Supreme Court E-Library
Information At Your Fingertips

  View printer friendly version

At 5:22 p.m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia Muñoz Palma, opened the session.

THE PRESIDENT: The session is called to order.

NATIONAL ANTHEM
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please rise to sing the National Anthem.

Everybody rose to sing the National Anthem.

THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please remain standing for the Prayer to be led by the Honorable Wilfrido V. Villacorta.

Everybody remained standing for the Prayer.

PRAYER
MR. VILLACORTA: A reading from the Book of Psalms: Show Your power, O God, the power that You have used on our behalf, from Your temple in Jerusalem where kings bring gifts to You.

Rebuke Egypt — that wild animal in the reeds. Rebuke the nations —that herd bulls with their calves — until they bow down and offer You their silver. Scatter those people who love to make war.

Ambassadors will come from Egypt; the Sudanese will raise their hands in prayer to God.

Sing to God, kingdoms of the world; sing praise to the Lord, to Him who rise in the ancient sky. Listen to Him shout with a mighty roar. Proclaim God's power; His Majesty is over Israel; His might is in the skies.

How awesome is God as He comes from His sanctuary, the God of Israel. He gives strength and power to His people. Praise God.

Almighty Lord, You have given us this gift of having the historic opportunity to frame the new Constitution of our people. Please will it that we may reciprocate Your kindness and generosity by giving our people a worthy gift: a liberative document that will restore the freedom and dignity of which they have been deprived for four centuries.

Please make us worthy of the people's trust. While in the past, we have in our humble ways tried to help the less fortunate of our brothers and sisters, we have largely been concerned with ourselves, our family, our interests.

Please inspire and give us strength, O Lord, to transcend our selfish needs and aspirations so that we can fully offer ourselves towards the obliteration of exploitation in our land — exploitation coming from within as well as from without.

As we remember tomorrow our special relations with a giant power, enlighten us with Your Holy Spirit so that we can reflect thoroughly on the issues concerned and arrive at the best approach that would maximally serve the paramount national interest of our beloved Philippines; so that when we face the judgment of history, our descendants will look back to this Constitutional Commission with pride and admiration, and not with shame and derision; and so that we, all in this Commission, can contribute to Your Glory and that of our people. Amen.

ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will call the roll.

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:

Abubakar	Present	Jamir	Present
Alonto	Present *	Laurel	Present
Aquino	Present	Lerum	Present
Azcuna	Present	Maambong	Present
Bacani	Present	Monsod	Present
Bengzon	Present	Natividad	Absent
Bennagen	Present	Nieva	Present
Bernas	Present	Nolledo	Present
Rosario Braid	Present	Ople	Present
Brocka	Present	Padilla	Present
Calderon	Present	Quesada	Present
Castro de	Present	Rama	Present
Colayco	Present	Regalado	Present
Concepcion	Present	Reyes de los	Present
Davide	Present	Rigos	Present
Foz	Present	Rodrigo	Present
Garcia	Present	Romulo	Present
Gascon	Present *	Rosales	Absent
Guingona	Present	Sarmiento	Present
Suarez	Present	Treñas	Present
Sumulong	Present	Uka	Present
Tadeo	Present	Villacorta	Present
Tan	Present	Villegas	Present
Tingson	Absent

The President is present.

The roll call shows 43 Members responded to the call.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair declares the presence of a quorum.

MR. CALDERON: Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT: The Assistant Floor Leader is recognized.

APPROVAL OF JOURNAL
MR. CALDERON: Madam President, I move that we dispense with the reading of the Journal of the previous session and that we approve the same.

THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.

MR. CALDERON: Madam President, I move that we proceed to the Reference of Business.

THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.

The Secretary-General will read the Reference of Business.

REFERENCE OF BUSINESS
The Secretary-General read the following Proposed Resolutions on First Reading and Communications, the President making the corresponding references:

Proposed Resolution No. 374, entitled:

RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO INCREASE FROM SIXTY TO SEVENTY-FIVE PER CENTUM CAPITAL OWNERSHIP OF FILIPINO CITIZENS IN CORPORATIONS AND OTHER ENTITIES FOR THESE CORPORATIONS TO QUALIFY AS GRANTEES OF FRANCHISES OR CERTIFICATES TO OPERATE PUBLIC UTILITIES AND TO DISALLOW FOREIGNERS FROM SITTING IN THE GOVERNING BODY OR BOARD OF ANY PUBLIC UTILITY.

Introduced by Hon. Calderon, Alonto, Tingson, Maambong, Nolledo and Rama.

To the Committee on the National Economy and Patrimony.

Proposed Resolution No. 375, entitled:

RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO SET ASIDE LANDS OF PUBLIC DOMAIN AS PERMANENT SETTLEMENT AREAS FOR CULTURAL MINORITIES.

Introduced by Hon. Tingson.

To the Committee on the National Economy and Patrimony.

Proposed Resolution No. 376, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION AFFORDING MORE PROTECTION TO LABOR AND GUARANTEEING BASIC HUMAN AND TRADE UNION RIGHTS.

Introduced by Hon. Gascon and Garcia.

To the Committee on Social Justice.

Proposed Resolution No. 377, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCLUDE IN THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION THREE, ARTICLE THIRTEEN, OF THE 1973 CONSTITUTION, AS AMENDED, WITH MODIFICATION, PROVIDING FOR AUTOMATIC INITIATION OF IMPEACHMENT PROCEEDINGS AFTER THE ONE-FIFTH VOTE.

Introduced by Hon. Treñas.

To the Committee on Accountability of Public Officers.

Proposed Resolution No. 379, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCLUDE IN THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION A PROVISION TO EMPHASIZE AND STRENGTHEN THE CONSTITUTIONAL BASE FOR A SOCIAL HOUSING PROGRAM.

Introduced by Hon. Treñas.

To the Committee on Social Justice.

Proposed Resolution No. 380, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCLUDE IN THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION THE FIXING OF THE MINIMUM ELECTION PERIOD.

Introduced by Hon. Treñas.

To the Committee on Constitutional Commissions and Agencies.

Proposed Resolution No. 381, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION MANDATING THE ELIMINATION IN THE POLITICAL ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, AND CULTURAL LIFE OF THE NATION.

Introduced by Hon. Davide, Jr.

To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of Principles.

Proposed Resolution No. 382, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION RECOGNIZING HUMAN RIGHTS AS INVIOLABLE AND INALIENABLE.

Introduced by Hon. Davide, Jr.

To the Committee on Citizenship, Bill of Rights, Political Rights and Obligations and Human Rights

Proposed Resolution No. 383, entitled:

RESOLUTION RECOGNIZING THE RIGHT OF A CITIZEN TO REFUSE TO RENDER WAR SERVICE ON GROUNDS OF CONSCIENCE.

Introduced by Hon. Davide, Jr.

To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of Principles.

Proposed Resolution No. 384, entitled:

RESOLUTION AFFIRMING THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE, WHETHER EMPLOYED BY THE STATE OR NOT, TO FORM ASSOCIATIONS OR UNIONS WHOSE PURPOSE IS NOT CONTRARY TO LAW.

Introduced by Hon. Lerum.

To the Committee on Citizenship, Bill of Rights, Political Rights and Obligations and Human Rights.

Proposed Resolution No. 385, entitled:

RESOLUTION STRENGTHENING THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS BY INCORPORATING IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION EXPRESSLY PROHIBITING CENSORSHIP.

Introduced by Hon. Davide, Jr.

To the Committee on Citizenship, Bill of Rights, Political Rights and Obligations and Human Rights.

Proposed Resolution No. 386, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO IMPRESS WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECTIVENESS THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS BY INCORPORATING IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION THAT SAID RIGHTS BIND THE LEGISLATURE, THE EXECUTIVE, AND THE JUDICIARY AS DIRECTLY ENFORCEABLE LAW.

Introduced by Hon. Davide, Jr.

To the Committee on Citizenship, Bill of Rights, Political Rights and Obligations and Human Rights.

