| CONTACT: |
| Supreme Court of the Philippines Library Services, Padre Faura, Ermita, Manila, Philippines 1000 |
| (632) 8524-2706 |
| libraryservices.sc@judiciary.gov.ph |
[ VOL. I, July 08, 1986 ]
R.C.C. NO. 25
OPENING OF SESSION
At 2:50 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 Teodulo C. Natividad.
Everybody remained standing for the Prayer.
PRAYER
MR. NATIVIDAD: Amang Makapangyarihan sa lahat, itunghay Mo ang Iyong liwanag at ilagak ang Iyong mabiyayang tangkilik sa bulwagang ito na pinagtitipunan ng Iyong mga anak na inatangan ng mabigat at maselang tungkuling ang nakataya ay bukas, buhay at kapalaran ng aming lahi;
Pagningasin Mo, Ama, ang mga diwa at isip ng bawa't isa sa amin at nang sa gayon, ang talsik ng talino mula sa Iyong paglingap ay maging kasangkapan sa pagbuo ng Saligang Batas ng aming lahi, isang Saligang Batas na maka-Diyos at tunay na maka-tao;
Ilingap Mo, Ama, ang Iyong basbas sa kapulungang ito upang maging sulo namin sa pusikit na karimlan ng aming pakikipagtunggali sa masalimuot at mapanganib na kalagayan, hindi lamang ng aming bayan, kundi ng buong daigdig at ituro Mo sa amin ang tumpak na landas na aming daraanan upang makasapit sa dalampasigan ng tagumpay;
Itulot Mo rin, Mahal na Bathala, na ang mabalangkas namin ay ang Saligang Batas na tunay na tutugon sa adhikain, pangarap at simulain ng aming lahi;
Panginoon, wala kaming magagawa kung sa aming sarili lamang, nguni't sa patnubay Mo, Bathalang Makapangyarihan, wala kaming pagkabigo;
Panginoon, sa panahong ito na marami pang kaguluhan, kagalitan at himagsikan, tiklop tuhod naming hinihiling sa Iyo na nawa aming matugunan ang hamong nasa aming harap at maging tunay kaming kasangkapan ng pagkakaisa at pagkakasundo ng sambayanang Pilipino;
Isinasamo namin, Panginoon, na itulot Mong mawaksi ang imbot at sariling kapakanan sa puso ng bawa't isa sa amin at nang sa gayon ang mapag-ukulan lamang namin ng pansin ay ang tunay na kapakanan ng aming bayan. Marapatin Mo po sana na matapos namin ang Saligang Batas sa takdang panahon;
At kung matapos na naming sulatin ang bagong Saligang Batas, marapatin Mo po sana na ito ay pagtibayin ng sambayanang Pilipino at nang sa gayon ay maghari ang kapayapaan, kaisahan, kasaganaan at maihatid namin ang aming bansa sa lalong higit na magandang kinabukasan. Siya Nawa.
ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will please call the roll.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
The President is present.
The roll call shows 40 Members responded to the call.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair declares the presence of a quorum.
APPROVAL OF JOURNAL
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, I move to dispense with the readings 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.
MS. AQUINO: 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, Communications and Committee Reports, the President making the corresponding references:
PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS ON FIRST READING
Proposed Resolution No. 429, entitled:
To the Committee on Social Justice.
Proposed Resolution No. 430, entitled:
To the Committee on General Provisions.
Proposed Resolution No. 431, entitled:
To the Committee on Social Justice.
Proposed Resolution No. 432, entitled:
To the Committee on the National Economy and Patrimony.
Proposed Resolution No. 433, entitled:
To the Committee on the Executive.
Proposed Resolution No. 434, entitled:
To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of Principles.
Proposed Resolution No. 436, entitled:
To the Committee on General Provisions.
Proposed Resolution No. 437, entitled:
To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of Principles.
Proposed Resolution No. 438, entitled:
To the Committee on Citizenship, Bill of Rights, Political Rights and Obligations and Human Rights.
Proposed Resolution No. 439, entitled:
To the Committee on Citizenship, Bill of Rights, Political Rights and Obligations and Human Rights.
Proposed Resolution No. 442, entitled:
To the Committee on Human Resources.
Proposed Resolution No. 443, entitled:
To the Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions.
Proposed Resolution No. 444, entitled:
To the Committee on Citizenship, Bill of Rights, Political Rights and Obligations and Human Rights.
COMMUNICATIONS
Letter from the Consumers Groups signed by Ms. Zenaida S. Reyes, forwarding two resolutions providing for consumer protection.
(Communication No. 136 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of Principles.
Resolution No. ECVII-86-12 of the Executive Committee of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, proposing the creation of an independent Commission of Justice.
(Communication No. 137 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on the Judiciary.
Letter from Concerned Churches for Christian Liberty signed by Bro. Joseph L. Genato, submitting a resolution proposing a provision recognizing the fundamental right, responsibility and authority of the home and the church in the education of our children.
