Supreme Court E-Library
Information At Your Fingertips

  View printer friendly version

CALL TO ORDER

At 5:13 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. Regalado E. Maambong, to wit:

Dear God, as we are about to continue our deliberations, we pause to reaffirm our faith in your Divine Providence, humbly praying that You intervene with Your power and wisdom in the affairs of this Constitutional Commission.

We pray that You touch each one of us with Your grace so that individually and as a body, we may be made to realize our sacred responsibilities to our conscience, our people and our country. For this purpose, divest us for a while of our preconceived beliefs so that we will have a ready ear for the views of others contrary to our own.   

We pray that You gift us with the humility and the wisdom to genuinely listen to and discern the basic and authentic yearnings of our people, bearing in mind the constant reminders that we are selected not elected, so that we may be able to correctly interpret and translate them into living articles of the fundamental law of our land — a law which guarantees basic freedoms, just and fair to the people, allowing all to develop their talents, giving a voice to everyone, and especially caring for the weak.

We pray that You imbue each one of us with enough patriotism and sense of history to realize the sacredness and importance of our present task and mission so that we may cast aside personal and partisan interests and biases in favor of the long-term welfare of our country and people.

We pray that You give us — more especially the old-timers in our midst — the strength and the energy to withstand the rigors and the long hours of committee deliberations, the lonely nights going over proposed resolutions and evergrowing volumes of proposals coming our way from all directions all over the land. We cannot read them all, Lord, but we are trying very hard.

We pray that You grant us the patience to go through long-winded discussions over seemingly trivial matters with the comforting thought that, after all, it is our duty to listen and learn.

We pray that You bless our fellow workers in this Commission who labor day and night in assisting us maintain a level of efficiency especially those who transcribe for us, guard us and feed us.

We pray that You guide our floor deliberations so that we can accomplish more by talking less, if this is at all possible. Guide us likewise to find the correct room for our committee assignments so that we will not spend much time and effort walking instead of doing.

We pray that You keep us safe from harm in our weekly sorties all over this land so that in our earnest search for the true desires of our people we will directly hear from them.

We pray further that You will prod us to finish our work on the scheduled date with our tempers controlled and our sanity intact; and when our work is over, that we shall have produced a document worthy of ratification by our people, a document we can all be proud of, a document really worth dying for.

And, finally, we pray that You enlighten our minds with your Divine Light, so that each one of us, in his or her individual way will have the courage to do what is RIGHT.

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

With 43 Members present, the Chair declared the presence of a quorum.

The following Members appeared after the Roll Call:

Alonto, A. D.	Natividad, T. C.
Azcuna, A. S.

Messrs. Calderon and Rosales were 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.

REFERENCE 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. 323, entitled:

RESOLUTION PROVIDING IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS OF THE NEW CONSTITUTION ADDITIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF AN INDIVIDUAL

Introduced by Honorable Garcia

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

Proposed Resolution No. 325, entitled:

RESOLUTION PROVIDING THAT NATURALIZED CITIZENS BE REQUIRED TO ASSIMILATE THEMSELVES IN THE NATIONAL CULTURAL MAINSTREAM

Introduced by Honorable Villacorta and Sarmiento

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

Proposed Resolution No. 326, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCLUDE A PROVISION IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES SHOULD NEVER BE USED AS AN INSTRUMENT OF OPPRESSION AND REPRESSION

Introduced by Honorable Suarez, Sarmiento, Jamir and Tadeo

TO THE COMMITTEE ON GENERAL PROVISIONS

Proposed Resolution No. 327, entitled:

RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION MAKING IT A POLICY OF THE STATE TO PROVIDE FREE AND COMPULSORY ELEMENTARY, SECONDARY AND TERTIARY EDUCATION TO ALL CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES

Introduced by Honorable Suarez, Tadeo, Jamir and Quesada

TO THE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

Proposed Resolution No. 328, entitled:

RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION PROVISIONS INSURING THE MUTUAL AUTONOMY OF CHURCH AND STATE

Introduced by Honorable Bacani

TO THE COMMITTEE ON GENERAL PROVISIONS

Proposed Resolution No. 329, entitled:

RESOLUTION GRANTING AUTHORITY TO THE BARANGAYS TO RETAIN A PORTION OF TAX AND OTHER REVENUES FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PURPOSES

Introduced by Honorable Tingson

TO THE COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

Proposed Resolution No. 330, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A COMMITTEE ON APPOINTMENT WHICH SHALL SUBSTITUTE FOR THE COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS IN THE 1935 CONSTITUTION

Introduced by Honorable de Castro

TO THE COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS AND AGENCIES

Proposed Resolution No. 331, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES PROVISIONS ON THE RECOGNITION AND PROTECTION OF WORKERS’ RIGHTS