Proposed Resolution No. 387, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCLUDE A SECTION ON EDUCATION IN THE ARTICLE ON HUMAN RESOURCES.

Introduced by Hon. Rosario Braid.

To the Committee on Human Resources.

Proposed Resolution No. 388, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCLUDE IN THE ARTICLE ON NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY OF THE NATION A PROVISION TO INCLUDE AIRWAVES AS PART OF THE NATIONAL PATRIMONY.

Introduced by Hon. Rosario Braid and Bacani.

To the Committee on the National Economy and Patrimony.

Proposed Resolution No. 389, entitled:

RESOLUTION PROPOSING A PROVISION ALLOWING FOREIGN INVESTORS TO ACQUIRE, HOLD OR OWN LOTS WITH LIMITED AREA, REQUIRED FOR THE OPERATION OF EXPORT-ORIENTED INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES.

Introduced by Hon. Padilla.

To the Committee on the National Economy and Patrimony.

Proposed Resolution No. 390, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO PROVIDE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION THAT THE CHURCH AND THE STATE ARE INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER BUT MUST WORK TOGETHER HARMONIOUSLY FOR THE COMMON GOOD.

Introduced by Hon. Nolledo.

To the Committee on General Provisions.

Proposed Resolution No. 391, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE ARTICLE ON THE LEGISLATURE PROVISIONS DEFINING THE FUNCTIONS AND POWERS OF THE LEGISLATURE TO EXEMPT FROM TAXATION CHARITABLE AND RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND TO PROHIBIT THE APPROPRIATION OF PUBLIC MONEY OR PROPERTY AND OTHER RESOURCES FOR THE USE, BENEFIT OR SUPPORT OF ANY CHURCH OR SYSTEM OF RELIGION.

Introduced by Hon. Rigos.

To the Committee on the Legislative.

Proposed Resolution No. 392, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION THAT THE COMMISSION OF GROSS VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES RESULTING IN A NATIONAL FAILURE OF JUSTICE AMONG THE GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHMENT.

Introduced by Hon. Sarmiento.

To the Committee on Accountability of Public Officers.

Proposed Resolution No. 393, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION REQUIRING THE STATE TO PROMOTE POLITICAL PLURALISM AND PROHIBIT ALL FORMS OF DISCRIMINATION AND REPRESSION BY REASON OF POLITICAL CONVICTION.

Introduced by Hon. Sarmiento.

To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of Principles.

Proposed Resolution No. 394, entitled:

RESOLUTION INCORPORATING IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION AN ARTICLE RECOGNIZING AND DEFINING THE RIGHTS OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS TO LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT.

Introduced by Hon. Sarmiento.

To the Committee on Local Governments.

Proposed Resolution No. 395, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES PROVISIONS ON THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.

Introduced by Hon. Aquino and Quesada.

To the Committee on General Provisions.

Proposed Resolution No. 396, entitled:

RESOLUTION INCORPORATING IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION AN ARTICLE ON THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY.

Introduced by Hon. Sarmiento.

To the Committee on the Legislative.

Proposed Resolution No. 397, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION CREATING AN AGENCY FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES' UNIONS AND ASSOCIATIONS.

Introduced by Hon. Sarmiento and Tan.

To the Committee on Social Justice.

Proposed Resolution No. 398, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION GRANTING THE RIGHT TO FORM UNIONS AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING TO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES.

Introduced by Hon. Sarmiento and Tan.

To the Committee on Social Justice.

Proposed Resolution No. 399, entitled:

RESOLUTION EMBODYING SECTION 1, ARTICLE XII, B, OF THE 1973 CONSTITUTION IN THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION BUT WITH AN AMENDMENT THAT THE COLLEGE DEGREE REQUIRED OF MEMBERS OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION SHALL PREFERABLY BE IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION BUT THE CHAIRMAN AND A COMMISSIONER MUST HAVE BEEN MEMBERS OF THE PHILIPPINE BAR FOR AT LEAST TEN YEARS AND WITH FURTHER AMENDMENTS REGARDING THE FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSION.

Introduced by Hon. Foz.

To the Committee on Constitutional Commissions and Agencies.

Proposed Resolution No. 400, entitled:

RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR A BICAMERAL LEGISLATURE, WHICH SHALL BE KNOWN AS CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES, WHOSE UPPER HOUSE SHALL BE A SENATE OF TWENTY-FOUR (24) MEMBERS ELECTED AT LARGE AND WHOSE LOWER HOUSE SHALL BE COMPOSED OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTED BY DISTRICT.

Introduced by Hon. Calderon, Uka, Alonto, Rodrigo, and Tingson.

To the Committee on the Legislative.

Proposed Resolution No. 401, entitled:

RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A SEPARATE ARTICLE ESTABLISHING THE FRAMEWORK FOR A NATIONALIST, SELF-RELIANT AND PROGRESSIVE ECONOMY FOUNDED ON GENUINE INDUSTRIALIZATION GUIDED BY THE PRINCIPLES OF NATIONAL SELF-DETERMINATION AND EQUITABLE SHARING.

Introduced by Hon. Tadeo, Suarez, Quesada, Brocka, Jamir, Bennagen, Sarmiento, Villacorta, Gascon, Garcia, and Aquino.

To the Committee on the National Economy and Patrimony.

Proposed Resolution No. 402, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES PROVISIONS ON PEACE, NEUTRALITY, AND NONALIGNMENT.

Introduced by Hon. Aquino, Azcuna, Bennagen, Brocka, Garcia, Gascon, Quesada, Sarmiento, Suarez, Tadeo, Tan, Villacorta, Rosario Braid, Davide, Jr., Uka and Regalado.

To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of Principles.

Proposed Resolution No. 403, entitled:

RESOLUTION URGING THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF A PARLIAMENTARY FORM OF GOVERNMENT.

Introduced by Hon. Suarez, Tadeo and Bennagen,

To the Committee on the Legislative.

Proposed Resolution No. 404, entitled:

RESOLUTION PROPOSING A PROVISION IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION PROHIBITING GAMBLING AND OTHER SIMILAR VICES.

Introduced by Hon. Tingson.

To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of Principles.

Proposed Resolution No. 405, entitled:

RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION ON SUFFRAGE.

Introduced by Hon. Tingson.

To the Committee on Citizenship, Bill of Rights, Political Rights and Obligations and Human Rights.

Proposed Resolution No. 406, entitled:

RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR A SECTION OF EDUCATION IN THE ARTICLE ON THE DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES.

Introduced by Hon. Rosario Braid, Villacorta and Gascon.

To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of Principles.

Proposed Resolution No. 407, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCLUDE IN THE ARTICLE ON DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES A PROVISION CONSTITUTING COMMUNICATION RESOURCES AS A VITAL NATIONAL RESOURCE.

Introduced by Hon. Rosario Braid.

To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of Principles.

Proposed Resolution No. 408, entitled:

RESOLUTION PROVIDING THAT A SEPARATE ARTICLE ON MASS MEDIA AND COMMUNICATION BE INCLUDED IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION.

Introduced by Hon. Rosario Braid, Villacorta, Gascon, Foz and Brocka.

To the Committee on General Provisions.

COMMUNICATIONS
Letter from the People's Panel for a Nationalist and Democratic Constitution signed by Mr. J. Virgilio Bautista, submitting politico-legal, sociocultural, and economic proposals.

(Communication No. 103 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)

To the Steering Committee.

Letter from the People's Panel for a Nationalist and Democratic Constitution signed by Mr. J. Virgilio Bautista, requesting information on the schedule of public hearings to enable them to participate.

(Communication No. 104 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)

To the Ad Hoc Planning Committee on Public Hearings. Letter from Concerned Churches for Christian Liberty signed by Rev. Luis Reunilla, submitting a position paper on Christian Education.

(Communication No. 105 — Constitutional Commission of 1986).

To the Commission on Human Resources.