(Communication No. 138 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Human Resources.
Letter from Mr. Paterno D. Menzon of Labor Advisory Consultative Council (LAAC), submitting a resolution proposing to make the teaching of work ethic, philosophy and labor unionism compulsory in all levels of the educational system.
(Communication No. 139 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Human Resources.
Letter from Investments and Management Corporation signed by Mr. Luis F. Sison, submitting a proposed provision in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution on the right of self-defense.
(Communication No. 140 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Citizenship, Bill of Rights, Political Rights and Obligations and Human Rights.
Letter from Mr. N.B. Imperial of the Department of Comparative and International Education, University of London, enclosing proposed provisions on local governments and education, among others.
(Communication No. 141 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Steering Committee.
Letter from Concerned Parishioners of Sacred Heart Parish, Quezon City, signed by Mrs. Ester V. Salvosa and twenty-seven others, proposing the inclusion of provisions on the stability of the Filipino family.
(Communication No. 142 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of Principles.
Communication from Mr. Cayetano Palma proposing transitory provisions on the term of the incumbent President and Vice-President, the Batasan Members elected in 1984 and on local elections.
(Communication No. 143 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions.
Letter from the National Secretariat of Social Action, Justice and Peace of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines signed by Monsignor Antonio T. Fortich presenting its position on the US military bases in the Philippines, land reform and rights of indigenous peoples.
(Communication No. 144 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Steering Committee.
Letter from Mr. Abolais Batauas Deca of the Society of Educators for Educational Development, Marawi City, requesting the consideration of the Muslims' demand for local autonomy.
(Communication No. 145 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Local Governments.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report No. 13 on Proposed Resolution No. 440, prepared by the Committee on the Executive, entitled:
Sponsored by Hon. Sumulong and Maambong.
To the Steering Committee.
Committee Report No. 14 on Proposed Resolution No. 441, prepared by the Committee on the Executive, entitled:
Sponsored by Hon. Sumulong and Sarmiento.
To the Steering Committee.
Committee Report No. 15 on Proposed Resolution No. 445, prepared by the Committee on General Provisions, entitled:
Sponsored by Hon. Rosario Braid, Rigos and Maambong.
To the Steering Committee.
SUSPENSION
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.
It was 3:06 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 3:08 p.m., the session was resumed with the Honorable Rustico F. de los Reyes, Jr. presiding.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): The session is resumed.
CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED
RESOLUTION NO. 7
(Article on Citizenship)
Continuation
PERIOD OF AMENDMENTS
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer, the parliamentary situation is that we are in the consideration of Committee Report No. 4 on Second Reading. I move that we continue the period of amendments.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): The sponsor of Committee Report No. 4 will please proceed to the podium for the continuation of the period of amendments.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer, we ask that Commissioner Ople be recognized to introduce an amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: Will the sponsor kindly yield?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): He may, if he so desires.
FR. BERNAS: Very willingly.
MR. OPLE: Will the Committee entertain an amendment to Committee Report No. 4 in the form of a new section which will read as follows: DUAL ALLEGIANCE IS INIMICAL TO CITIZENSHIP AND SHALL BE DEALT WITH ACCORDING TO LAW.
May I explain, Mr. Presiding Officer, the reason for this proposed amendment?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Ople may proceed.
MR. OPLE: In the course of the freewheeling debate, I put the question of whether or not the amendment on dual allegiance could be in time received or welcomed by the Committee on Citizenship. The candid answer then was that this would not exactly dismay the Committee.
I am aware, Mr. Presiding Officer, that the Committee's attitude towards amendments concerning double citizenship, in particular, has not been very hospitable during the past couple of days. I want to draw attention to the fact that dual allegiance is not dual citizenship. I have circulated a memorandum to the Bernas Committee according to which a dual allegiance — and I reiterate a dual allegiance — is larger and more threatening than that of mere double citizenship which is seldom intentional and, perhaps, never insidious. That is often a function of the accident of mixed marriages or of birth on foreign soil. And so, I do not question double citizenship at all.
What we would like the Committee to consider is to take constitutional cognizance of the problem of dual allegiance. For example, we all know what happens in the triennial elections of the Federation of Filipino-Chinese Chambers of Commerce which consists of about 600 chapters all over the country. There is a Peking ticket, as well as a Taipei ticket. Not widely known is the fact that the Filipino-Chinese community is represented in the Legislative Yuan of the Republic of China in Taiwan. And until recently, the sponsor might recall, in Mainland China in the People's Republic of China, they have the Associated Legislative Council for overseas Chinese wherein all of Southeast Asia including some European and Latin countries were represented, which they dissolved after several years because of diplomatic frictions. At that time, the Filipino-Chinese were also represented in that Overseas Council.
