Supreme Court E-Library
Information At Your Fingertips

  View printer friendly version

CALL TO ORDER

At 5:11 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. Christian S. Monsod, to wit:

Almighty Father, four weeks ago You brought us together — Commissioners, the staff, the employees — to participate in the writing of the Constitution. It was an honor to be chosen. Not many are asked to be a part of such a historic document.

Since that time, we have come to realize the enormity of our task and our own limitations. But we have also come to recognize the talents and the goodness in one another. We have realized that, coming as we do from different backgrounds and places with different interests and even the biases, there is one thing we hold in common: we all love this country even if we express it in different ways.

As we move ahead, we also know that we can only accomplish our work if we continue to depend on one another and if we learn to trust one another even more than we do now.

Merciful Father, be gentle with us when we fail. Give us the grace of an open mind, of compassion, of enthusiasm and the will to prevail. Above all, hold us together — the Commissioners, the staff and the employees — in the palm of Your hand always.

These we ask of You through Jesus Christ Your Son, our Lord, who lives and reigns with You now and forever.

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

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

Mr. Alonto appeared after the Roll Call.

The following Members were absent:

Rosales, D. R.

Treñas, E. B.

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 the 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 referred by the Chair to the Committees here indicated:

Proposed Resolution No. 358, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION THAT NO PARTY OR CANDIDATE SHALL HAVE MEMBERSHIP IN THE REGISTRATION BOARDS, BOARD OF ELECTION INSPECTORS, AND BOARD OF CANVASSERS BUT SHALL BE ENTITLED TO APPOINT WATCHERS

Introduced by Honorable Davide, Jr.

TO THE COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS AND AGENCIES

Proposed Resolution No. 359, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCLUDE IN THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION SECTION 4(1) OF ARTICLE IV OF THE 1973 CONSTITUTION WITH MODIFICATION SO AS TO FURTHER STRENGTHEN THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Introduced by Honorable Treñas

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

Proposed Resolution No. 360, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCLUDE IN THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION SECTION SIX OF ARTICLE IV OF THE 1973 CONSTITUTION WITH MODIFICATIONS SO AS TO STRENGTHEN AND MAKE MANDATORY THE RIGHT THEREIN GRANTED TO THE PEOPLE TO INFORMATION ON MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONCERN

Introduced by Honorable Treñas

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

Proposed Resolution No. 361, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCLUDE IN THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION A NEW PROVISION EMPOWERING LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO LEVY AND COLLECT TAXES UNIQUE, DISTINCT AND EXCLUSIVE TO THEM AND TO SPEND THE REVENUES RAISED THEREFROM IN ORDER TO MAKE LOCAL AUTONOMY REALLY MEANINGFUL AND EFFECTIVE

Introduced by Honorable Treñas

TO THE COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

Proposed Resolution No. 362, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCLUDE A PROVISION IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION DECLARING THAT IT SHALL SUPERSEDE ALL PREVIOUS CONSTITUTIONS

Introduced by Honorable Suarez and Jamir

TO THE COMMITTEE ON AMENDMENTS AND TRANSITORY PROVISIONS

Proposed Resolution No. 363, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION AN ARTICLE VESTING ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION OF INFERIOR COURTS IN THE MINISTRY/DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Introduced by Honorable Guingona, Abubakar, Bennagen, Rigos, Suarez, Tingson, Uka, Villacorta and Villegas

TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Proposed Resolution No. 364, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION AN ARTICLE ON THE TERM OF THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Introduced by Honorable Guingona

TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE

Proposed Resolution No. 365, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION THE NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION, THE NATIONAL POLLUTION CONTROL COMMISSION, THE JUDICIAL COMMISSION, THE COMMISSION ON GOOD GOVERNMENT, AND THE COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS AS ADDITIONAL INDEPENDENT CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS

Introduced by Honorable Garcia and Sarmiento

TO THE COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS AND AGENCIES

Proposed Resolution No. 366, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT ALL KINDS OF IDLE OR ABANDONED LANDS NOT PUT TO APPROPRIATE USE AS DEFINED BY LAW WITHIN FIVE YEARS FROM RATIFICATION OF THE NEW CONSTITUTION SHALL BE FORFEITED IN FAVOR OF THE STATE TO BE DISTRIBUTED TO BENEFICIARIES OF LAND REFORM   