Communication from Solidarity, Padre Faura, Manila, presenting a program for cultural renewal.

(Communication No. 106 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)

To the Committee on Human Resources.

Letter from Paralegal Training Services Center, Tribal Filipino Desk, signed by Ms. Donna B. Zapa, enclosing a resolution for the recognition of national minority people's rights.

(Communication No. 107 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)

To the Committee on Human Resources.

Letter from the Veterans' Federation of the Philippines signed by Mr. Emmanuel V. de Ocampo, submitting a resolution requesting a constitutional provision that the state shall provide compensation for services rendered by war heroes and freedom fighters.

(Communication No. 108 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)

To the Committee on General Provisions.

Letter from the Family Planning Organization of the Philippines, Iloilo Chapter, signed by Ms. Perfecta D. Tamayo, requesting the inclusion of a policy statement on planned population growth.

(Communication No. 109 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)

To the Committee on General Provisions.

Letter from Mr. Juan de la Cruz of Bacolod City, submitting proposed provisions regarding the executive department, among others.

(Communication No. 110 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)

To the Committee on the Executive.

Letter from Mr. Alfredo J. Quemada of Suerte Heights, Kidapawan, Cotabato, suggesting, among others, a review of the land reform policy.

(Communication No. 111 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)

To the Committee on Social Justice.

Letter from Mr. Alvaro P. Villar of Hagonoy, Tagig, Metro Manila. suggesting provisions on graft and corruption.

(Communication No. 112 — Constitutional Commission of 1986) To the Committee on Accountability of Public Officers. Letter from Concerned Young Filipinos from the South signed by Mr. Rogelio V. Paglomutan and six others, suggesting proposals on the form of government, national economy and local governments, among others.

(Communication No. 113 — Constitutional Commission of 1 986)

To the Steering Committee.

Letter from Mr. Juanito M. Acanto of Iznart Street, Iloilo City, suggesting synchronization of elections, among others.

(Communication No. 114 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)

To the Committee on Constitutional Commissions and Agencies.

Communication from the Nationalist Movement for a Progressive Philippines giving answers to questions relevant to our heritage in land.

(Communication No. 115 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)

To the Committee on the National Economy and Patrimony.

MS. AQUINO: Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT: The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.

CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 263
(Article on National Territory)
Continuation

PERIOD OF AMENDMENTS
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, I move that we proceed to the continuation of consideration on Second Reading of Committee Report No. 3 on Proposed Resolution No. 263.

THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.

MS. AQUINO: To set some order in the floor deliberations, we would like to request the Commissioners to please register with us first whenever they seek recognition; and also to respect the five-minute time limit.

Madam President, we are now in the period of amendments.

We ask that Commissioner Davide be recognized.

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide may proceed.

MR. DAVIDE: Thank you, Madam President. The proposal is an amendment to the individual amendment of Commissioner Azcuna on line 3 of the draft on the National Territory, and it consists merely in the deletion of the words "now or hereafter" between the words "territories" and "belonging."

THE PRESIDENT: What does the sponsor say?

MR. AZCUNA: Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Azcuna is recognized.

MR. AZCUNA: As far as I am concerned, I accept the deletion of the said words, but I would like to ask the sponsor if he shares the same view.

MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, the Committee accepts the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT: The Committee has accepted the amendment.

Is there any objection to the amendment proposed by Commissioner Davide? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the proposed amendment to the individual amendment is approved.

MR. DAVIDE: Thank you, Madam President.

MS. AQUINO: Madam President, we ask that Commissioner Bernas be recognized.

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bernas is recognized.

FR. BERNAS: Madam President, I propose to delete the phrase "belonging to the Philippines by sovereign right or legal title" and in lieu thereof insert OVER WHICH THE GOVERNMENT EXERCISES SOVEREIGN JURISDICTION.

So lines 3 and 4 of the proposed draft will now read: "and all other territories OVER WHICH THE GOVERNMENT EXERCISES SOVEREIGN JURISDICTION consisting of the terrestrial, fluvial and aerial domains. . . ."

MR. AZCUNA: Madam President, I regret that I cannot accept the amendment.

MR. NOLLEDO: The Committee likewise regrets that it cannot accept the amendment.

FR. BERNAS: May I say a few words in support of this amendment?

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bernas may explain his proposed amendment.

FR. BERNAS: When I spoke three days ago, the proposition I made was that, if we must have an Article on National Territory at all, it must be one which does not contain any phrase, clause or word which may harm our diplomatic relations with other nations. The phrase "legal title," as I pointed out the other day, has acquired a very definite historical meaning since the explanation for it was recorded in the annals of the 1971 Constitutional Convention. This phrase was put in for the purpose of covering the claim to various parts of the world like Sabah, the Marianas, et cetera, over which the Philippines was not actually exercising jurisdiction. But as I said, it was meant to be a coverall provision. So, if we keep this together with the meaning it has acquired as now known among our neighbors, the irritation will continue. For that reason, I would prefer that this phrase be deleted.

THE PRESIDENT: Is Commissioner Bernas through?

FR. BERNAS: Yes.

MS. AQUINO: Madam President, we ask that Commissioner de Castro be recognized.

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de Castro is recognized.

MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you, Madam President.

I would like to ask Commissioner Azcuna why the word "history" on line 4 was changed to "sovereign."

MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President.

MS. AQUINO: Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT: The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.

MS. AQUINO: Commissioner Bernas is presently proposing an amendment to which Commissioner de Castro's point is not yet responsive. May we request that Commissioner Guingona be recognized?

THE PRESIDENT: Is he going to speak regarding the proposed amendment of Commissioner Bernas?

MS. AQUINO: Yes, it is on the proposed amendment of Commissioner Bernas.

THE PRESIDENT: The Gentleman may proceed.

MR. GUINGONA: Madam President, with due respect to the honorable Commissioner Bernas, I strongly object to his proposed amendment. In my opinion, such an amendment might be misconstrued to mean that we are dropping our claim over Sabah. I have mentioned in my previous talk that our proposed provision on National Territory should be as flexible as possible.

So, we should not close the door to any future claim, whether foreseen or unforeseen, of our government.

FR. BERNAS: Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT: Is Commissioner Guingona through?

MR. GUINGONA: Not yet. May I please continue.

I regret that this abandonment might even be suggested even before a thorough, unbiased and searching review or evaluation of our claim is made and completed. I also regret that this abandonment would give the presumption that this Commission has lost faith in our officials; that it believes our officials will act without integrity and responsibility, that they would, on our behalf, present unsupported and illegal claims. I also regret that mention has been made of its damage or danger to the Philippines. Assuming these were true, Madam President, does this mean that anytime in the future we may want to claim or study a claim we should desist or hide ourselves in fear simply because there is danger of irritation or damage or because of the hostility of the other party or state concerned? Besides, Madam President, I do not believe that the picture presented to us is an accurate one, with due respect to those who presented it. They presented to us that Malaysians are hostile, vengeful and unfriendly. I have been to Malaysia several times, Madam President. I had the privilege of inviting personally the then Prime Minister Tungku Abdul Rahman to the Philippines which led to his first visit to our country. I had, have and still have a lot of Malaysian friends. The only Malaysians who might be hostile to us are the overzealous, ultranationalistic officials of the government, particularly those in the foreign office. I, for one, can affirm even under oath that Malaysians are good, understanding and friendly and, therefore, I very strongly object to the proposed amendment, because of a possible misconstruction of what we mean in this proposed provision.

Thank you, Madam President.

FR. BERNAS: Madam President, may I be allowed a brief response.

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bernas may proceed.

FR. BERNAS: With similar due respect, I would like to say that while the amendment does not include Sabah, it does not exclude it either. We adhere to the generally accepted principle of international law which enables the nation to acquire territory by cession, purchase and so forth. The phrase I suggest is: "All other territories OVER WHICH THE GOVERNMENT EXERCISES SOVEREIGN JURISDICTION . . ." because if at some future time the Philippine government exercises jurisdiction over Sabah or Russia, or the United States, it will be part of our territory. So, this is a very, very flexible concept. We claim as part of our territory any territory over which the government exercises sovereign jurisdiction. Madam President, it will be noted that I do not say: "over which the present government exercises jurisdiction." I just say: " . . . OVER WHICH THE GOVERNMENT EXERCISES SOVEREIGN JURISDICTION." As I said, if at some future time our government exercises jurisdiction over, say, Russia, then it will be included in our territory.