When I speak of double allegiance, therefore, I speak of this unsettled kind of allegiance of Filipinos, of citizens who are already Filipinos but who, by their acts, may be said to be bound by a second allegiance, either to Peking or Taiwan. I also took close note of the concern expressed by some Commissioners yesterday, including Commissioner Villacorta, who were concerned about the lack of guarantees of thorough assimilation, and especially Commissioner Concepcion who has always been worried about minority claims on our natural resources.
Dual allegiance can actually siphon scarce national capital to Taiwan, Singapore, China or Malaysia, and this is already happening. Some of the great commercial places in downtown Taipei are Filipino-owned, owned by Filipino-Chinese — it is of common knowledge in Manila. It can mean a tragic capital outflow when we have to endure a capital famine which also means economic stagnation, worsening unemployment and social unrest.
And so, this is exactly what we ask — that the Committee kindly consider incorporating a new section, probably Section 5, in the Article on Citizenship which will read as follows: DUAL ALLEGIANCE IS INIMICAL TO CITIZENSHIP AND SHALL BE DEALT WITH ACCORDING TO LAW.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): What is the reaction of the sponsor?
FR. BERNAS: May I preface my reply with certain remarks, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): The Gentleman may proceed.
FR. BERNAS: I quite agree that dual allegiance is a concept distinct from dual citizenship. I do not think that there is any debate about that. I am also in agreement with the patriotic and nationalistic spirit in which the amendment is being proposed. So, basically the problem we have here is whether this provision should be explicitly incorporated in the Constitution or not. The Committee has not had the opportunity to discuss this matter, so, whatever I say here will be spoken in my name. I would prefer the position I have constantly maintained here, that matters like these can be dealt with by ordinary legislation. And when I say this, I say it as a vote of confidence in the Committee on the Legislative, trusting that the Committee will be able to formulate a provision which will create a legislative body as patriotic and as nationalistic as this Commission, if not more so, and therefore quite capable of dealing with these problems.
On these premises, I would prefer that this matter be relegated to ordinary legislation. I would submit the matter to a vote by the body.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Does the proponent of the amendment have anything else to say?
MR. NOLLEDO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Nolledo is recognized.
MR. NOLLEDO: Mr. Presiding Officer, I would like to ask Commissioner Ople if he will yield to interpellations.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Ople may yield, if he so desires.
MR. OPLE: Very gladly, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. NOLLEDO: Commissioner Ople's proposed amendment may cover the situation contemplated by Commissioner Villacorta on assimilation of natural citizens into the mainstream of Filipino culture. Am I right?
MR. OPLE: Yes, because this mandate of the Constitution, which will be binding on a future legislature, will help arrest what they call a centrifugal pull of a second allegiance for, let us say, overseas Chinese already enjoying Filipino citizenship, and to that extent, therefore, they can be better directed to measures that will assimilate them as real citizens quite apart from the formality of citizenship of the Philippines.
MR. NOLLEDO: And the Gentleman said that dual citizenship is different and apart from dual allegiance?
MR. OPLE: Yes.
MR. NOLLEDO: So, could the Gentleman make a distinction between citizenship and allegiance?
MR. OPLE: Double citizenship does not reflect on the motives of citizens enjoying double citizenship. As I said, this is largely a function of accident of mixed marriages or of birth on foreign soil. But in the case of dual allegiance, we presume a situation where the Chinese have already been naturalized over the objection of Chief Justice Concepcion and yet they continued to manifest, let us say, an extra allegiance either to Peking or Taipei.
I have cited some examples which I can augment, if time is available, showing how dual allegiance has been exercised.
MR. NOLLEDO: I would like to be clarified on the words "shall be dealt with by law." Is the Gentleman talking of or contemplating prohibitions or regulation?
MR. OPLE: Dual allegiance, I think, has been a relatively unexplored problem up to now. I do not think researchers, whether legal or sociological, have paid real attention to this problem of dual allegiance. But at the level of the common people the perception is already very keen. This has emerged as a problem of very great implication for our country, our dignity, sovereignty and security, and that is the reason I have asked the Committee — as an exception to their repugnance to amendments of this nature — to receive this amendment because then it cannot be said that we turned our backs on a problem that the common people of this generation of Filipinos have already perceived to be a major problem requiring the attention of the Constitutional Commission.
MR. NOLLEDO: Without attempting to amend the Gentleman's amendment, would he agree if I suggest that the amendment should read as follows: THE LEGISLATURE SHALL BY LAW PROHIBIT OR REGULATE DUAL ALLEGIANCE.
MR. OPLE: The substance is there, but I am sorry to say that my original formulation might be a little bit more startling, but which is the effect that the proponents want to convey in proportion to the seriousness of this problem as perceived by many people today.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you, Commissioner Ople.
MR. OPLE: Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I address a few questions to Commissioner Ople.
MR. SARMIENTO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Ople may yield, if he so desires.
MR. OPLE: Very gladly.
MR. SARMIENTO: Commissioner Ople, I believe that this proposal was animated by a desire to protect our national interest. Is that correct?