Introduced by Honorable Nolledo

TO THE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL JUSTICE

Proposed Resolution No. 367, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION THAT THE DEATH PENALTY IMPOSED ON AN ACCUSED MUST BE RESOLVED BY THE SUPREME COURT WITHIN TWO YEARS FROM DATE OF JUDGMENT OTHERWISE THE SAME SHALL BE REDUCED TO LIFE IMPRISONMENT EXCEPT IF THE ACCUSED BY WRITTEN MANIFESTATION INSIST ON THE RESOLUTION OF HIS PLEA OF INNOCENCE

Introduced by Honorable Nolledo

TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Proposed Resolution No. 368, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION THAT THE STATE SHALL ADOPT A TRADE POLICY THAT WILL GIVE PRIORITY TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DOMESTIC OVER THE EXPORT SECTOR

Introduced by Honorable Suarez, Jamir and Tadeo

TO THE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY

Proposed Resolution No. 369, entitled:

RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO GRANT SPECIAL CORPORATIONS THE RIGHT TO ACQUIRE IN OWNERSHIP LANDS OF PUBLIC DOMAIN

Introduced by Honorable Tingson

TO THE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY

Proposed Resolution No. 370, entitled:

RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING THE RIGHT OF A CITIZEN TO BOYCOTT AN ELECTION

Introduced by Honorable Sarmiento

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

Proposed Resolution No. 371, entitled:

RESOLUTION MODIFYING THE PROHIBITIONS IN SECTION 3, ARTICLE XII, A, OF THE 1973 CONSTITUTION AGAINST MEMBERS OF CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS BY ALLOWING THEM TO TEACH OUTSIDE OFFICE HOURS AND BY INCLUDING SUBSIDIARIES OF CORPORATIONS AS AMONG THOSE IN WHOSE TRANSACTIONS THEY ARE DISQUALIFIED TO DEAL WITH OR FINANCIALLY INTERESTED IN

Introduced by Honorable Foz

TO THE COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS AND AGENCIES

Proposed Resolution No. 372, entitled:

RESOLUTION STATING THE DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES WHICH SHALL GUIDE THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES IN ITS RELATIONS WITH ITSELF, ITS CITIZENS, AND OTHER NATIONS

Introduced by Honorable Calderon, Rigos, Davide, Jr., Treñas and Tingson

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

Proposed Resolution No. 373, entitled:

RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR TAX EXEMPTION TO NON-PROFIT EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS OR THOSE WHICH WILL LIMIT DIVIDENDS

Introduced by Honorable Villacorta, Villegas, Treñas and Bernas

TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE

COMMUNICATIONS
Communication No. 94 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter of Mr. Pedro O. Valdez, former Constitutional Convention delegate, proposing a parliamentary form of government, welfare state provisions, profit sharing, free vocational education and election of the President and Vice-President by electoral votes

TO THE STEERING COMMITTEE

Communication No. 95 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Dr. Dulce R. Agcaoili of 20th Avenue, Quezon City, proposing a provision for religious instruction in schools, public and private

TO THE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

Communication No. 96 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Mr. Ramon Enerio of Pegasus Street, Moonwalk Village, Las Piñas, Metro Manila, submitting two papers: New Constitution — a Crucial Curative Measure and Toward a Just Society

TO THE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL JUSTICE

Communication No. 97 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from International Civil Liberties Council signed by Mr. J. S. Beltran, suggesting, among others, provisions on print and broadcast media

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

Communication No. 98 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Mr. Romeo P. Alejandro of Pag-asa, Airport, Iloilo City, suggesting a mandatory provision to ensure access to official records, documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions and decisions

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

Communication No. 99 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Mr. Vicente P. Molar of Bayaoas, Urdaneta, Pangasinan, suggesting a change of name of the Commission on Audit to Philippine General Accounting Office

TO THE COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS AND AGENCIES

Communication No. 100 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Mr. Fausto C. Marilao of Acacia St., Pinagbuhatan, Pasig, Metro Manila, proposing, among others, the establishment of well-equipped free technical/vocational schools  

TO THE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

Communication No. 101 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Mr. Cecilio R. Mangubat, Sr. of Digos, Davao del Sur, proposing, among others provisions for the removal of elective or appointive government officials who fail to declare their assets and liabilities and those found guilty of immorality; the disqualification of gamblers and immoral persons from running for public office, and other electoral reforms

TO THE COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS AND AGENCIES

Communication No. 102 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from the Philippine Institute of Civil Engineers, Inc., signed by Mr. Aber P. Canlas, proposing the retention of the Professional Regulatory Commission and its elevation to a constitutional commission.