THE PRESIDENT: We are now in the process of approving amendments to the proposed amendment on the Article on National Territory.

MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT: So, we really should not be entering into a prolonged debate on this matter. But in order that the Commissioners could vote intelligently on the amendment, the Chair is permitting some comments on or objections to the proposed amendment of Commissioner Bernas, subject to limitation.

Commissioner Bernas proposed an amendment which the Committee and Commissioner Azcuna rejected. Commissioner Guingona is also against the proposed amendment. So, I think we still have one more speaker, after which we will vote on the matter.

MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President.

MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President.

MS. AQUINO: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Maambong be recognized.

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized.

MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, I know that we are adopting liberality in the Rules, and I am not raising a point of order. Since we are in the period of amendments, I would just like to state for the record, without raising a point of order, the interpretation of the five-minute rule when it comes to amendments: Any Member shall be allowed five minutes to explain any amendment he may offer after which the Member who shall first obtain the floor (like Commissioner Guingona) shall be allowed five minutes to speak in opposition to it and there shall be no further debate thereon.

Madam President, of course, we can always relax the Rules but I am saying that the proponent of an amendment has five minutes to explain his amendment, and the opponent to the amendment has also five minutes to speak against it. But if we relax the Rules, that is perfectly all right.

THE PRESIDENT: I do not think Commissioner Guingona has consumed the five minutes. According to the timekeeper, Commissioner de Castro had only one minute to explain.

Commissioner Maambong is calling our attention to the Rules.

MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de Castro is recognized.

MR. DE CASTRO: When this Rules was first sponsored and debated upon, there were so many people against it. Since yesterday, about five spoke for and against the subject in question, in contradiction with our Rules. Now, I want to speak on something, but the Chair gave me only one minute. Madam President, let us be fair in this hall.

I regret that on line 4, "historic" was changed to "sovereign," because according to those who proposed the change, Sabah does not like it. Madam President, this is a municipal law. It is effective within our country. If I want to befriend a certain person or a certain state, and I extend my hand and he extends his also only on condition that I take away the word "historic" in the provision on National Territory, that is blackmail to me. I insist that the word "historic" stay just as the framers of the 1973 Constitution did. I understand it is already on record that the word "historic" does not include Sabah, so I am surprised why we still talk of Sabah when we discuss our national territory.

Madam President, thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.

MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, as the sponsor of the committee report, may I be given only two minutes to make a statement opposing the amendment of Commissioner Bernas?

THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to give the sponsor two minutes? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the sponsor is given two minutes.

MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, I made mention in the last meetings that the term "legal title" does not only refer to our claim to Sabah but also to the boundaries set forth in the Treaty of Paris and in other related treaties. I know there are areas beyond the 12-mile limit which are recognized as national waters under the Treaty of Paris over which we really do not exercise effective jurisdiction. The term "OVER WHICH THE GOVERNMENT EXERCISES SOVEREIGN JURISDICTION" may be susceptible to different interpretations. So, I state that to eliminate the term "historic right or legal title" will be retrogression of the highest order.

Thank you, Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT: I believe the body is now ready to vote on the amendment of Commissioner Bernas.

MS. AQUINO: Madam President, there being no other interpellators on the amendment proposed by Commissioner Bernas, I move for a vote on the amendment to the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT: We will have a voting by the raising of hands instead of by viva voce.

FR. BERNAS: Madam President, may we restate the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, please.

FR. BERNAS: The amendment is: after the phrase "and all other territories" add OVER WHICH THE GOVERNMENT EXERCISES SOVEREIGN JURISDICTION.

VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of the amendment of Commissioner Bernas, please raise their right hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)

As many as are against, please raise their right hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)

The results show 21 votes in favor and 14 against; the proposed amendment is approved.

MR. GUINGONA: Madam President, I respectfully move for nominal voting.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.

It was 6:07 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 6:16 p.m., the session was resumed.

NOMINAL VOTING ON BERNAS AMENDMENT
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed. When we called a suspension of the session, there was a motion of Commissioner Guingona that we proceed to a nominal voting on the amendment.

The Chair rules that the nominal voting can proceed under Section 39, Rule VIII of the Rules of the Constitutional Commission. The Secretary-General will please call the roll, but I appeal to the Members who want to explain their votes to make their explanation as brief as possible.

FIRST ROLL CALL
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:

Abubakar . . . . . . . . . . .

THE PRESIDENT: What is the pleasure of Commissioner Abubakar?

MR. ABUBAKAR: As former Philippine Ambassador to Malaysia, I have been intimately connected with this problem.

THE PRESIDENT: Does the Commissioner desire to explain his vote?

MR. ABUBAKAR: Yes. My vote is for the withdrawal of our claim to Sabah. (Laughter)

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair would like to remind Commissioner Abubakar that what is now before the body is the proposed amendment of Commissioner Bernas.

MR. ABUBAKAR: Madam President, I now understand the issue. I vote yes.

THE PRESIDENT: So, Commissioner Abubakar is in favor of the amendment.

Thank you.

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:

Alonto . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MR. ALONTO: Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Alonto is recognized.

COMMISSIONER ALONTO EXPLAINS HIS VOTE

MR. ALONTO: I vote yes to the amendment proposed by Commissioner Bernas because I am most concerned with the interest and welfare of this country.

Thank you.

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:

Aquino . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MS. AQUINO: Madam President, may I be allowed to explain my vote?

THE PRESIDENT: Please proceed.

COMMISSIONER AQUINO EXPLAINS HER VOTE

MS. AQUINO: I vote yes on the clear and unmistakable understanding that the contemplation of the proposed amendment does not exclude the possibility of a claim to Sabah.

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:

Azcuna . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MR. AZCUNA: I vote no, Madam President.

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:

Bacani . . . . . . . . . . . . .

BISHOP BACANI: I vote no, and may I explain my vote, Madam President?

THE PRESIDENT: Please proceed.

COMMISSIONER BACANI EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
BISHOP BACANI: I vote no, first, on the understanding that the formulation proposed by Commissioner Azcuna, while not excluding our claim to Sabah, does not say we are claiming Sabah.

Second, I want to ask, and I doubt whether we can always determine, whether or not we exercise sovereign jurisdiction over a particular piece of land. Perhaps we can determine, but can we always do this at some future time? Suppose the country is temporarily unable to exercise sovereign jurisdiction over a part of its territory, does that mean that that ceases to be part of the Philippines? I doubt whether we can always ascertain, and for that reason, I vote no.

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:

Bengzon . . . . . . . . . . . . .

COMMISSIONER BENGZON EXPLAINS HIS VOTE

MR. BENGZON: I vote yes, first, because the amendment does not only preclude the government from pursuing but also from not pursuing its claim to any territory.

Second, if any part of the Philippines is invaded or taken by force by any other foreign nation, that is not contemplated as lost under the amendment. These are the two reasons I am in favor of the proposed amendment.

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:

Bennagen . . . . . . . . . . . . .

COMMISSIONER BENNAGEN EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. BENNAGEN: I vote yes but on the assumption that the provision will not preclude some other future claims, not necessarily Sabah.

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:

Bernas . . . . . . . . . . . . .

COMMISSIONER BERNAS EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
FR. BERNAS: I have not change my mind. I vote yes and I just would like to give the assurance that this amendment does not preclude the Philippines from exercising whatever right it might have under international law.

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:

Rosario Braid . . . . . . . . .

COMMISSIONER ROSARIO BRAID EXPLAINS HER VOTE
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: I vote yes on the assumption that the Philippines has an open claim in the future and that this amendment does not preclude our possible negotiation vis-a-vis Sabah.