MR. OPLE: Yes, I think that is the sole reason for this amendment.
MR. SARMIENTO: As a matter of fact, the Gentleman stated all the reasons in this memorandum for the Bernas Committee.
MR. OPLE: Yes, I did.
MR. SARMIENTO: So, the Gentleman will agree with me that dual allegiance is inconsistent with or repugnant to the national interest.
MR. OPLE; Yes, yes, it is repugnant to the nation interest.
MR. SARMIENTO: Will Commissioner Ople agree with me that instead of using the words "obnoxious to citizenship," we use the words "obnoxious to NATIONAL INTEREST."
MR. OPLE: I will have no objection to that, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. SARMIENTO: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Does the sponsor have anything else to add to what the Commissioner said before?
FR. BERNAS: We will just reiterate our position that we prefer to leave this matter to ordinary legislation under Section 3 and under a general police power of the legislature which governs not only citizenship but also matters of allegiance quite apart from citizenship. So, we will just throw the matter to the body for decision.
MR. OPLE: Mr. Presiding Officer, as amended by previous speakers including Commissioners Sarmiento and Nolledo, this proposed amendment would now read: DUAL ALLEGIANCE IS OBNOXIOUS TO THE NATIONAL INTEREST AND SHALL BE DEALT WITH ACCORDING TO LAW.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Point of parliamentary inquiry.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): The Commissioner may proceed.
MR. MAAMBONG: In the assumption that the proposed amendment will be put to a vote, does it mean the sponsor is prepared to abide by the result of the vote, considering his prefatory statement that he has not consulted the Committee on this matter?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): What does the sponsor say?
FR. BERNAS: If this is voted upon and accepted by the body, then I take that as binding on the Committee.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. I thank the sponsor.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Yes, Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: May I be allowed to interpellate Commissioner Ople?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Ople may yield, if he so desires.
MR. OPLE: I gladly yield to the Lady.
MS. AQUINO: Commissioner Ople seems to impress upon us that dual allegiance is a sinister problem.
May we ask what the specific operative acts are that would amount to dual allegiance which may merit the Commission's attention for them to be placed in the draft?
MR. OPLE: Yes, I believe that on this occasion we can take cognizance of what is common knowledge that every October on the occasion of the Double Ten, very considerable delegations of Filipino-Chinese go to Taipei. According to some witnesses who had been there — and this is also a matter of common knowledge — when the oath of allegiance was administered, a good number of these Filipino-Chinese, maybe in the hope that they would not be found out, also raised their hands. I already spoke of this very remarkable phenomenon where the Filipino-Chinese in the Philippines were represented in the Legislative Yuan in Taiwan. I have also referred to the fact that until recently the Overseas Chinese Council, an associate legislative body, functioned in Peking and the Filipino-Chinese were also represented there, together with the other Chinese overseas communities in Southeast Asia. These common-knowledge practices raised a question of dual allegiance. I am not speaking of dual citizenship, but of a situation where Chinese naturalized as Filipinos seem to continue to subscribe to another allegiance than that required by their Filipino citizenship.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer, the proponent of the amendment seems to classify dual allegiance as a mala in se. It is an act that is by itself prohibited without requiring a law. Is that the intention of the proponent?
MR. OPLE: Yes, it is that, plus my submission that as a political and sociological problem, the problem of dual allegiance has not been sufficiently explored and investigated, maybe because it is not socially very comfortable and convenient to look into this more deeply. That the problem exists is, however, acknowledged by many people, and I really see no reason why the Committee on Citizenship should not make an exception of this proposed amendment and consider it for inclusion as a separate section in the Article on Citizenship since it does address what many people think is a fundamental problem with implications for our sovereignty and security at this time.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer, if it is the intention of the proponent to classify dual allegiance almost like a crime, as it is apparently the intendment of his proposal, would it not belong, as a proper subject, to the domain of the legislature?
MR. OPLE: Yes, actually, it is a mandate on future legislatures to deal with this problem as they see fit.
MS. AQUINO: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. VILLACORTA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. REGALADO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Villacorta is recognized.
MR. VILLACORTA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I would like to ask the proponent, Commissioner Ople, a question.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Ople may yield, if he so desires.
MR. OPLE: Yes, very gladly, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. VILLACORTA: I would like to know whether this amendment is also addressed to natural-born Filipinos with dual allegiance. There are Filipinos who espouse statehood. Would they be included in the intention of the Commissioner's amendment?
MR. OPLE: It does not really extend the definition to its farthest limits, Mr. Presiding Officer, but if these are natural-born Filipinos who espouse statehood, I think there should be a presumption in favor of good faith, which means that if one enters another domain of values which is a plurality of beliefs and, perhaps, freedom of speech and freedom of expression but where dual allegiance is detected by a future legislature to be embraced in a future definition of what constitutes dual allegiance, then I will not say that these natural-born Filipinos will be entirely excluded from the ambit of dual allegiance. But as I said, it will be taking the definition to its farthest limits.