Introduced by Honorable Aquino, Quesada, Villacorta and Bennagen

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

Proposed Resolution No. 332, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCLUDE IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS OF THE CONSTITUTION A PROVISION EXPLICITLY RECOGNIZING THE FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE, BELIEF AND ASSOCIATION OF FILIPINO CITIZENS

Introduced by Honorable Villacorta and Aquino

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

Proposed Resolution No. 333, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCLUDE IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION A PROVISION ON THE CITIZENS' RIGHT TO INFORMATION TO MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONCERN WHICH ARE IN THE POSSESSION OF OR IS WITHIN THE REACH OF GOVERNMENT

Introduced by Honorable Aquino

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

Proposed Resolution No. 334, entitled:

RESOLUTION PROPOSING A SYSTEM OF MULTI-PARTY AND MULTI-SECTORAL REPRESENTATION IN THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY

Introduced by Honorable Monsod, Foz and Romulo

TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE

Proposed Resolution No. 335, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION RESTRICTING THE USE OF NONRENEWABLE CULTURAL RESOURCES AND LIMITING THEIR OWNERSHIP TO FILIPINO CITIZENS

Introduced by Honorable Villacorta, Aquino and Uka

TO THE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

Proposed Resolution No. 336, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCLUDE IN THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION SECTION ELEVEN, ARTICLE VIII, OF THE 1973 CONSTITUTION, WITH MODIFICATION, PROHIBITING MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATIVE BODY FROM HAVING FINANCIAL INTERESTS IN CONFLICT WITH THOSE OF THE GOVERNMENT

Introduced by Honorable Treñas

TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE

Proposed Resolution No. 337, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCLUDE IN THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION SECTION FOURTEEN, ARTICLE VIII, OF THE 1973 CONSTITUTION, WITH MODIFICATION, IN ORDER TO ADD THERETO THE TERM "INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT"

Introduced by Honorable Treñas

To THE COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE

Proposed Resolution No. 338, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE 1986 CONSTITUTION A PROVISION REQUIRING THE STATE TO INSURE THAT PEOPLE'S ORGANIZATIONS AND THEIR MEMBERS SHALL ENJOY FULL AUTONOMY, FREEDOM FROM ALL POLICE AND MILITARY SURVEILLANCE AND HARASSMENT, FULL ACCESS TO INFORMATION ABOUT SECTORAL AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS

Introduced by Honorable Tan, Bennagen and Brocka

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

Proposed Resolution No. 339, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE 1986 CONSTITUTION A PROVISION REQUIRING THE STATE TO RECOGNIZE THE RIGHTS AND ROLE OF PEOPLE'S ORGANIZATIONS AS A POTENT SOCIAL FORCE, INSURING FURTHER THAT PEOPLE'S ORGANIZATIONS ARE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE GENUINELY IN POLICY-MAKING/FORMULATION AND ENCOURAGING THEIR PARTICIPATION IN THE IMPLEMENTATION, MONITORING AND EVALUATION OF LAWS, POLICIES, AND GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS

Introduced by Honorable Tan, Bennagen and Brocka

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

Proposed Resolution No. 340, entitled:

RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO INCORPORATE A SEPARATE SECTION ON AGRARIAN REFORM IN THE ARTICLES ON TRANSITORY PROVISIONS

Introduced by Honorable Tadeo and Suarez

TO THE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL JUSTICE

Proposed Resolution No. 341, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCLUDE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION PROVIDING THAT WHOLLY-OWNED AND CONTROLLED FILIPINO CORPORATIONS SHALL BE GIVEN PRIORITY TO THE ACCESS OF DOMESTIC CREDIT FACILITIES

Introduced by Honorable Suarez and Tadeo

TO THE COMMITTEE ON GENERAL PROVISIONS

Proposed Resolution No. 342, entitled:

RESOLUTION PROPOSING THE AFFIRMATION OF AGRARIAN REFORM AS A FUNDAMENTAL ELEMENT IN ACHIEVING SOCIAL EQUITY AND JUSTICE AND THEREFORE MUST BE ENSHRINED IN THE DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES OF THE NEW CONSTITUTION

Introduced by Honorable Tadeo and Quesada

TO THE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL JUSTICE

Proposed Resolution No. 343, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE FOR A SEPARATE ARTICLE ON AGRARIAN REFORM AS A FUNDAMENTAL ELEMENT IN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JUST, HUMANE AND PROGRESSIVE SOCIETY

Introduced by Honorable Tadeo, Aquino, Brocka, Villacorta, Ople, De los Reyes, Quesada, Maambong, Bennagen, Sarmiento, Garcia, Suarez and Gascon

TO THE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL JUSTICE

Proposed Resolution No. 344, entitled:

RESOLUTION MAKING GOVERNMENT SERVICE AS A CAREER FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PEOPLE

Introduced by Honorable Tadeo

TO THE COMMITTEE ON ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

Proposed Resolution No. 345, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE INTO THE CONSTITUTION A PROVISION ON THE COOPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

