in support thereof, Mr. Nolledo opined that any such claim over the Marianas Islands had already become stale since no President had pursued it.

With regard to the Spratley Islands or Freedomland, Mr. Nolledo stated that it is within the contemplation of the phrase "historic right or legal title", the island group being under the effective control of the Republic of the Philippines.

On the alleged grant by the Kiram heirs of a special power of attorney in favor of former President Marcos, Mr. Nolledo stated that the power of attorney must have been revoked because the heirs had been insisting on their claims individually without presidential assistance.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. ABUBAKAR

Mr. Abubakar stated that both the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions had defined the national territory of the Philippines and that the phrase "historic right or legal title" had taken care of the question of other territories which were not included therein. He suggested that for purposes of the definition, it would be better to keep this general classification because Sabah and similar future claims are matters which are crucial to promoting the understanding between the two countries, hence the need to allow flexibility in negotiations.

In reply, Mr. Nolledo agreed on maintaining the phraseology and cited the fact that it was purposely included to encompass Batanes Islands which was not set forth in the Treaty of Paris and the Treaty of Washington.

Mr. Abubakar, however, stressed that while he had no objection to the inclusion of the phrase "historic right or legal title", there should be no specification of whatever claim to any territory.

POINT OF INFORMATION BY MR. OPLE

Mr. Ople, on a point of information, stated that in the case of the Kalayaan Islands, the Philippines is in physical possession of the islands and there is no claim to speak of. He adverted to the fact that local governments exist therein under the provincial government of Palawan and is, therefore, completely different from other territories that may be contemplated under any "historic right or legal title."

INTERPELLATION OF MR. MAAMBONG

In reply. to Mr. Maambong's query, Mr. Nolledo agreed that sovereignty connotes an exercise of effective control over the territory and persons within the territory, whether citizens or transients.  

However, Mr. Nolledo disagreed with Mr. Maambong's comment that the term "Philippine archipelago" is too broad and too general and lacks specificity as an element of the exercise of sovereignty over a certain area. He observed that although the principle of specificity is important in the light of the doctrine of effective control, such importance had been diminished because of the existence of the organs of the United Nations like the International Court of Justice. He maintained that the boundaries set forth in the Treaty of Paris are binding upon other states but should there be violations thereof, the United Nations could be asked to intercede, first, through the Security Council, then through appeal to the General Assembly finally, by submitting the question to the International Court of Justice.

With respect to Sabah, Mr. Nolledo affirmed that the Philippine Government does not have effective control over its territory and people considering the referendum conducted by the United Nations which indicated the people's option to join the Federation of Malaysia. It was for this reason, he stated, that Sabah was not specifically included in the definition of national territory and it was the position of the Committee that it could be covered under the phrase "historic right or legal title."

On whether the phrase "historic right or legal title" would not violate the principle of specificity of territory, Mr. Nolledo stated that the principle could just be one of the theories which constitutional law professors could expound on but does not find legal support in international law and, therefore, should not bind the Commission. He stated that the definition can be specific or general, explaining that the claim over the archipelago as defined in the Treaty of Paris can fall under both historic right and legal title while the claim over certain islands left out in said treaty can fall under the category of legal title.

On whether the Constitution, being a municipal law, has no binding effect on other states, Mr. Nolledo disagreed, stating that the Constitution contains not only the provisions on its face but also the reference to treaties like the Treaty of Paris which was sanctioned by public international law. In support of this stand, Mr. Nolledo adverted to his opposition speech on the motion to delete the definition of the national territory in the 1971 Constitutional Convention, where he argued that the Treaty of Paris entered into between the United States and Spain fixed the international limit of Philippine waters and that Spain’s claim was predicated on its title over these waters held unchallenged across a colonial span of more than three centuries, which title was recognized by the United States in the Hare-Hawes-Cutting Act and the Jones Law and eventually in the 1935 Constitution.

Mr. Maambong observed that the 1935 Constitution was actually a contract between the Philippines and the United States, and since the national territory provision was inserted to prevent the Philippines from dismemberment by the United States, the Constitutional Commission should not be bound into putting a similar provision on national territory on the ground that the consideration then prevailing no longer exists.

In reply, Mr. Nolledo stated that indeed there was the fear that Mindanao might secede from the Philippines. He maintained, however, that the consideration prevailing in 1935 has attained added significance because of the several secessionist movements in Mindanao, hence, the need to define national territory.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. CONCEPCION

Commenting by way of interpellation on the observations raised by Messrs. Sarmiento and Regalado, Mr. Concepcion stated that one of the considerations for the insertion of a national territory provision in the 1973 Constitution was the desire to incorporate the archipelagic doctrine which contributed to the delay in the approval of the Convention on the Law of the Sea because of the reservations of Big Powers, among them, the United States, the Soviet Union and Great Britain which tried to insert certain qualifications that were not acceptable to the other countries. He stated that despite this obstacle, the Convention on the Law of the Sea was ratified by a majority of the participating countries minus the Big Powers which instead enacted their own laws adopting most of the principles of the Convention but with qualifications aimed at protecting their particular interests.