MR. VILLACORTA: I see. In that case, I fully support this amendment.
Thank you.
MR. OPLE: Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Regalado is recognized, after which Commissioners Guingona, Rodrigo and Monsod will follow.
MR. REGALADO: Mr. Presiding Officer, will the proponent of the amendment clarify a few questions.
MR. OPLE: Very willingly, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. REGALADO: The Commissioner has stated that insofar as the concept of dual citizenship is concerned, that seems to be settled because it is a matter of political law and cognizance, but the matter of dual allegiance, as the Commissioner said, has not even been carefully considered either from the legal, sociological, psychological or psychiatric aspect. Did I get him correctly?
MR. OPLE: Yes, not to the farthest extent that the importance of the problem deserves, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. REGALADO: And did I get the Commissioner correctly that this is also to mean that when we speak of dual allegiance, there are operative acts, as Commissioner Aquino has stated, which have to be studied to determine whether these acts are, in effect, a manifestation of loyalty or preference for a particular country?
MR. OPLE: That is the reason we are calling on future legislature to study this problem further and to deal with it in accordance with law and with the national interest in mind.
MR. REGALADO: Mr. Presiding Officer, we are asked to consider a constitutional provision which involves the phrase "dual allegiance," the particular facts, causative effects and motivation of which I assume the Members of the Commission are not yet in a position to consider for lack of any legislative criteria or empirical data.
MR. OPLE: I have given some examples, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. REGALADO: Commissioner Ople has mentioned the Chinese naturalized as Filipino citizens who go to Taipei on the occasion of the Double Ten, which to them is a major political event. We also have Filipinos abroad who are naturalized American citizens but who are also extremely concerned with certain major political events in the Philippines. If they should come here regularly for that purpose, for instance on June 12, and because the Filipino blood still runs in their veins; would that also be, in effect, or in pari materia, the same consideration that we would call dual allegiance?
MR. OPLE: I do not know how American law would construe that. But I think if we reverse the example where Filipino-Chinese join in the mass oath-taking and pledge of allegiance in Taipei on the occasion of the Double Ten, which is equivalent to Filipinos naturalized as American citizens who swear allegiance to the United States, then that would be one of the acts, I suppose, that could be encompassed by the phrase "dual allegiance." But I have been very candid from the beginning that this proposed amendment was inspired by a now general perception in our country that some of the Chinese we have naturalized continue to show an unsettled kind of sentiment about this country that they continue to manifest in several ways what appears to be a second allegiance to another country close to them by history and by consanguinity. This is exactly what we hope is a very real problem this proposed amendment seeks to address through a constitutional provision.
MR. REGALADO: Would the Commissioner, therefore, be more prone to underscore the concept of dual allegiance from the standpoint of a manifestation of political rather than of economic allegiance to another country?
MR. OPLE: Political allegiance is broad enough to accommodate the economic aspect. I speak in this memorandum to the Bernas Committee of the fact that some of the commercial places in Taipei, including the world's biggest hotel, are already owned by Filipinos of previous Chinese citizenship. If a future assembly investigate this phenomenon, then, I would discover interesting facts about dual allegiance which is exactly what we hope to put under constitutional and legislative control through this proposed amendment.
MR. REGALADO: Since the sponsor of this resolution opts to have this the subject of ordinary legislation instead of to take official cognizance of this matter and try to vote for a conclusion on the basis of unknown premises, would it not be better instead — and I am sure the members of our future legislature will have by themselves taken cognizance of our concern expressed here on this floor — if we trust in their sagacity to take it upon themselves to make a legislative study on the matter because then they have more facilities, more time and more data they could collate?
MR. OPLE: Mr. Presiding Officer, we are not pre-empting the future legislature; we are merely giving them a mandate. It is the task of a constitution to send mandates for the future and I think this issue is important enough to be a subject of one of those mandates.
MR. REGALADO: Will the Commissioner recommend that if the future legislative body eventually comes up with what it conceives as the proper conception of dual allegiance, that fact would also be a sufficient ground to divest that naturalized Filipino citizen of his citizenship?
MR. OPLE: I do not want to pre-empt the wisdom of future legislatures. In effect, what we merely see is not to settle this problem now because we are humble and realistic enough to admit that this is a great problem, and our knowledge about it is fairly limited and circumscribed. So, we are content to see constitutional cognizance of the problem and would like future law-makers to address the implementation.
MR. REGALADO: I will rephrase my question. The Commissioner said this matter of dual allegiance is one of extreme gravity. Will he agree to the proposition that a recommendation be made to the future legislature that an act of dual allegiance by a naturalized Filipino citizen will be a ground for his denaturalization?
MR. OPLE: Yes, that would probably make this citizenship provision more meaningful, but I am afraid it will increase the jeopardy for this amendment in the hands of the Bernas Committee.
MR. REGALADO: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Guingona is recognized.