Introduced by Honorable Colayco, Treñas and Villegas

TO THE COMMITTEE ON GENERAL PROVISIONS

Proposed Resolution No. 346, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION TO RECOGNIZE, RESPECT, PRESERVE, PROTECT AND PROMOTE THE INDIGENOUS INSTITUTIONS OF CULTURAL COMMUNITIES IN THE PHILIPPINE SOCIETY

Introduced by Honorable Bennagen, Villacorta and Quesada

TO THE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

Proposed Resolution No. 347, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION ON ANCESTRAL LANDS FOR THE CULTURAL COMMUNITIES

Introduced by Honorable Bennagen and Villacorta

TO THE COMMITTEE ON GENERAL PROVISIONS

Proposed Resolution No. 348, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE ARTICLE ON TRANSITORY PROVISIONS OF THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION REPUDIATING FOREIGN LOANS CONTRACTED OR GUARANTEED BY THE PAST REGIME WHICH DID NOT BENEFIT PUBLIC INTEREST OR THE GENERAL WELFARE

Introduced by Honorable Davide, Jr.

TO THE COMMITTEE ON AMENDMENTS AND TRANSITORY PROVISIONS

Proposed Resolution No. 349, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION CERTAIN GUARANTEES TO BONA FIDE CANDIDATES FOR ANY PUBLIC OFFICE

Introduced by Honorable Davide, Jr.

TO THE COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS AND AGENCIES

Proposed Resolution No. 350, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE CONSTITUTION A PROVISION THAT ONLY POLITICAL PARTIES, AGGROUPMENTS, ORGANIZATIONS OR MOVEMENTS WHICH HAVE OBTAINED AT LEAST FIFTEEN PERCENT OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF VOTES CAST IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ELECTION IN THE CONSTITUENCY TO WHICH IT SEEKS ACCREDITATION SHALL BE ACCREDITED BY THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

Introduced by Honorable Davide, Jr.

TO THE COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS AND AGENCIES

Proposed Resolution No. 351, entitled:

RESOLUTION EXEMPTING FIFTY PERCENT OF THE SALARIES AND OTHER EMOLUMENTS OF GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES FROM THE PAYMENT OF INCOME TAX

Introduced by Honorable Davide, Jr.

TO THE COMMITTEE ON GENERAL PROVISIONS

Proposed Resolution No. 352, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION AN ARTICLE ON THE TERM OF OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND VICE-PRESIDENT   

Introduced by Honorable Guingona

TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE EXECUTIVE

Proposed Resolution No. 353, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION AN ARTICLE TO CREATE THE TANODBAYAN COMMISSION

Introduced by Honorable Guingona

TO THE COMMITTEE ON ACCOUNTABILITY PUBLIC OFFICERS

Proposed Resolution No. 354, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION AN ARTICLE WHICH WOULD MAKE IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS REALISTIC AND IMPLEMENTABLE

Introduced by Honorable Guingona

TO THE COMMITTEE ON ACCOUNTABILITY PUBLIC OFFICERS

Proposed Resolution No. 355, entitled:

RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE EQUALITY OF WOMEN AND THE PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS OF WOMEN, CHILDREN AND THE FAMILY

Introduced by Honorable Villacorta,. Aquino Nieva, Uka, Quesada, Tan, Monsod, Sarmiento, Rosario Braid and Gascon

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

Proposed Resolution No. 356, entitled:

RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR HIGHER SALARIES FOR THE CHAIRMEN AND MEMBERS OF CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS AND PROHIBITING THE DECREASE OR INCREASE THEREOF

Introduced by Honorable Foz

TO THE COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS AND AGENCIES

Proposed Resolution No. 357, entitled:

RESOLUTION FIXING THE TEMPORARY OR ACTING AND PERMANENT APPOINTMENTS OF A CHAIRMAN OR MEMBER OF A CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION TO AN AGGREGATE OF NOT MORE THAN SEVEN YEARS

Introduced by Honorable Foz

TO THE COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS AND AGENCIES

COMMUNICATIONS
Communication No. 85 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Mr. Domingo M. Guevara, Sr., former Constitutional Convention delegate, suggesting measures on the dignity of labor and vocational schools, among others

TO THE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

Communication No. 86 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Messrs. Ramon C. F. Cuervo III and Ramon F. Cuervo, Jr., submitting a position paper on foreign investments and property ownership

TO THE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY

Communication No. 87 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from the Government Association of Certified Public Accountants, Albay Chapter, signed by Ms. Catalina P. Orendain, submitting a position paper proposing provisions pertaining to the Commission on Audit

TO THE COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS AND AGENCIES

Communication No. 88 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Resolution No. 86-2 of the Government Association of Certified Public Accountants, Albay Chapter, proposing deletion of accounting powers, functions and responsibilities from the Commission on Audit and transferring same to a separate agency under the Chief Executive