TO THE COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS AND AGENCIES

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

On motion of Mr. Calderon, there being no objection, the Body proceeded to the continuation of consideration on Second Reading 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, sponsor of the measure, called upon the Members who would wish to propose amendments to confer and consolidate their proposals.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

Meanwhile, on motion of Mr. Nolledo, the Chair suspended the session for the purpose of such conference.

It was 5:28 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 6:24 p.m. the session was resumed.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. AZCUNA

At this juncture, Mr. Azcuna presented his proposed amendment by substitution on Resolution No. 263, to wit:

THE NATIONAL TERRITORY COMPRISES THE PHILIPPINE ARCHIPELAGO, WITH ALL THE ISLANDS AND WATERS EMBRACED THEREIN, AND ALL THE OTHER TERRITORIES NOW OR HEREAFTER BELONGING TO THE PHILIPPINES BY SOVEREIGN RIGHT OR LEGAL TITLE, CONSISTING OF THE TERRESTRIAL, FLUVIAL AND AERIAL DOMAINS, INCLUDING THE TERRITORIAL SEA, THE SEABED, THE SUBSOIL, THE INSULAR SHELVES, AND 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.

On the rationale of his amendment, Mr. Azcuna explained: 1) that the phrase "now or hereafter" would provide for any future change in Philippine territory, by accession or purchase, over which the country would have sovereign right or legal title; 2) that the word "sovereign" is more appropriate than "historic" because it would include the exercise of sovereignty in the past and denote in international law the basis for such right in the future; 3) that the amendment presents a more logical sequencing of territories, to include the "terrestrial domain" which encompasses all surfaces of land above the sea belonging to the country and falling within the base lines of the archipelago; that "fluvial domain" includes inland and internal waters from the base lines landward; that "aerial domain" refers to the air directly above the terrestrial and fluvial domains extending up to where the outer space begins; 4) that on the phrases beginning with "territorial sea", the "territorial sea" refers to the margin or belt of maritime waters adjacent to the Philippine base lines to the extent of 12 nautical miles, under which is the seabed or the top portion of the submarine area and the subsoil or the land under the seabed; that "insular shelves" or the continental shelves refer to the submarine area directly under the water beyond the territorial sea to the end of the continental margin regardless of the depth of the superjacent waters and that the insular or continental shelves, the seabed, the subsoil and the archipelagic shelves belong to the Philippines under international law; 5) that the phrase "other submarine areas" would cover any other areas like the continental slope or continental margin over which the Philippines has jurisdiction or sovereignty; and 6) that the last sentence referring to "straits" was omitted as unnecessary because the straits are part of the internal waters over which the Philippines exercises sovereignty or jurisdiction.

MR. BERNAS' REQUEST FOR REPRODUCTION OF COPIES OF AMENDMENT

At this juncture, Mr. Bernas noted that the proposed amendment was rather complicated that it could be a minor nightmare even for international lawyers. He proposed that before proceeding further with its consideration, copies be reproduced and distributed to the Members to enable them to follow the discussions.   

Thereupon, the Chair requested Mr. Azcuna to write down his amendment and submit it to the Secretariat for reproduction and distribution to the Members.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

At 6:33 p.m., the Chair suspended the session.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 6:39 p.m., the session was resumed.

INQUIRY OF MR. SARMIENTO

At this juncture, Mr. Sarmiento inquired whether the Body, before considering any amendment to the Article on National Territory, should first decide if it wants to delete or retain said Article. He then moved for the deletion of the Article.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY OF MR. MAAMBONG

In reply to Mr. Maambong's query on the parliamentary situation, Mr. Nolledo stated that the Committee had no Committee amendments and that Mr. Azcuna had presented a consolidation of amendments by some Members.

Thereupon, the Chair affirmed that the table was opened for individual amendments and, upon its suggestion, Mr. Azcuna temporarily withdrew his amendment to give way for the consideration of Mr. Sarmiento's amendment.

At this juncture, Mr. de los Reyes suggested that the amendment by deletion be done after perfecting amendments, in response to which, Mr. Sarmiento stated that his motion to delete involves a prejudicial amendment which should be given priority.