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. The honorable Members of this Commission know that I have expressed a strong stand against dual citizenship. I would just like to make one comment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Guingona may please proceed.
MR. GUINGONA: The primary concern this time is the ill effects that might be brought about by dual allegiance, therefore, I strongly support the proposed amendment of Honorable Blas Ople. This is a minor point but I wonder if the Commissioner is willing to change the word "obnoxious" to INCONSISTENT WITH.
MR. OPLE: So, it would read: "DUAL ALLEGIANCE IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE NATIONAL INTEREST." The Commissioner's original proposal was to change it to "INIMICAL."
MR. GUINGONA: I hear a lot of my fellow Commissioners use the word "inimical," so, I would change my amendment to INIMICAL.
MR. OPLE: So, it will now read: "DUAL ALLEGIANCE IS INIMICAL TO THE NATIONAL INTEREST AND SHALL BE DEALT WITH ACCORDING TO LAW."
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: Mr. Presiding Officer, I would like to ask a few questions. I observe that the issue between the sponsor and the proponent is not clear-cut. It seems that both the sponsor and the proponent consider dual allegiance undesirable. May I ask the sponsor if such is his stand?
FR. BERNAS: Yes, I said that.
MR. RODRIGO: And, of course, I do not have to ask the proponent that he also considers this undesirable. The sponsor wants this matter left to ordinary legislation. And the proponent also wants it "dealt with by law"; so, it is also by ordinary legislation. Is that correct?
MR. OPLE: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. RODRIGO: So, what is the difference between the stand of the sponsor and the proponent? Before I cast my vote, I would like to know just what the difference is.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): May we know to whom the question is addressed.
MR. OPLE: I think the sponsor wants to be fair to all those he turned down yesterday by also turning down this amendment.
FR. BERNAS: The only difference is this: The sponsor feels that it is unnecessary to state this that with or without this there is a mandate for the legislature to attend to it, and also he would like to make a vote of confidence in favor of the legislative committee, trusting that it will be able to structure a legislature as nationalistic and as patriotic, if not more so, as this body that will attend to this.
There is also another point: The proponent of the amendment does not seem to link allegiance with citizenship, because he says that if he links it with citizenship the jeopardy in the Bernas Committee increases. Actually, it is the Laurel Committee, not the Bernas Committee. Allegiance is either linked with citizenship or it is not. If it is linked with dual citizenship, then it is already attended to by our position that dual citizenship be attended to by ordinary legislation. If it is not linked with citizenship, then it has no place in the Article on Citizenship.
MR. RODRIGO: What does the proponent say to that? Before I vote, I want to know: Ano ba ang pagkakaiba?
MR. OPLE: This is linked to citizenship in the original version before I accepted the Sarmiento amendment. Actually, it reads: "DUAL ALLEGIANCE IS OBNOXIOUS TO CITIZENSHIP," until it was replaced by "NATIONAL INTEREST." We speak of a problem that in order to understand its importance, we really should locate it in the area of citizenship, because we generally speak of newly naturalized Filipinos who continue to manifest dual allegiance. Although we cannot be too detailed in a constitutional provision, that is in the immediate as well as in the distant background of this proposed amendment, Mr. Presiding Officer. So it is linked to citizenship.
MR. RODRIGO: Thank you. I am still a little confused.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: Will the honorable Commissioner yield to a few questions?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Ople may yield, if he so desires.
MR. OPLE: Gladly, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. MONSOD: I assume that when we say "dual allegiance is obnoxious to citizenship," any act that promotes, cultivates or manifests dual allegiance is obnoxious.
MR. OPLE: Yes, obnoxious, pernicious, repugnant. inimical, offensive.
MR. MONSOD: Will the presence of such a provision in our Constitution be an inhibiting provision, or will it prohibit us from trying to attract our balikbayans back who have acquired American citizenship to reinvest and reestablish their linkages with their former country?
MR. OPLE: No, Mr. Presiding Officer. As a matter of fact, I recall that during the freewheeling debates under the auspices of the Committee on Citizenship, I had stressed that very point — that we should make it as easy as possible for Filipinos, who out of necessity had adopted foreign citizenship but who have shown contrition in later years, to repossess their birthright of Filipino citizenship. I had the assurance of the sponsor then that that is not a problem because all that that citizen has to do is to take his oath. But that is not one of those contingencies foreseen here.
MR. MONSOD: No, Mr. Presiding Officer, I was not referring to any act that would attract them back to reacquire or choose Filipino citizenship. I am referring to our own programs of attracting them to invest or to visit, to renew their ties with their former country by which acts would show, in effect, allegiance to the Philippines. My clarificatory question really is: Will this provision now prohibit us, as a matter of principle, from instituting programs such as these?
MR. OPLE: No, dual allegiance is involved in that case, according to the concept of the proposed amendment, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. MONSOD: Thank you.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer, I ask that Commissioner Bacani be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: Will Commissioner Ople yield to two questions?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Ople may yield, if he so desires.