TO THE COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS AND AGENCIES

Communication No. 89 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from the Immaculate Concepcion Prayer Group signed by Ms. Emilia G. Yu submitting proposals for maximizing the quality of the decision-making proceedings

TO THE STEERING COMMITTEE

Communication No. 90 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from the Society of Philippine Sculptors signed by Mr. Ramon G. Orlina and eight other members requesting a constitutional provision for the creation of a national art institution to guarantee a more humane, free and nationalistic art, among others

TO THE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

Communication No. 91 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from the Honorable Commissioner Hilario G. Davide, Jr., transmitting copies of resolutions submitted to the committee of the Constitutional Commission which conducted a public hearing, jointly with the U.P. group in Cagayan de Oro City on June 21, 1986, by the Bayan-sponsored People's Consultative Conference on the Constitution (Northern Mindanao)

TO THE STEERING COMMITTEE

Communication No. 92 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Mr. Salvador V. Abular of Daet, Camarines Norte, proposing that city/municipal councils be composed of elected barangay captains instead of councilors elected at-large

TO THE COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

Communication No. 93 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Mr. Salvador O. Oco of Moonwalk Subdivision, Parañaque; Metro Manila, proposing that Sabah and the Kalayaan Group be included in the definition of the national territory, among others

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

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

At this juncture, the Chair suspended the session.

It was 5:35 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 5:42 p.m. the session was resumed with the Honorable Ricardo J. Romulo, presiding.

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.

Thereupon, Mr. Nolledo continued his sponsorship and was interpellated by some Members.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. RAMA

Noting the nebulous understanding of the legal grounds on the validity of the Philippine claim to Sabah, which was complicated by the Committee's obscure position relative thereto, Mr. Rama inquired if the Sponsor was aware of the legal grounds in support of the validity of the claim, in reply to which, Mr. Nolledo stated that he had given in his sponsorship remarks the general grounds for said claim.

Thereupon, Mr. Rama presented the chronology of events on the legal grounds which were presented by the Philippine government on this issue. He stated that the Sabah claim came into being in 1850 when the Sultan of Brunei, out of gratitude for the assistance given him to quell a rebellion, ceded North Borneo (Sabah) to his cousin, the Sultan of Sulu. Thereafter, two foreigners, Messrs. Overbeck and Dent, an Austrian and a British, went to the Sultan of Brunei to try to lease North Borneo and, informed that the area no longer belonged to him, they went to the Sultan of Sulu to make the negotiations. A lease contract was subsequently drawn up but could not be found for a long time. Sometime in 1971, one of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention then attached to the Foreign Affairs Department made a research on the lease contract between the Sultan of Sulu and the North Borneo Company, the second lessee. A copy of the lease found in the State Department of the United States confirmed that Messrs. Overbeck and Dent leased the land and subsequently turned over their lease and all the rights thereto to the North Borneo Company.

Mr. Rama stated that the legal implications as pointed out by Mr. Jovito Salonga, head of the panel on the talks on Sabah, revolved on two issues, to wit:

1.	Overbeck and Dent, as private persons, could not have acquired sovereign power from the Sultan of Sulu; and
2.	The lease contract was turned over to the North Borneo Company which, again as a private corporation, could not have been the recipient of any sovereign right from the Sultan of Sulu. Moreover, among the grounds raised was that a person who pays rental on a property cannot by law or logic claim ownership over the property.

Mr. Rama pointed out that the British government had been paying rentals to the Sultan of Sulu and his heirs up to 1950 when payment stopped because the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu could not be determined. The British Government, he stressed, did not dispute the authority or the title of the Sultan of Sulu and based on this historical fact, the Philippines laid its claim to Sabah.

Mr. Rama also pointed out that during the talks in London, Mr. Jovito Salonga was able to insert the phrase “Sultanate of Sulu” in the official communique which was also signed by the British Government and that Mr. Salonga used that as an argument that the British Government recognized the sovereign powers of the Sultan of Sulu as far as Sabah was concerned. He also recalled that although there was an agreement to pursue the talks in Manila, the British Government, realizing the blunder committed by its chief legal officer, avoided any further discussion.

Mr. Rama also stated that with respect to the U.N.-sponsored referendum, said referendum had been questioned and disputed by the Philippine Government claiming that it was rigged and that the voters, many of whom were illiterates, were never aware of the issues concerned.

On whether the historical right or legal title mentioned in the proposal has some solid bases as far as Sabah is concerned, Mr. Nolledo stated that it was the intention of the Committee on National Territory of the 1971 Constitutional Convention to put claims including the claim to the Sabah territory within the ambit of said phraseology.