The Chair ruled that the Body consider Mr. Sarmiento's motion.

Upon Mr. Guingona's request, the Chair recognized Mr. Sarmiento to state his reason for the amendment.

MR. SARMIENTO'S EXPLANATION OF HIS AMENDMENT

Thereupon, Mr. Sarmiento gave the reasons for his motion to delete the provision on national territory, to wit:

1) the non-inclusion of a provision on national territory would not in any way diminish, alter or affect the nation's sovereignty over any portion of its territory;

2) a constitutional definition of territory would not have the effect of legitimizing a territorial claim that is not based on solid evidence or legal right;

3) the non-inclusion of a provision on national territory would not strain the country's diplomatic relations with other countries in the concert of nations; and

4) the trend in the family of nations is towards non-inclusion of provisions on national territory.

Mr. Sarmiento then enumerated several countries, big and small, from both the capitalist and non-capitalist world whose constitutions do not contain provisions on national territory.

REMARKS OF MR. RODRIGO

Commenting on the motion of Mr. Sarmiento, Mr. Rodrigo pointed out that, although it is the Commission which drafts the Constitution, it is the people who would be called upon to ratify it and, considering that they know all along that the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions contained provisions on national territory, it is doubtful if they would understand its deletion in the new Constitution.

Mr. Rodrigo warned that the Commission would have to do a lot of explaining to the people.

REMARKS OF MR. BERNAS

Mr. Bernas registered his support for the motion by pointing out that the problem presented by the Article on National Territory is both a legal and a diplomatic problem and that whatever solutions are offered should consider both the legal and diplomatic implications.

On the legal aspect, Mr. Bernas maintained that the deletion of the article would not mean any loss of any portion of the national territory nor prevent the Philippines from claiming any other territory it may wish to claim based on a right, because the general principles of international law would apply.

Diplomatically, he stated that with the deletion, the Philippines would avoid waving before the world anything irritating or offensive to other nations. He stressed that with its retention, the country, legally, would not gain anything but, on the other hand, runs the risk of losing in the diplomatic struggle. He stated that the deletion of the provision would best serve both the legal and diplomatic needs of the country.

On the need to give explanation to the people, Mr. Bernas agreed that it is a matter that has to explained as, indeed, the Constitution would contain concepts and structures that would need explanation as part of the education process that should challenge the Members of the Commission. He expressed confidence that after such explanation, the people would understand.

REMARKS OF MR. PADILLA

Mr. Padilla stated that he found rather unusual, as a ground for the late motion for deletion, the statement that the provision on national territory is only a municipal law which cannot bind other countries. He pointed out that the Constitution itself is a municipal law and that the laws enacted by sovereign states are effective only within their territorial limits. He also stated that the rules on private international law permit for the sake of the ultimate objective of justice the recognition and enforcement of a foreign law on the theory that it temporarily becomes part of municipal law or law of the nation or of the state. He stressed, however, that while the Constitution is a municipal law and a unilateral act which does not bind other nations, the states accord each other mutual respect and courtesy.

Mr. Padilla also adverted to Mr. Rodrigo's observations as pertinent. He reiterated that since the pro vision was both in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions and improved by the amendment by substitution, he could not understand why the Body would consider at a late stage a motion for the deletion of the entire provision on national territory.

REMARKS OF MR. NOLLEDO

Mr. Nolledo stated that the arguments of Messrs. Bernas and Sarmiento echoed the arguments of the late Voltaire Garcia when the latter filed a motion to delete the definition of the national territory in the 1971 Constitutional Convention, to which he vigorously objected.  

Mr. Nolledo maintained that the deletion of the national territory provision would negate the reservations of Mr. Tolentino made before signing the Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Adverting to his speech objecting to the deletion of the definition of national territory in the 1971 Constitutional Convention, Mr. Nolledo stated that for the reasons he had invoked and read into the record, the Constitutional Commission should give thought to "reaffirming our sovereign rights over our territorial and internal waters to obviate the fearful possibility of our country being dismembered by varying areas of open seas, creating a definite and continuing threat to our internal security, and diminishing to a great degree our national unity."

Mr. Nolledo maintained that should the Commission adopt the proposed national territory provision and make it part of the Constitution, its subsequent ratification by the people would strengthen the stand on the extent of the country's jurisdiction over its internal and territorial waters. He disagreed that constitutions of other nations of the world do not contain a definition of national territory. On the contrary, he asserted that constitutions of great nations contain lengthy definitions of their territories.