MR. OPLE: Very gladly.
BISHOP BACANI: Mr. Presiding Officer, does citizenship always include allegiance?
MR. OPLE: Yes.
BISHOP BACANI: Therefore, if we have dual citizenship, we have dual allegiance.
MR. OPLE: Allegiance at the formal level. There is another allegiance at an inner and deeper level — formality versus the authentic sentiment of the citizen. I said that dual citizenship is a formality; I am not disturbed by it. It is often a function of an accident, say, a mixed marriage or birth in a foreign soil. There is nothing insidious in it; there is nothing in it that threatens national security or sovereignty.
BISHOP BACANI: Yes, but if every citizenship includes allegiance, if we deny dual allegiance, we also deny dual citizenship. Is this not yet foreclosed by the interpretation of Section 2?
MR. OPLE: Actually, I think the future legislature that will deal with this problem of dual allegiance will address many specific borderline cases, and all I am saying is there is no necessary correlation between dual allegiance and dual citizenship.
In dual allegiance, there can be malice, or an insidious threat to our sovereignty and security. But in dual citizenship, especially for those Filipinos born in American soil and have become American citizens as a consequence thereof, I will not read any embarrassment of a dual allegiance in that situation. I think dual allegiance, as interpreted in this amendment, refers to more insidious acts than merely the accident — whether welcome or unwelcome — of a dual citizenship occurring out of mixed marriages or birth in a foreign soil.
BISHOP BACANI: At any rate, if it is formal allegiance, I wonder whether or not we could really regulate that by law because we are making that distinction.
MR. OPLE: I think that part of it will have to be treated as an exceptional case, where Filipino children born in the United States, for example, because of the jus soli doctrine there, have to grow up having, in effect, dual citizenship, although upon the attainment of maturity, that dilemma, if dual allegiance exists, can actually be overcome by election by this particular person as to whether to become a Filipino or an American citizen.
BISHOP BACANI: Just one last question. When the Gentleman speaks of dual allegiance, does he mean two contradictory allegiances or two complimentary allegiances?
MR. OPLE: I speak of dual allegiance in a way that it is offensive to the national interest. Therefore, very largely it probably would encompass what one may call conflicting allegiances and occasionally sympathetic allegiance also.
BISHOP BACANI: Thank you very much.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I ask that Commissioner Villacorta be recognized?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Villacorta is recognized
MR. VILLACORTA: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I address a question to Commissioner Bernas first and to Commissioner Ople later?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Yes, please proceed.
MR. VILLACORTA: In the 1973 Constitution, there is an Article on Duties and Obligations of Citizens. Is that within the purview of the Committee as well?
FR. BERNAS: It is within the purview of the Committee.
MR. VILLACORTA: I see, thank you.
May I address my question to Commissioner Ople?
MR. OPLE: Yes.
MR. VILLACORTA: As I said while I fully support the amendment, does not the sponsor think that this amendment properly belongs to the Article on Duties and Obligations of Citizens? May I read the relevant section:
It shall be the duty of the citizen to be loyal to the Republic and to honor the Philippine flag, to defend the State and contribute to its development and welfare, to uphold the Constitution and obey the laws, and to cooperate with the duly constituted authorities in the attainment and preservation of a just and orderly society.
Cannot the Gentleman's amendment be incorporated in this section?
MR. OPLE: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
I appreciate that there is indeed a linkage to the obligations and duties of citizenship, but I would prefer not to decouple it right now from the Article on Citizenship and the jurisdiction of the Bernas Committee.
MR. VILLACORTA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I just would like to express my frustration in having to spend so much time arguing the importance of singular allegiance to a country. I wonder if similar constitution-making bodies of other countries would have to spend so much time. Why do we have to convince our colleagues that singular allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines is as fundamental as the civil rights of citizens? It is part of the obligation of every citizen to render allegiance to only one country. I do not know why we have to argue on this.
Thank you.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: Since the sponsor did not accept the proposed amendment, and on the observation that there are no other discussants on the proposed amendment, I move that we proceed to vote on the amendment of Commissioner Ople.
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: I still have an amendment to the proposed amendment, if the proponent will accept.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Will the Gentleman please state his amendment to the proposed amendment?
MR. DAVIDE: The proposed amendment is, after "ALLEGIANCE," insert the words OF CITIZENS then delete "OBNOXIOUS TO CITIZENSHIP," and in lieu thereof insert the word PROHIBITED; between "WITH" and "BY" on the third line, insert the word SEVERELY, so that the entire proposed new section would read: "DUAL ALLEGIANCE OF CITIZENS IS PROHIBITED AND SHALL BE DEALT WITH SEVERELY BY LAW."
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): What does the proponent of the amendment say?
MR. OPLE: I accept the first part of the amendment and decline the rest.
With the permission of those who have submitted their previous amendments and were accepted, the following is a partial satisfaction of Commissioner Davide's proposed amendment: "DUAL ALLEGIANCE OF CITIZENS IS PROHIBITED AND SHALL BE DEALT WITH BY LAW."