CHANGE OF REFERRAL OF PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 67

At this juncture, on motion of Mr. Bengzon, on behalf of the Steering Committee, there being no objection, the Body approved the change of referral of proposed Resolution No. 67 from the Committee on the Executive to the Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions regarding the deletion from the new Constitution of the provision granting presidential immunity.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. GUINGONA

Mr. Guingona prefaced his interpellation by stating that he had no objection to the inclusion of a national territory provision in the proposed Constitution but underscored the need to draft it in such a manner that it would not preempt any future claims by the Philippine Government. He explained that the danger in any attempt to define a territory is that the definition would limit the subject matter sought to be defined. He manifested his support of the views expressed by Messrs. Sarmiento and Maambong in the previous day's session that the provision is a municipal law which has no binding effect as far as other states are concerned. Adverting to Mr. Maambong's remarks citing Mr. Sinco, Mr. Guingona stated that during the 1935 Constitutional Convention, several delegates opposed the inclusion of a national territory provision on the same ground while those who favored it did so because they wanted to have some kind of a covenant between the Philippines and United States as far as the territory of the country is concerned because of the fear that without such a provision, the United States would try to keep Mindanao and Sulu.   

On the matter of legal title, Mr. Guingona assumed that this would refer to territories which belong to the Philippines at the time of the adoption of the Constitution as well as territories that would belong to it in the future. He suggested that to a confusion, because of the use of the phrase "belonging to" instead of "shall belong", the Body add at the end of the first sentence the phrase "and such territories which the Philippines may hereafter acquire".

On the Sabah claim, Mr. Guingona expressed his opposition to its inclusion in the provision on National Territory or elsewhere in the Constitution on the ground that said claim is doubtful. Nevertheless, he believed that the Sabah claim should not be abandoned and that the Commission should make it clear that the Philippines may still lay claim to Sabah under the phrase "and all other territories belonging to the Philippines by historic right or legal title."

On the matter of sovereignty, Mr. Guingona stressed the need to settle this matter, in view of the different meanings attached to it. He stated that there is the matter of sovereignty of the Sultan of Sulu by virtue of the alleged cession by the Sultan of Brunei in 1704. He adverted to a statement which shows recognition of the sovereignty of the Sultan of Sulu found in Volume 1, page 23 of the Philippine Claim to North Borneo in which the British Foreign Minister, in response to Spanish and Dutch protests over the awarding of the royal charter in 1886, disclaimed any intention on the part of the British Crown to assume dominion or sovereignty over North Borneo.

Mr. Guingona, likewise, referred to the matter of alleged sovereignty of British North Borneo over Sabah as a result of the cession or lease which was originally entered into between the Sultan of Sulu and Lord Overbeck. Mr. Guingona recalled that the lease was transferred to a British merchant, Alfred Dent who founded the British North Borneo Company.

On the alleged sovereignty of Great Britain, Mr. Guingona posed the question whether such sovereignty came about because of the alleged cession of the so-called State of North Borneo which was unilaterally formed in 1886 under British protection or whether such sovereignty was the result of the annexation effected by Great Britain on July 10, 1946.

Mr. Guingona raised other questions related to the Sabah issue, to wit: 1) did the Sultan lose his de facto or de jure sovereignty over Sabah after the January 1878 agreement; 2) what is the legal nature of the agreement between the Sultan of Sulu and Mr. Overbeck; and 3) what is the extent of autonomy of Sabah within the Federation of Malaysia?

On the issue of self-determination, Mr. Guingona adverted to a paper he had written on the Sabah claim where he postulated that the general practice of the principle of self-determination is a course of action which has been repeatedly followed by states in the conduct of their foreign relations and that it is a principle which is universally accepted and followed in bilateral and multilateral treaties and conventions.

He also adverted to U.S. President Woodrow Wilson's statement that "self-determination is an imperative principle of action which statesmen would henceforth ignore at their peril" and to the United Nations General Assembly Declaration on Charter Principles which stipulates that "by virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination, all peoples have the right freely, to determine their development." He stressed the need for free and consensual determination. He recalled that this political exercise was shortened from six weeks to ten days and that at that time Sabah was a colony of Great Britain which opposed the Philippine claim to the territory in favor of Sabah's inclusion in the Malaysian federation.

Mr. Guingona underscored the need for a thorough, unbiased and searching evaluation of all the issues and all the questions pertaining to the Sabah claim. Furthermore, he stated that should evidence show that there is a basis for such claim, then the Philippine Government may lay claim to the territory. He stressed that neither the government nor the Constitutional Commission has the right to give up any territory which belongs to the Filipino people.

Finally, to belie the statement that Sabah is not linked as closely to the Philippines as Malaysia, Mr. Guingona adverted to Article XIII of the Malaysia Accord which recognizes the close historical ties between the two peoples as well as their geographical propinquity.

On Mr. Guingona's proposal for the rephrasing of the Article on National Territory to include therein mention of the three main geographical divisions of Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao, Mr. Nolledo stated that he would not interpose an objection and the same could be presented as an amendment at the proper time.