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:

Brocka . . . . . . . . . . . . .

COMMISSIONER BROCKA EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. BROCKA: I vote yes in agreement with the perceptions of Commissioners Abubakar and Alonto.

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:

Calderon . . . . . . . . . . . .

MR. CALDERON: My vote is no.

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:

Castro de . . . . . . . . . . .

COMMISSIONER DE CASTRO EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. DE CASTRO: I vote no for the reason that the amendment seems to state that we exercise sovereign jurisdiction at present.

I also vote no because according to our caucus, it seems to convey that the word "historic" is against what Malaysia wants. To them, the word "historic" means our claim to Sabah. "Historic" not only to Sabah but to what we had in the past and what we can have in the future. If our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren will, in fifty years, find some historic documents which would show we have a claim to a certain territory, then they may lose it because we are taking from them their right to claim it. Also, the word "historic" will put to naught the different treaties upon which our national territory has been based.

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:

COMMISSIONER COLAYCO EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
Colayco . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MR. COLAYCO: All the good reasons in favor of the amendment have been heard, and wish to add this one. Because of this long pending claim, we have not been able to foster a full commercial relationship with Malaysia.

I, therefore, vote for the amendment.

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:

Concepcion . . . . . . . . . .

COMMISSIONER CONCEPCION EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. CONCEPCION: I vote no, the reason being that the expression "OVER WHICH THE GOVERNMENT EXERCISES SOVEREIGN JURISDICTION" implies a waiver to whatever rights we have over Sabah. I am positive that at present we are not exercising sovereign jurisdiction over Sabah. So, in that belief I feel that the amendment is already a renunciation of our claim to Sabah.

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:

Davide . . . . . . . . . . . . .

COMMISSIONER DAVIDE EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, I vote no and my explanation is that the proposal casts a cloud of doubt on the validity of our claim to Sabah. It is not for us to vote for a waiver. We would be depriving the generations to come of a basis for a claim to a territory over which we have a historic right. We will have difficulty selling our work to our people, if we now waive our claim to Sabah.

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:

Foz . . . . . . . . . . . . .

COMMISSIONER FOZ EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. FOZ: I vote yes, because the amendment has nothing to do with Sabah. We should allow the national leadership to address the question.

Thank you.

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:

Garcia . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MR. GARCIA: I vote yes.

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:

Gascon . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Guingona . . . . . . . . . . . . .

COMMISSIONER GUINGONA EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President, I have already expressed my views, but with your kind permission I would like to add something to explain my vote. I said earlier that we should make our provision on National Territory as flexible as possible, principally by not using ambiguous or unclear terms which may be subject to misconstruction. I am afraid that by attempting indirectly, impliedly or inadvertently our claim to Sabah as some of us believe would be the effect of this amendment, we would be outdoing the Malaysians; we would be more Malaysians than the Malaysians themselves.

Madam President; under Article XII of the Manila Accord entered into among the Federation of Malaysia, the Republic of Indonesia, and the Republic of the Philippines, the Ministers said, and I quote:

The Ministers took note of the Philippine claim and the right of the Philippines to continue to pursue it in accordance with international law and the principle of pacific settlement of disputes. They agreed that the inclusion of North Borneo, now Sabah, in the Federation of Malaysia would not prejudice either the claim or any right thereunder.

My vote, therefore, Madam President, is no.

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:

Jamir . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MR. JAMIR: I vote yes.

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:

Laurel . . . . . . . . . . . . .

COMMISSIONER LAUREL EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. LAUREL: With the assurance of the proponent of the amendment, Commissioner Bernas, that this does not do away with our future claim to any particular territory, including Sabah, I vote yes.

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:

Lerum . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MR. LERUM: My vote is yes.

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:

Maambong . . . . . . . . . . . . .

COMMISSIONER MAAMBONG EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. MAAMBONG: I vote yes, Madam President, but in so doing, in the assumption that this proposed amendment will be carried, I would like to suggest to the honorable sponsor and to the honorable proponent of the substitute amendment in advance that there should be some realignment of words since the amendatory phrase reads: "OVER WHICH THE GOVERNMENT EXERCISES SOVEREIGN JURISDICTION," and in the latter part of the substitute amendment, on line 7, it also reads: "areas over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction."

Thank you, Madam President.

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:

Monsod . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MR. MONSOD: I vote yes.

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:

Natividad . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nieva . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MS. NIEVA: I vote yes.

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:

Nolledo . . . . . . . . . . . . .

COMMISSIONER NOLLEDO EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. NOLLEDO: I vote against the amendment because it, in effect, drops our claim to Sabah, just like dropping a hot potato.

Elimination of the term "legal title" may imperil our right to our waters under the Treaty of Paris and other treaties. I adhere to the well-taken arguments of Commissioner Roberto Concepcion.

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:

Ople . . . . . . . . . . . . .

COMMISSIONER OPLE EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. OPLE: Thank you, Madam President. I vote yes. First of all, I do not think the Bernas amendment forecloses any just claim of this country on any part of the earth, whether in the past, in the present or in the future, because all such claims are duly protected by international law which, in fact, we have agreed to adopt in this Constitution.

I was very supportive of the Azcuna amendment. I think the amendment can stand. But there was another amendment which I thought addressed the concern of Commissioner Guingona — that there should be as few ambiguities in the Constitution as possible, and I think the Bernas amendment is definitely more unambiguous than the earlier amendments that had been presented.

Madam President, this may look an innocent provision on National Territory. After all, it does not transcend municipal law. On the other hand, when we define our national territory, any part thereof becomes sacred to this generation and all other generations of Filipinos, and to that, under the American Declaration of Independence which Filipino children like to quote until now, "we pledge our life, our fortune and our sacred honor."

I do not mind sending my children to the Kalayaan Island in order to defend that part of our national territory. I do not mind sending my grandchildren to Palawan to die there in defense of Palawan. I do not mind sending them to Tawi-Tawi to offer their lives in defense of Tawi-Tawi. But I certainly will mind if some future Napoleon in Malacañang decides to invoke the ambiguities in this territorial provision and send an army, including my grandchildren, to Sabah. I would regret that very much. I would not want them to die for strange places, like Sabah or any other territory over which we may have a claim or assert future claim, which, in any case, is not foreclosed.

One of the reasons I am voting for this amendment is that I do not think any of our rights is unduly threatened.

And so, Madam President, in the interest of clarity as to what constitutes our national territory which will claim, if need be, our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor to be passed on to our posterity, and also in the interest of safety and the security of my own mind about what I will lay down my life for, I vote yes.

Thank you.

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:

COMMISSIONER PADILLA EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
Padilla . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MR. PADILLA: Madam President, the Bernas amendment would change the clause "belonging to the Philippines by historical sovereign right or legal title" with the phrase "over which the Philippines exercises sovereign jurisdiction."

I notice that what is accepted and what appears in the amendment, as in the substitute amendment, as well as in the 1973 Constitution, reads: "over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction." This amendment will contradict what is already accepted, and I quote: "over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction." The words "sovereignty" and "jurisdiction" are separated by the disjunctive "or," but they are now being joined, and "jurisdiction" is even qualified by the adjective "sovereign."

Madam President, what is accepted is "sovereignty or jurisdiction." The amendment specifies "sovereign jurisdiction."

So, I vote against the amendment because it will be confusing and even contradictory. Moreover, if this amendment does not foreclose any claim — and I would not want to specify Sabah — why then change the present provision? If there is no purpose for the amendment, why accept the amendment? I also wish to concur with the observations of Commissioner Concepcion..

Thank you.

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:

Quesada . . . . . . . . . . . . .

COMMISSIONER QUESADA EXPLAINS HER VOTE
MS. QUESADA: I vote yes with the understanding and the assurance of the proponent that this amendment will not preclude any future claim on Sabah or any other territory.

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:

Rama . . . . . . . . . . . . .

COMMISSIONER RAMA EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. RAMA: Despite the assurances of the proponent that this does not preclude the Philippines from pursuing its claim to Sabah, it seems that even among the Members of the Commission we have differing views and interpretations of the amendment.