Mr. Concepcion recalled that before the 1973 Constitution, "internal waters" were considered to refer only to waters entirely within the territory, like Laguna Bay, beyond which, the government did not exercise sovereignty. He stressed that, on the other hand, the archipelagic doctrine supports the theory that the tiny islands surrounding the Philippines are parts of only one mountain range. It was for this reason, he stated, that the archipelagic doctrine was incorporated in the 1973 Constitution as a notice to the world that it carried the majority vote of the members of the family of nations despite the objection of the Big Powers.

INTERPELLATION OF MRP DAVIDE

In reply to Mr. Davide's inquiry whether the Committee had adopted Ambassador Arreglado's position that no reference be made to the Convention on the Law of the Sea in the definition of national territory, Mr. Nolledo stated that the Committee did not fully agree to such position paper as evidenced by the inclusion of the last sentence of the definition taken from the Davide resolutions.

On whether Mr. Arreglado's opinion would diminish to some extent the meaning of the report of the Committee, Mr. Nolledo explained that when Mr. Arreglado used the term "national waters," he could have had in mind the distinction between territorial sea and territorial waters. He stated that in the opinion of Mr. Arreglado, the term "national waters" refers to the waters 320 miles east coast and 150 miles west coast of Luzon as set forth in the Treaty of Paris. He pointed out that the provisions of the Convention on the Law of the Sea appear to be vague because of the reference to the territorial sea which would make it mandatory on the Dart of the State or archipelago to respect the right of innocent passage.

Mr. Davide, however, stressed that the territorial sea refers to the area beyond 12 nautical miles from the archipelagic base line while the exclusive economic zone as defined under the Convention on the Law of the Sea is the 200-nautical-mile stretch computed from such base line.

On Mr. Davide's observation that Mr. Tolentino's sponsorship in the interim Batasang Pambansa of the Convention on the Law of the Sea would show that the territory of the Philippines would be increased by no less than 93 million hectares, Mr. Nolledo explained that the matter would be governed by existing legislations and by the Geneva Convention of 1968 and that the provision in the Convention on the Law of the Sea is just a reproduction of the definition of the country's national territory.

He maintained, however, that his view could be reconciled with Mr. Davide's because the Treaty of Paris does not specify the length from the base lines and, therefore, the territory could be extended from such base lines to the Pacific Ocean and the China Sea, but not from Sulu downward that could encroach on Borneo which is beyond the 200 miles allowed by the Petroleum Act and the Convention on the Law of the Sea.

He added that Mr. Tolentino signed the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea on condition that the limits set forth in the Treaty of Paris would be respected, although, in all other cases, the territory could be expanded.

Mr. Davide, however, maintained that the expansion would be to the north, east, west and south of the Philippines because the basis of the measurement of the 200 nautical miles would be from the archipelagic base lines, in reply to which, Mr. Nolledo stressed the need to define the phrase "archipelagic base line."

Finally, on whether the future generation could still lay claim to Sabah, Mr. Nolledo stated that it could be done on the basis of historic right or legal title.

COMMENTS OF MR. CONCEPCION

At this juncture, relative to Mr. Maambong's remarks on specificity, Mr. Concepcion stated that, realizing the difficulty of arguing the matter merely with the use of words, the Philippine delegation to the United Nations had to present maps when it batted for the archipelagic doctrine.

He then suggested that copies of the article "Development of the Archipelagic Doctrine" containing the maps, authored by Justice Coquia and published in the June, 1983 issue of the Philippine Law Journal, be furnished the Members of the Commission to avoid protracted discussion on the matter.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. ROMULO

In reply to Mr. Romulo's query on whether the term "air space" includes "airwaves," Mr. Nolledo explained that under international law and the Convention on the Law of the Sea, air space extends to the point where the State has effective control. He added that airwaves belong to the people and not to the State, although, from the layman's point of view, airwaves could be included in the term "air space."

On the Committee's stand on the Sabah claim, Mr. Nolledo disclosed that the Committee was divided on the matter, for which reason, Sabah was not included in the definition of national territory. He, however, stated that the Committee Members agreed in principle, that the claim on Sabah and other territories would fall under the phrase "historic right or legal title."

INTERPELLATION OF MR. PADILLA

Mr. Padilla observed that the provision of Article 2 of the Revised Penal Code on the territory of the Philippines is essentially the same as Article I of the Constitution on the National Territory, to which Mr. Nolledo agreed.

Mr. Padilla then suggested that since the Revised Penal Code mentions "interior waters," and the 1973 Constitution provides for "internal waters" in the second sentence of the proviso, the first sentence should also include "international waters" so that the second sentence would be an explanation of said term, in reply to which, Mr. Nolledo stated that the use of the term "Philippine archipelago" and the phrase "with all the islands and water embraced therein" in the first sentence would necessarily include "internal waters."

Moreover, Mr. Padilla suggested that 1) on the third sentence, the proviso should read: "The national territory shall also include the straits connecting its territorial waters with the economic zone provided in the Convention on the Law of the Sea,”; and 2) "air space" should not be mixed with the extensions of "territorial sea" such as seabed, insular shelves and other submarine areas, in reply to which, Mr. Nolledo stated that they concern style which could be considered during the period of amendments.

ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION

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

It was 7:09 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 July 1, 1986