At this juncture, Mr. Nolledo took exception to the statement earlier made on the floor that the definition of National Territory as recommended by the Committee is a mere municipal legislation and has no practical value. He stressed that the proposed definition of national territory should be read and understood in the light of the international treaty limits set forth in such treaties as the Treaties of Paris and of Washington, which have the force of law and binding upon states even from the point of view of international law.

Thereafter, Mr. Guingona stated that the treaties cited define the territories of the Philippines, and these treaties, not the Constitution, give the Philippines its title to such territories.

REMARKS OF THE CHAIR

At this juncture, the Chair reminded Mr. Rama of the ten-minute rule for interpellation. Mr. Rama agreed with the Chair's proposal to be reminded of such time limit.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. OPLE

Responding to Mr. Ople's initial queries, Mr. Nolledo stated that the phrase "historic right or legal title" was not specifically meant to refer to Sabah although there is nothing in the provision which could be considered incompatible with the 1977 decision of the Philippine Government renouncing the Sabah claim.

Mr. Nolledo agreed with Mr. Ople that the nation should be ready to back up the provision on national territory with a readiness to commit the lives of Filipinos in its defense.

Recalling the scandal of the Jabidah Massacre and the unsubstantiated claims of the country on Sabah, Mr. Ople inquired whether aggressive intentions are built into the territorial provision under the clause "historic rights or legal title," in reply to which, Mr. Nolledo disclaimed any such aggressive intention towards any neighbor country. He pointed out that as a signatory of the United Nations Charter, the Philippines is committed to peaceful settlement of disputes.   

On whether there is anything in the provision which could be construed to have rescinded or modified the action of the Philippine Government in the Kuala Lumpur Summit in 1977, Mr. Nolledo replied in the negative.

On whether the Committee would consider an amendment enumerating not only the three regions recommended by Mr. Guingona but also all the major political subdivisions, such as provinces and cities, Mr. Nolledo stated that the Committee would entertain amendments at the proper time.

POINT OF INFORMATION OF MR. ABUBAKAR

Rising on a point of information, Mr. Abubakar revealed that as the country's Ambassador to Malaysia when the Sabah claim was presented, he knew that the response thereto of the Malaysian Government almost caused a break of diplomatic relations between the two countries.

Mr. Abubakar traced the history of Sabah from the time the Sultan of Sulu was awarded the territory in consideration of his assistance in restoring the Sultan of Brunei to power. He explained that the property was leased to the North Borneo Company which, following the usual British maneuver, injected the idea in the mind of the Sultan that he could not defend Sabah's sovereignty against Spanish invasion, thus, the perpetual lease, which, in turn was transferred to the British Government. He stated that the referendum conducted in Sabah revealed that the people had spoken with affirmative determination that they wanted to become part of Malaysia.

Mr. Abubakar also stated that he, together with then Foreign Affairs Minister Carlos P. Romulo, thoroughly reviewed the position of the Philippine Government, the claim having been predicated on the right of the Sultan of Sulu to Sabah by virtue of the said award of the territory by the Sultan of Brunei. He contended, however, that the Americans, in the Treaty of Paris and subsequent treaties and even in the Constitution adopted by the Commonwealth Government, never included Sabah and that it was never part of the aerial delineation of the Philippines.

It was then Foreign Minister Salvador Lopez who influenced President Macapagal to file the Sabah claim which, however, was never entertained by Malaysia. He further stated that the original treaty on which the claim was based was lost by the Sultan of Sulu in Singapore, although a copy is with he British Government which refused to honor the many requests for its production.

In this connection, Mr. Abubakar opined that the Philippine Government would not be able to convince the other ASEAN countries that the claim still exists because the people of the territory had spoken in a referendum on the matter.

He stressed that the only alternative is to conquer Sabah, but the country would not be ready for it and that the people of Mindanao and Sulu would have no part in such an adventure. In this connection, he urged the Commission not to incorporate the Sabah claim into the Constitution for the sake of unity, regional trade and understanding among the ASEAN nations.

In reply, Mr. Nolledo opined that the Sultan of Sulu and his heirs have proprietary rights but not sovereignty over Sabah, because sovereignty, as far as the national government is concerned, is indivisible.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. SUAREZ

In reply to Mr. Suarez' query, Mr. Nolledo affirmed that the Committee had taken into account all the relevant treaties and decrees in formulating the definition of what constitutes the national territory. In this connection, Mr. Nolledo adverted to one of the understandings, at the instance of Mr. Tolentino when he signed the Convention on the Law of the Sea, stipulating that the Convention shall not be construed as amending in any manner any pertinent laws and presidential decrees or proclamations and that the Government of the Republic of the Philippines maintains and reserves its right and authority to make any amendment to such laws, decrees or proclamations pursuant to the provisions of the Philippine Constitution.