I am reminded, Madam President, of the legal principle that the author of an ambiguity in a phrase or a provision suffers such ambiguity. In other words, an ambiguity shall be resolved against the author which in this case will be the Commission, if we adopt the amendment.

Therefore, I vote no.

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:

Regalado . . . . . . . . . . . . .

COMMISSIONER REGALADO EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. REGALADO: Madam President, I vote yes not because of any so-called assurances of Commissioner Bernas, but because of the intendment and the purpose such an amendment is intended to subserve, it being understood that the word "exercises" is used in its durative verb form and the term "sovereign jurisdiction" is used in the sense of its present concept under the principles of public international law, in accordance with the rule of contemporaneous construction.

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:

Reyes de los . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MR. DE LOS REYES: Madam President, may I be allowed to explain my vote?

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de los Reyes may proceed.

COMMISSIONER DE LOS REYES EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. DE LOS REYES: Madam President, when the Constitutional Convention of 1971 included the phrase "historic right or legal title," it was not specifically intended to claim Sabah. As I understood it, the term refers to territories like Batanes and/or other territories included in the Treaty of Paris and other international agreements.

If we did not have a constitutional amendment in 1972, there would have been no need to place that phrase "historic right or legal title," now changed to "sovereign rights." But because we were amending the Constitution of 1972, and the Sabah issue was a very hot issue at that time, we had to put a safety valve provision in the Constitution or we might be held in estoppel from claiming other territories, not necessarily Sabah, which historically and legally belong to us. To my mind, therefore, there is no cause for alarm in maintaining the present provision changing the term "historic right" to "sovereign right." Also, there is no harm in accepting the Bernas amendment in the light of his explanation that it will not preclude us later on from claiming Sabah. Since I do not attach much significance on this issue one way or the other, I, therefore, abstain, Madam President.

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:

Rigos . . . . . . . . . . . No Rodrigo . . . . . . . . . . .

COMMISSIONER RODRIGO EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, for the reasons already given by those who voted yes, I also vote yes. But I would like to add something. I want to comment on the misgivings expressed by some who voted no — that if we adopt this amendment, then we lose sovereign jurisdiction over a portion of the present Philippine territory. This means that if, for example, Batanes is temporarily invaded and conquered by a foreign nation, then we lose sovereign jurisdiction over Batanes if this amendment is approved. That is not so, Madam President, because this amendment "over which the government exercises sovereign jurisdiction" does not refer to any portion of the Philippines which we now have. Let me read the first sentence of the Article:

The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territories . . . over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction.

"All other territories" refers to territories other than the islands presently comprising the Philippine archipelago. So, sovereign jurisdiction applies to or modifies only other territories and not any land or island or sea which is now considered part of the Philippine archipelago.

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:

Romulo . . . . . . . . . . .

COMMISSIONER ROMULO EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. ROMULO: I vote yes, on the grounds that we have enough problems on what is clearly now our territory, more so when we claim somebody else's territory. Also, I vote yes on the assumption that the amendment does not bar our claims to some future territory.

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:

Rosales . . . . . . . . . . . Sarmiento . . . . . . . . . . .

COMMISSIONER SARMIENTO EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. SARMIENTO: The Bernas amendment will not, in any way, diminish our sovereignty over any territory. As a matter of fact, even without a provision on National Territory or even without the Bernas amendment, our sovereignty over any territory will not be affected. The Bernas amendment should cause no fear among our brethren because it will not prevent now or hereafter the Aquino government or future governments to pursue its claim over any territory.

I, therefore, vote yes for the Bernas amendment.

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:

COMMISSIONER SUAREZ EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. SUAREZ: I might as well start with my vote. I vote against the amendment. As a simple citizen of this country, I find it presumptuous to waive our nation's historic rights and legal title.

Thank you.

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:

Sumulong . . . . . . . . . . .

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Sumulong is recognized.

COMMISSIONER SUMULONG EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. SUMULONG: It is a well-established rule of international law that a state can claim as its national territory only that territory over which it has sovereignty or jurisdiction. If the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction over Sabah, then Sabah is a part of our national territory. If we do not exercise sovereignty or jurisdiction — and sovereignty or jurisdiction means control of internal as well as external affairs — how can we claim it as part of our territory? We may put in our Constitution that we are claiming Sabah, but we cannot say that it is part of our national territory as long as we do not exercise sovereignty or jurisdiction. That is why our national territory is defined in our 1935 Constitution as:

. . . all the territory ceded to the United States by the Treaty of Paris . . . together with all the islands embraced in the treaty concluded at Washington . . . and all territory over which the present Government of the Philippine Islands exercises jurisdiction.

The last phrase was added upon the strong suggestion of President Recto because he knows that we can only claim as part of our national territory only those territories over which we exercise control, sovereignty or jurisdiction.

I agree with Commissioner Bernas. This will not stop us if someday Sabah should come under our control internally and externally or we can claim Sabah to be a part of our national territory.

Thank you, Madam President.

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:

Tadeo . . . . . . . . . . . No Tan . . . . . . . . . . .

COMMISSIONER TAN EXPLAINS HER VOTE
SR. TAN: Madam President, I have no legal reasons for voting yes that have not already been stated, but I choose to vote in the affirmative because I feel that this amendment would hasten peace and harmony among our Asian neighbors. And to me this is primary to a claim to a foreign land.

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:

Tingson Treñas

COMMISSIONER TREÑAS EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. TREÑAS: I vote no and I adopt the reasons of those who voted in the same manner.

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:

COMMISSIONER UKA EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. UKA: Madam President, I vote yes because the Bernas amendment is very clear. It will not, in any way, preclude us from claiming any territory over which we have a valid claim. By said amendment, we can even claim the moon in the future. I do not think Astronaut Armstrong will ever object. I vote yes.

Thank you very much.

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:

Villacorta . . . . . . . . . . .

COMMISSIONER VILLACORTA EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. VILLACORTA: Madam President, I vote no in the absence of an unmistakable assurance that will be universally understood, that the term "sovereign jurisdiction" is not an oath to limitation that could not compel the Philippines in asserting her future territorial claims to satisfy all the stringent requirements of claims to sovereignty; namely, effective occupation, historic rights, legal title, and the right of national self-determination. I also vote no because twice, last night and tonight, my express intention to exercise my right to seek clarification duly registered with the Floor Leader was stifled by inflexible parliamentary rules.

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:

Villegas . . . . . . . . . . .

COMMISSIONER VILLEGAS EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. VILLEGAS: I vote no because as far as I can gather from my contacts with the Malaysians, their objection has been to the word "historic," and I think "sovereign right" and "legal title" will not be objectionable to them.

THE PRESIDENT EXPLAINS HER VOTE

THE PRESIDENT: Before the Secretary-General conducts a second call for those who have not registered their votes, the President desires to vote.

I examined the Rules and there is actually no prohibition against the President voting. The Rule says:

The President or the Presiding Officer shall not be obliged to vote except to break a tie.

In other words, I can exercise my option to vote and I would like to vote.

I vote no because if, as stated here by the honorable proponent and the other Members of the Commission, the amendment would not foreclose any possible claim on any territory including Sabah, then I believe there is no reason why we should change the phrase that is present in the amendment proposed by the sponsor and by Commissioner Azcuna. I believe that the phrase "belonging to the Philippines by sovereign right or legal title" is more embracing and flexible to include all possible situations concerning the national territory of the Philippines. So, I vote no.

SECOND ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will conduct a second call for those who have not registered their votes.

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:

Gascon Yes Rosales

Natividad Tingson

THE PRESIDENT: The results show 27 votes in favor, 17 against and 1 abstention; the Bernas amendment is approved.

MS. AQUINO: Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT: The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.

MS. AQUINO: We ask that Commissioner de Castro be recognized.

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de Castro is recognized.

MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President, please allow me to read the amendment of the Honorable Bernas. It states, and I quote: "The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all other territories OVER WHICH THE GOVERNMENT EXERCISES SOVEREIGN JURISDICTION . . ." After the word "jurisdiction," I propose to add AS WELL AS THOSE UNDER HISTORIC RIGHT OR LEGAL TITLE, then continue the rest of the sentence.

MR. AZCUNA: Madam President, I regret I cannot accept the amendment. I would rather throw it to the body.

THE PRESIDENT: What does the sponsor say?

MR. NOLLEDO: The Committee has the same decision as Commissioner Azcuna.

THE PRESIDENT: The amendment is not accepted?

MR. RODRIGO: This, in effect, is practically a motion for reconsideration.

THE PRESIDENT: It has not been accepted by the sponsor.

MR. DE CASTRO: May I know the reason why?

MR. AZCUNA: It is because we precisely would like to avoid the word "historic" because of the particular connotation of that word during the debates in the 1971 Constitutional Convention. We want this Commission to be free from those connotations; therefore, we adopted the word "sovereign" so that it can mean what we wanted it to mean rather than what the Delegates in 1971 wanted "historic" to mean. That is the reason we want to avoid "historic" although "sovereign" covers the same thing.

MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President, may I ask a question of the one who objected to the amendment?

THE PRESIDENT: The Gentleman may proceed.

MR. DE CASTRO: The Gentleman is quite — I will not say afraid — not in favor of the word "historic" because it is a word which had been objected to, as I understand, by Malaysia. Let us be frank about this. It is a word objected to by Malaysia because it is a manifestation of our claim to Sabah. As I said before, this is a municipal law which affects us only. Why should some other people, some other nation, get involved in our use of the term "historic right"? As I said before, if we want to be friends and we want amity among nations, with all other nations, that amity must also be answered with amity. It is not that one is friendly to another because he wants something or his friendly action is conditional to not using the word "historic." Madam President, I am not talking about its possible consequences on our relations with other nations; I insist that this is a municipal law and it has nothing to do with any other nation. If the sponsor will not accept my amendment, I will request a division of the House on this.

MR. CONCEPCION: Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Concepcion is recognized.

MR. CONCEPCION: One question occurs to me. A substantial number of those who voted yes said, "I vote yes in reliance upon the accuracy of the opinion expressed by Mr. So and So that this amendment does not affect our claim to Sabah." The question is: Can that answer be considered a yes vote? What kind of a vote is it? Can we cast a conditional vote? When "yes" is conditional or predicated upon the express assumption that the opinion or conclusion expressed by another is correct, does not the giver of the answer manifest his lack of adequate knowledge to answer without qualification?

MS. AQUINO: Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.

What is the pleasure of the Acting Floor Leader?

MS. AQUINO: May I be recognized in reply to the position made by Justice Concepcion?

THE PRESIDENT: The Acting Floor Leader may proceed.

MS. AQUINO: I voted yes and the contemplation of my affirmative vote was the clear and unmistakable understanding that a vote in favor of the amendment does not exclude any claim by way of historic right or legal title. If it includes Sabah, that is fine. But it was not based on an assurance given by any other proponent of the amendment. And I believe I speak on behalf of the other colleagues who voted the same.

MR. PADILLA: Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT: The Vice-President is recognized.

MR. PADILLA: What I heard from the many statements of the distinguished Commissioners who voted yes was that their votes were conditional based on the understanding or the assurance or whatever is being assured that this does not conflict with the previous term, and would not preclude the possible claim over Sabah.

I have heard many explanations of the votes, and to me, they are conditional. Worse, this is based on the assurance of some other Members. I cannot understand a vote that is based on assurance and is, therefore, conditional.

I concur with the -correct observation of Commissioner Concepcion.

MR. OPLE: Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople is recognized.

MR. OPLE: In the interest of symmetry, I hope the Chair will allow me to say a few words in reply to some of the misgivings just expressed.

THE PRESIDENT: Please proceed.

MR. OPLE: Yes. On the part of those who voted yes to the amendment, I, of course, recognize that there is no equality of legal perceptions in a disparate body of this kind, and there are some who may feel they are more gifted about legal issues to the extent of being able to divine the authentic intent of those who cast a vote in these proceedings. But I think those who make up this Commission are entitled to a certain benefit of the doubt, that they do not cast their votes without having achieved an inner degree of conviction; that, in fact, these votes are meaningful to them and are expressive of their true intent.

I just wanted to say that, Madam President.

Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: Insofar as the Chair is concerned, the votes of the Commissioners who voted yes are positive affirmative votes and whatever has been stated is an explanation of the vote that has been given and, therefore, the votes, as already reported, stand.

MR. GUINGONA: Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me. There is an amendment of Commissioner de Castro which is before us and which has not been accepted by the sponsor. So that we will have to vote on this particular amendment of Commissioner de Castro.

Will Commissioner de Castro please repeat his proposed amendment?

MR. DE CASTRO: On line 4, Madam President, insert the words AS WELL AS THOSE UNDER HISTORIC RIGHT OR LEGAL TITLE.

On my proposed amendment, the whole sentence now reads: "The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all the other territories over which the government exercises sovereign jurisdiction AS WELL AS THOSE UNDER HISTORIC RIGHT OR LEGAL TITLE."

VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of the proposed amendment, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)

As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)

There are 9 votes in favor and 24 against; the proposed amendment of Commissioner de Castro is lost.

MR. GUINGONA: Madam President, just for clarification. Regarding the assurance given by the honorable proponent on his amendment, what effect would it have as far as the provision is concerned? Would it have a binding and persuasive effect?

THE PRESIDENT: Is the question directed to me or to the proponent?

MR. GUINGONA: It is directed to Commissioner Bernas.

FR. BERNAS: I regret I was not listening. Could the Gentleman kindly repeat the question?

MR. GUINGONA: Madam President, I wanted to be clarified. Since the Gentleman has made the assurance that his amendment would not affect any claim of the Philippines either now or hereafter, including presumably our claim to Sabah, what would be the effect of such a statement? As far as the provision is concerned, not as far as those who voted are concerned, would it have a binding and persuasive effect?

FR. BERNAS: Madam President, before I answer the question, may I just raise a point of order? We have voted on the proposition; we have gone beyond the interpellation period; we have gone through the amendment process. Now, we are having interpellation again for clarification.

THE PRESIDENT: So, the statement of Commissioner Guingona is out of order.

FR. BERNAS: It is my contention that it is out of order. If he wants me to answer that, I will answer him in private.

THE PRESIDENT: The Chair believes that the manifestation of Commissioner Guingona is out of order.

Let us proceed. Is there any other amendment?

MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized.

MR. MAAMBONG: I do not want to sound like a broken record, Madam President, but I stated earlier that in the period of amendments, the one who proposed the amendment and the one who opposed it each had five minutes to speak for or against the proposal. There is no rule which says that anybody can just stand up here and start talking about other matters other than the amendment being considered. I am just trying to relay that again, Madam President, so that we can have some sanity in these proceedings.

Thank you very much.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much for lecturing to us and to the Commissioners.

Is there any other amendment?

MS. AQUINO: Madam President, Commissioner Davide has manifested his intention to introduce another amendment. We ask that he be recognized.

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.

MR. DAVIDE: Thank you, Madam President.

The amendment would be after the Bernas amendment, and it reads: OR WHICH BELONG TO IT SINCE TIMES PAST.

THE PRESIDENT: Where is that to be inserted?

MR. DAVIDE: After the Bernas amendment, Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection?

MR. AZCUNA: We do not accept the amendment Madam President.

MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, may I be allowed to explain?

MR. AZCUNA: We throw it to the floor, Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT: Will Commissioner Davide please explain his amendment?

MR. DAVIDE: As could easily be determined from the votes in favor of the Bernas amendment, it is very clear that these votes were because of the interpretation by the proponent himself that it will not foreclose any claim over Sabah. But that particular interpretation is not borne out by the language. So, the proposal now is to put on record, to place it in black and white, that the interpretation given by the Bernas proposal is really not to foreclose any claim over Sabah. The intention is to clarify the confused situation on the issue. So, I plead to those who voted in favor of the Bernas proposal because of the interpretation given that we must now make it very clear in the language of the definition of the national territory that, indeed, we have not foreclosed or waived a claim.