Finally, he suggested that the Commission seriously take into account the arguments presented by Messrs. Padilla and Rodrigo.

REMARKS OF MR. DE LOS REYES

Mr. De los Reyes observed that while Mr. Sarmiento had mentioned the countries which do not include in their constitutions a provision on national territory, he failed to mention that these countries’ constitutions never had the provision from the beginning. Moreover, Mr. de los Reyes underscored that the purpose of including such provision in the 1935 Constitution was to prevent the United States from claiming Mindanao and, in the case of the 1973 Constitution, to enshrine therein the archipelagic concept for which there is a continuing need.

On Mr. Bernas’ argument that the deletion would not have adverse legal effect, Mr. de los Reyes contended that the International Court of Justice may, in fact, decide in favor of the country with which the Philippines may litigate in the future because the absence of a national territory provision could be interpreted as a waiver of any claim within the concept of the archipelagic theory.

On the diplomatic level, Mr. de los Reyes, pointed out that the objectionable feature which could be an irritant in the relations with other nations would be removed with the change of the phrase “historic right” to “sovereign right.”  

REMARKS OF MR. OPLE

Mr. Ople stated that he would have supported Mr. Sarmiento's motion had it been presented for the 1898 and 1935 Constitutions. He pointed out, however, that in adopting the territorial provision of the 1935 Constitution, the framers of the 1973 Constitution, in effect, had contracted with the Filipino people a vested interest on a territorial definition.

He also opined that, although the Constitution may be a municipal law and need not bind any other country, it has an educational and inspirational value for school children who are told their rights and obligations under the Constitution.

In any event, Mr. Ople stated that it would help the Philippine Government and other countries if they know the metes and bounds of our national territory, especially in cases when there would be negotiations with the neighboring countries, like Taiwan and Japan, on overlapping economic zones.

He stated that he would welcome the amendment of Mr. Bernas to delete any portion of the provision which are considered offensive. He allayed the fear that this could create diplomatic problems in the future.

Mr. Ople then asked Mr. Sarmiento to withdraw his proposed amendment.

REMARKS OF MR. LAUREL

Mr. Laurel recalled that the definition of national territory was incorporated in the 1935 Constitution to forestall an attempt in the Bacon Bill to dismember the Philippines. He said it was felt at that time that President Roosevelt's approval of the Constitution would be a commitment by the United States  to recognize the integrity of the Philippine territory.

Mr. Laurel expressed support for the position taken by Messrs. Bernas and Sarmiento on the ground that the threat of dismemberment no longer exists.

Specifically, on the basis of the country's claim to the territorial sea by historic right which, as defined in the Treaty of Paris, extends to 320 miles eastward and 160 miles westward vis-a-vis the Jamaica Convention on the Law of the Sea which limits the territorial sea to only 12 miles from the coast, Mr. Laurel maintained that a definition of the national territory would serve no practical purpose and would have no legal value since it is no more than unilateral and a self-serving declaration. He stated that looking over the constitutions of 164 other member-states of the United Nations, of which 126 are constitutions of developing countries, he had not come across one which defines the national territory. Mr. Laurel maintained that a definition of the national territory would be a legal liability in the sense that it would hamper the disposition of parts of the territory as circumstances may warrant. He stated that the government would have more leeway in dealing with the national territory as foreign policy dictates if it is not impeded by any constitutional limitation.

MR. RODRIGO'S INTERPELLATION OF MR. BERNAS

In reply to the query of Mr. Rodrigo, Mr. Bernas affirmed that the phrase "by historic right or legal title" would only do more harm than good to the country.

On whether he had any proposal to improve the provision, Mr. Bernas stated that he would propose an amendment if the Body decides not to drop the entire article. However, he opined that on the basis of the discussion during the recess, the best way of solving the problem would be to cut the Gordian knot.

On the question how to explain the problem to the people, Mr. Bernas stated that it is a problem for which a solution must be found.

On whether Mr. Azcuna's amendment would remedy the possible harm which he earlier mentioned, Mr. Bernas stated that he would treat the matter when the Body comes to it.