Mr. Nolledo acknowledged the validity of Mr. Tolentino's definition of what constitutes "exclusive economic zone" which means the zone beyond and adjacent to the territorial sea but which may not extend more than 200 nautical miles from the archipelagic base lines, as well as the definition of "continental shelf" as the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas that extend beyond the territorial sea throughout the natural prolongation of the land territory to the outer edge of the continental margin or to a distance of 200 nautical miles from the base lines if the edge of the continental margin does not extend to that distance.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. VILLACORTA

In reply to Mr. Villacorta's query on the hierarchy of grounds for claiming sovereignty, Mr. Nolledo stated that, without binding the Committee, in his opinion legal right assumes first priority, although it is closely associated with historic title.

However, he recalled that notwithstanding the recognition of a legal right over Sabah, President Macapagal manifested willingness to submit the question to a plebiscite of self-determination, guaranteed by the U.N. Charter.

On whether legal title takes precedence over people's rights, Mr. Nolledo stated that in case of conflict, there should first be a determination of legal title, after which, it is the duty of the prevailing party to apply the principle of self-determination on the theory that it cannot dictate a choice upon the people of the newly acquired territory.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. AZCUNA

In reply to Mr. Azcuna's query regarding the fishing-rights of Filipino citizens, Mr. Nolledo stated that Filipinos should have the exclusive fishing rights over internal waters as well as over the 200-mile economic zone which extends from the base lines seaward.

With respect to the last sentence proposed to be added to the provision on National Territory which was bodily lifted from the 1973 Constitution and which reads: "Sovereignty or jurisdiction of the Philippines shall extend to the straits connecting these waters to the economic zone provided for in the Law of the Sea," Mr. Nolledo stated that the Committee would be amenable to the proposal to specify the exclusive economic zone over which the country has exclusive rights with respect to fishing and other economic exploitation.

Mr. Nolledo agreed that territory is not necessarily coextensive with jurisdiction and there may be an instance when a state has jurisdiction beyond its territory.

On whether straits are part of the Philippine territory or of the high seas over which the government could claim some jurisdiction, Mr. Nolledo; adverting to the definition of the "exclusive economic zone", opined that these straits may not necessarily be part of the exclusive economic zone because they may be inside the territorial waters.

With respect to the reservations made by then Senator Tolentino in the Convention on the Law of the Sea, of which one is the concept of "archipelagic waters" as similar to the concept of "internal waters" which removes straits connecting these waters with the economic zone or high seas from the right of foreign vessels to passage for international navigation, Mr. Nolledo affirmed that as far as the Philippine Government is concerned, these straits, as part of the internal waters, are also part of the territory and are not subject to the right of innocent passage.

Finally, Mr. Nolledo agreed with Mr. Azcuna's proposal to add a provision to the effect that the Philippines, as an archipelagic state, should have sovereign rights and jurisdiction over the exclusive economic zone.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. RODRIGO

Mr. Rodrigo prefaced his interpellation by stating that it was his understanding that the purpose of the Committee in retaining the phrase "by historic right or legal title" was to leave open the Philippine Government's right to pursue the claim on Sabah. However, in reply to the question of Mr. Ople, he noted that the Committee seemed to have upheld the commitment made by then President Marcos in 1977 at Kuala Lumpur, in response to which, Mr. Nolledo clarified that in his reply to Mr. Ople's question, he pointed out that there was no inconsistency because there was no question of whether or not the former President had the power to relinquish the Sabah claim. He stressed that the Committee was not abandoning the Sabah issue.

On whether the Committee recognized the validity of the action taken by the former President at Kuala Lumpur, Mr. Nolledo, while admitting that the Committee did not discuss the question, opined that personally he would not recognize said action.

On whether it is the intention of the Committee to keep the way open for the Philippine government to pursue the claim over Sabah notwithstanding the action of former President Marcos in 1977 abandoning such claim, Mr. Nolledo maintained that under the phrase "historic right or legal title," the Philippine government could still pursue its Sabah claim without being inconsistent.

At this juncture, Mr. Rama asked for the recognition of Mr. Bernas for his turno en contra.

Mr. Bernas, however, manifested his intention to interpellate the Sponsor and should his questions be answered clearly, he would not insist on his turno en contra.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. BERNAS

In reply to the queries of Mr. Bernas, Mr. Nolledo affirmed that the Sabah claim was one of the priorities taken into consideration when the phrase "by historic right or legal title" was inserted in the provision on National Territory in the 1973 Constitution as stated in the sponsorship speech of then Delegate Custodio Villalba, in the speech of Delegate Quintero, and in Committee Report No. 1 of the 1971 Constitutional Convention. He stated that by reproducing said provision in the new Constitution, it was the intention of the Committee to keep the option open for the Philippine Government to pursue its claim to Sabah.

SPEECH EN CONTRA OF MR. BERNAS

In his speech, Mr. Bernas clarified that he was not speaking against the article in toto but that he just wanted to remove from it any portion which, while not serving the interest of the nation, could do harm to the nation. He pointed out that there were valid reasons for the advocacy to have no provision on the National Territory but if at all there should be such provision, it should not be done in a manner that would do harm to the nation.