I submit to a vote by the body.

THE PRESIDENT: Is the proposed amendment accepted or not accepted? I did not hear Commissioner Azcuna.

MS. AQUINO: It is not accepted. I move for a vote, Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT: We are now ready to vote on the proposed amendment of Commissioner Davide. Will Commissioner Davide kindly read that again.

MR. DAVIDE: After "sovereign jurisdiction," add the following: OR WHICH BELONG TO IT SINCE TIMES PAST and then put a comma (,).

VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of the proposed amendment of Commissioner Davide, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)

As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)

There are 12 votes in favor and 18 votes against; the proposed amendment is lost.

MR. CONCEPCION: Madam President, I was out when the votes were counted. I would want to register my vote in favor of the amendment of Commissioner Davide.

THE PRESIDENT: So, there will now be 13 votes in favor of the amendment.

MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized.

MR. MAAMBONG: I would nor proposed an amendment.

THE PRESIDENT: Please proceed.

MR. MAAMBONG: On line 4 of the draft of the substitute amendment of Commissioner Azcuna, delete the word "the" and in its place, insert the word ITS. Then, on line 7, after the word "areas," insert the word THEREOF, then place a period (.).

MR. DAVIDE: Anterior amendment, Madam President.

MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, if I will not be allowed to finish my amendment, it will not be understandable.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, please continue.

MR. MAAMBONG: On line 7, after the insertion I just mentioned, delete the words "over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction." So that the provision, as amended, would now read: "Consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domains, including the territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves and the other submarine areas THEREOF."

MR. AZCUNA: I would accept the amendment.

MR. NOLLEDO: The Committee accepts the amendment.

MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you, Madam President.

MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT: Anterior amendment of Commissioner Davide.

MR. DAVIDE: I have two anterior amendments. The first is on line 6, and is just a deletion of the article "the" between "and" and "other."

THE PRESIDENT: The deletion of the word "the'' between "and" and "other"?

MR. DAVIDE: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: How will it read?

MR. DAVIDE: On line 7, delete the "s" in "submarines."

MR. AZCUNA: It is just "submarine."

MR. DAVIDE: So, it should be "submarine areas."

MR. AZCUNA: Yes, that is how it reads now; there is no "s" there.

MR. DAVIDE: My text has an "s" on "submarine."

MR. AZCUNA: It is a typographical error, Madam President. I am sorry.

THE PRESIDENT: Does Commissioner Davide have any other amendment?

MR. DAVIDE: So, if the word is "submarine" without an "s," I would have no amendment on line 7.

My only amendment would be the deletion of "the" on line 6, between the words "and" and "other" at the end of the line.

MR. AZCUNA: So, how does that part read now?

MR. DAVIDE: It will read: "and other submarine areas."

MR. AZCUNA: I accept that, Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT: Let us proceed first with the amendment of Commissioner Maambong. So, is that clear?

Commissioner Maambong, how will it read now after the Bernas amendment?

MR. MAAMBONG: After the Bernas amendment, it will read: "consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domains, including the territorial sea, the seabed, the subsoil, the insular shelves and other submarine areas THEREOF," then put a period (.).

THE PRESIDENT: Was this accepted by the Committee?

MR. AZCUNA: Yes, we accepted.

THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the proposed amendment of Commissioner Maambong? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is approved.

With respect to the amendment of Commissioner Davide to delete the word "the" on line 6, between the words "and" and "other," which was also accepted by the Committee, is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is approved.

Is there any other amendment?

MS. AQUINO: Madam President, if there are no other amendments, I move to close the period of amendments.

MR. MAAMBONG: I second the motion.

THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended for a few minutes.

It was 7:20 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 7:23 p.m., the session was resumed.

THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.

MS. AQUINO: Madam President, we ask that Commissioner Azcuna be recognized to read the Article, as amended.

MR. AZCUNA: Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Azcuna is recognized.

MR. AZCUNA: The Article now, as amended, will read as follows:

ARTICLE I
The National Territory
Section 1. The national territory comprises the Philippine archipelago, with all the islands and waters embraced therein, and all THE other territories over which the government exercises sovereign jurisdiction, consisting of its terrestrial, fluvial, and aerial domains, including the territorial sea, the SEABED, the subsoil, the insular shelves and other submarine areas thereof. 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.

THE PRESIDENT: The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.

MS. AQUINO: Madam President, I move that we proceed to vote on Second Reading on Proposed Resolution No. 263.

THE PRESIDENT: Does the Acting Floor Leader move that the body proceed to vote on Second Reading on this provision on National Territory as read by Commissioner Azcuna?

BISHOP BACANI: May I just ask a question of the Acting Floor Leader? Does it mean then that after three calendar days, we have to vote on this on Third Reading?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, this voting is only on Second Reading and then afterwards, the copies will be printed.

BISHOP BACANI: When will the copies be distributed? I myself would like to register an objection to the motion. I would like to get the people's idea on this also. As it is proposed, we can float this first to the people and see what its implications may be.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended for a few minutes.

It was 7:26 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 7:23 p.m., the session was resumed.

THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.

MS. AQUINO: Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT: The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.

MS. AQUINO: We ask that Commissioner Azcuna be recognized.

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Azcuna is recognized.

MR. AZCUNA: Madam President, the sponsor and this humble Member have no objection to suspend the voting on Second Reading on Article I on the National Territory until Monday for the reasons stated by Commissioner Bacani.

MR. DE CASTRO: No, no; we already have the time now and I see no reason to postpone it till Monday.

MS. AQUINO: We submit to the ruling of the President.

THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection?

MR. PADILLA: Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT: The Vice-President is recognized.

MR. PADILLA: After the remark of Commissioner Bacani to delay the voting by trying to get the reaction of the people, I think, as I understand it, he withdrew that desire to delay. And so, we might as well vote instead of waiting till Monday.

MS. AQUINO: Madam President, earlier, I moved to proceed to vote on Second Reading; I am withdrawing my motion for the record.

THE PRESIDENT: The Acting Floor Leader is withdrawing her motion.

MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President, then I move that we proceed to vote on Second Reading. We still have the time and we have many, many things to do on Monday. In fact, we will be working on a holiday. We want to finish this. In fact, we have to limit the period of debate; we have to limit the time of a speaker and I see no reason why, so early at night, we cannot proceed to vote on Second Reading.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.

It was 7:36 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 7:37 p.m., the session was resumed.

THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.

MS. AQUINO: Madam President, point of order. Since I have previously withdrawn my motion, the Rules requires that only the sponsor can move to proceed to vote on Second Reading.

THE PRESIDENT: So, the motion of Commissioner de Castro is out of order. The motion that we vote on Second Reading having been withdrawn, then the Second Reading is hereby postponed to Monday, the next session.

MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President, please.

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de Castro is recognized.

MR. DE CASTRO: We have a time constraint. We are working from eight o'clock in the morning, moving from one room to another up to this time; and we are trying our best to work that hard because we have a time constraint up to September. At this point we still have time to work on this, and I see no reason why we should delay it because by Monday, we have more work to do than vote on Second Reading on this matter.

MR. RODRIGO: Madam President.

THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.

MR. RODRIGO: Considering that about 20 Members are no longer in the session hall, I think, in fairness to them, we should not vote on this very important matter. So, I move to adjourn until Monday.

MS. AQUINO: I object to the motion to adjourn, Madam President. First, there is an overwhelming request to reset the schedule of plenary session on Monday back to five o'clock in the afternoon. That is the request of some of the committee chairmen. So I move that we reset our schedule of the plenary session on Monday back to five o'clock.

ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: The session is adjourned until Monday at five o'clock in the afternoon during which we will vote on Second Reading on the Article on the National Territory.

It was 7:39 p.m.

---

^* Appeared after the roll call