REMARKS OF MR. AZCUNA

Taking exception to the statement that there would be no harm if the Article of National Territory were deleted, Mr. Azcuna pointed out that the Philippines had made a reservation in the Convention on the Law of the Sea regarding the internal waters as defined in the Constitution and that deleting the definition on national territory would open the country's internal waters to foreign fishing.

REMARKS OF MS. AQUINO

Ms. Aquino manifested her objection to the motion to delete the Article on National Territory, stating that while the arguments presented by Messrs. Bernas and Sarmiento may be academically logical and theoretically feasible, said arguments are blatantly unhistorical.

She stated that jurisdiction is understood in the context of authority and the sphere of the exercise of authority such that it can only be meaningfully understood in the context of specific persons and specific authority which is the essence of dominium and imperium. She maintained that the absence of an explicit provision on national territory would be fatal blow to the assertion of sovereign omnipotence.

COMMENTS OF MR. BERNAS ON MR. AZCUNA'S REMARKS

Commenting on the remarks of Mr. Azcuna, Mr. Bernas disagreed with the contention that the proposed deletion would invalidate the reservation made by Mr. Tolentino during the Convention on the Law of the Sea. He pointed out that the speech of Mr. Tolentino was a historical speech which made specific reference to a document which was in existence then, which document would still be subsisting even if the proposed deletion was approved.  

VOTING ON MR. SARMIENTO'S MOTION

There being no other Member who registered a turn to speak, the Chair submitted Mr. Sarmiento’s motion to a vote, with several Members voting in favor and several others voting against.

Thereupon, upon request of Mr. Davide, the Chair called for a division of the House and with 8 Members voting in favor and 25 against, the motion was lost.

RESTATEMENT OF MR. AZCUNA'S PROPOSED AMENDMENT

Thereupon, Mr. Azcuna restated his motion to substitute the text of Article 1 of Proposed Resolution No. 263, with the following:

THE NATIONAL TERRITORY

SECTION 1.   THE NATIONAL TERRITORY COMPRISES THE PHILIPPINE ARCHIPELAGO, WITH ALL THE ISLANDS AND WATERS EMBRACED THEREIN AND ALL THE OTHER TERRITORIES NOW OR HEREAFTER BELONGING TO THE PHILIPPINES BY SOVEREIGN RIGHT OR LEGAL TITLE, CONSISTING OF THE TERRESTRIAL, FLUVIAL AND AERIAL DOMAINS, INCLUDING THE TERRITORIAL SEA, THE SEABED, THE SUBSOIL, THE INSULAR SHELVES, AND THE OTHER SUBMARINE AREAS OVER WHICH THE PHILIPPINES HAS SOVEREIGNITY 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.

Mr. Nolledo, on behalf of the Committee, accepted the proposed amendment.

MR. DAVIDE'S PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT

Mr. Davide proposed to amend the amendment by deleting the words "now or hereafter" between the words “territories” and “belonging.”

At this juncture, Mr. Azcuna raised a point order on the ground that the proposed amendment should not be an amendment to the amendment but to the Committee Report since the Committee had already accepted his amendment, in reply to which, Mr. Davide stated that his amendment would be an amendment to the Committee amendment.

Thereupon, explaining his proposed amendment, Mr. Davide stated that the proposed deletion would give full meaning and significance to Mr. Azcuna's statement that the word "sovereign" refers to past and present.

INQUIRY OF MR. MAAMBONG

At this juncture, Mr. Maambong, adverting to the parliamentary situation, inquired whether the Body was considering Mr. Azcuna's amendment as a Committee amendment or as an individual amendment which would be subject to further amendments by the Members. Likewise, he made the observation that Mr. Azcuna's amendment was not really an amendment by substitution considering that it consisted of only a few words proposed to be inserted and some minor deletions.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

The Chair suspended the session.

It was 7:33 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 7:43 p.m., the session was resumed.

REPLY OF MR. NOLLEDO

Upon resumption, in reply to Mr. Maambong's inquiry, Mr. Nolledo stated that the proposal presented by Mr. Azcuna was an individual amendment, which reply was adopted by the Chair as its ruling.

ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION

At this juncture, Ms. Aquino moved for adjournment of the session.

However, Mr. Davide interposed an inquiry on the status of his proposed amendment to the amendment to which the Chair replied that it would be considered in the next session.

Thereupon, Ms. Aquino reiterated her motion and, there being no objection, the Chair declared the session adjourned until five o'clock in the afternoon of the following day.

It was 7 :44 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 3, 1986