Mr. Bernas pointed out that the Constitution as a municipal law, is only binding on the country which promulgates it, so that any claim over a territory, if not supported by documents extraneous to the Constitution, could be an empty claim.

Mr. Bernas recalled that in the 1971 Constitutional Convention, there was no mention of treaties because of a desire not to be reminded of the colonial past. He pointed out, however, that when the term "archipelago" was used, the implication then was to rely on treaties to support any claim of territory.

Mr. Bernas, likewise, recalled that the 1935 Constitution partook of the nature of an international agreement between the United States and the Philippines and that the national territory provision was designed to forestall an attempt in the US Congress to dismember the Philippines.

Mr. Bernas stressed that his objection centered only on the possible harm that could be done by the phrase "all other territory belonging to the Philippines by historic right or legal title." He pointed out that the intention is to cover the Sabah claim, which claim would not in any way bind Kuala Lumpur, the Constitution being a municipal law.

On the suggestion that there was a valid claim over Sabah, Mr. Bernas pointed out that the government was making a judgment without due process because no evidence was presented and the side of the other party was not heard.

Finally, Mr. Bernas reiterated that there is no need to include the phrase "historic right or legal title" which, could only harm Philippine relations with Malaysia and weaken the country's claim to any territory.

Thereafter, Mr. Bernas was interpellated by Messrs. Nolledo, Davide and Abubakar.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. NOLLEDO

On Mr. Nolledo's contention that the phrase "historic right or legal title" does not refer to Sabah alone but it has reference also to the Treaties of Paris and Washington and the Treaty between the United States and Great Britain, Mr. Bernas affirmed that the phrase could be used to cover any territorial claim. He stated that he would submit a substitute proposal, considering that the phrase had already acquired a specific historical meaning in the debates of the 1971 Constitutional Convention.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. DAVIDE

In reply to Mr. Davide's query, Mr. Bernas maintained that silence on the definition of national territory would not foreclose the Government from pursuing its claim to Sabah. However, on the suggestion that no harm would ensue from categorically stating a definition including the phrase "historic right or legal title," Mr. Bernas clarified that all he wanted was the exclusion of any phrase which could be interpreted as a claim over Sabah.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. ABUBAKAR

In reply to Mr. Abubakar's query on whether the phrase "historic right or legal title" would be appropriate for retention in the proposed national territory provision, Mr. Bernas stated that it could be incorporated with some qualification.

He explained that said phrase was put in the 1973 Constitution in order to accommodate Batanes which did not come under the 1935 phraseology of "all other territory over which the present government of the Philippines exercises jurisdiction” because it was outside the longitudinal and latitudinal lines specified in the Treaty of Paris, Treaty of Washington and Treaty of Great Britain. He pointed out that dropping the phrase "historic right or legal title" would exclude Batanes from the Philippine territory.

Asked what suggestion he could give to preclude any doubt or misunderstanding, Mr. Bernas said he had in mind proposing the restoration of the phrase in the 1935 Constitution but had second thoughts about it after hearing Mr. Azcuna's remark that a country could have jurisdiction over areas not included in its territory.

Finally, Mr. Abubakar expressed the view that it would be best to make clear the intentions on the claim to Sabah in order to avoid misunderstanding with Malaysia and the neighboring countries.

MANIFESTATION OF MR. RAMA

At this juncture, Mr. Rama manifested that after the next speaker, the debate would be closed and that the Body would move to the period of amendments in the next session.

SPEECH EN CONTRA OF MR. ALONTO

Taking a turn en contra, Mr. Alonto stated he was opposed to the proposal not because he was against it fundamentally but because in line with Mr. Bernas' observations he found certain phrases there in which could be harmful to the nation. He cited the aborted project which resulted in the Jabidah massacre and which could have led to the destruction of the nation.

He expressed hope that the Commission would delete whatever phrases, in its opinion, could cause harm to the nation.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY OF MR. MAAMBONG

At this juncture, Mr. Maambong recalled that the Body, in a display of patriotism and self-abnegation, voted down his motion seeking the grant of franking privilege to the Members for their letters and communications to the people. However, he invited attention to news reports that President Aquino through Executive Order No. 23 had granted franking privilege to the Members of the Commission.

He then inquired on the veracity of said reports. In this connection, Mr. Tingson, who with Ms. Tan coauthored the resolution seeking the grant of franking privilege to people who might send communications to the Commission, expressed appreciation that the same privilege was granted to the Members of the Commission.  

Replying to the inquiry, the Secretary-General, upon direction of the Chair, informed the Body that copies of Executive Order No. 23 had been distributed to the Members and that the franking privilege had indeed been extended to the Members of the Commission.

ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION

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

It was 7:26 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 2, 1986