MR. DAVIDE: As modified by the proponent himself, I will accept. But it is understood very clearly that after "ALLEGIANCE" we have to insert the words OF CITIZENS.
MR. OPLE: There are some objections from other Members who have a vested right on amendments already approved. They asked why "national interest" has disappeared from the text. And, therefore, especially upon the prompting of Commissioner Nolledo and following what they consider as the trend of general advice among kibitzers around me, I am now compelled to decline the proposed amendment of Commissioner Davide and will adhere to the original amendment, as amended.
MR. DAVIDE: Then may I be allowed to explain?
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): The Chair is suspending the session to give the proponent of the amendment and all those who want to introduce amendments to the amendment time to talk these things over.
It was 4:01 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 4:02 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): The session is resumed.
MR. OPLE: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: With the permission of the sponsor, may I read the final text of this proposed amendment, as amended, and it reads as follows: "DUAL ALLEGIANCE OF CITIZENS IS INIMICAL TO THE NATIONAL INTEREST AND SHALL BE DEALT WITH BY LAW."
I move for a vote.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Now that the amendment has been amended, is the proponent still insisting on his stand?
FR. BERNAS: The position of the proponent is that this should be a matter for ordinary legislation and need not be provided for in the Constitution.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): So we put this to a vote.
FR. BERNAS: Yes.
VOTING
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Those in favor of the Ople amendment, as amended, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand)
Those against the amendment, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
The results show 23 votes in favor and 12 against; the Ople amendment, as amended, is approved.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer, may we ask if there are other proponents of amendments to Committee Report No. 4.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Who are the other proponents of amendments? Are there anymore?
Commissioner Bacani is recognized to introduce amendments. Commissioner Treñas will follow.
BISHOP BACANI: May I ask the proponent if he would agree with an amendment which would say at the end: BOTH NATURALIZED AND NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS SHALL HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS BEFORE THE LAW.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): What is the reaction of the sponsor?
FR. BERNAS: This is a matter that was taken up by the Committee. As a matter of fact, there was a specific proposal to this effect. The position of the Committee is that this is unnecessary because it is established in existing jurisprudence that natural-born citizens and naturalized citizens are to be treated equally except in those cases where the Constitution itself makes a distinction. The position of the Committee is that this is unnecessary; it is adequately covered by the equal protection clause of the Bill of Rights.
BISHOP BACANI: Yes, but the intention of the amendment is that even in those cases which are mentioned by the Constitution, the distinctions would be eliminated. The Constitution would not place such distinctions because they would seem to be classifying citizens into first-class and second-class citizens.
FR. BERNAS: In such a case, therefore, the position would be that this matter should be taken up when a distinction is made in a specific provision. For instance, when we come to the Article on the Executive, if the proponents on the Executive say that a President must be a natural-born citizen, then that is the time to propose the amendment.
BISHOP BACANI: Is it not possible to decide that matter in advance in this Article?
FR. BERNAS: I would prefer not to preempt the other committees.
BISHOP BACANI: Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Is there any other amendment? Commissioner Treñas is recognized.
MR. TREÑAS: Mr. Presiding Officer, the sponsor will recall that yesterday I presented an amendment to subsection 3 of Section 1 which he asked to be deferred pending consideration of Section 4. May I now know the status of my proposed a amendment?
MR. TREÑAS: Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): What is the amendment? Will the Gentleman please state his amendment?
MR. NOLLEDO: May I know the proposed amendment, please?
MR. TREÑAS: The proposed amendment on Section 3 should read: THOSE BORN BEFORE JANUARY 17, 1973 WHOSE MOTHERS ARE CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES AND UPON REACHING THE AGE OF MAJORITY ELECT PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP.
MR. NOLLEDO: I would like to know the status of children who were born before January 17, 1973 but because they have not yet reached the age of majority, they have not elected Philippine citizenship. Are they covered?
MR. TREÑAS: They are covered.
FR. BERNAS: Yes, they are covered.
MR. NOLLEDO: So, they will be considered natural-born citizens.
MR. TREÑAS: Yes.
FR. BERNAS: Yes. So, my position is, unless somebody in my Committee objects to that amendment, I would accept the amendment.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is approved.
The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer, if there are no other amendments, I move to terminate the period of amendments.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED
RESOLUTION NO. 7 ON SECOND READING
(Article on Citizenship)
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer, I move that we proceed to vote on Committee Report No. 4, as amended, on Second Reading.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
We shall now vote on the Article on Citizenship.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer, may we request the sponsor to read the entire Article, as amended.
FR. BERNAS: The Article will now read:
Article
CITIZENSHIP
Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:
1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this Constitution;
2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines;
3) Those born before January 17, 1973 of Filipino mothers, who upon reaching the age of majority elect Philippine citizenship; and
4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
Section 2. Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship, unless by their act or omission they are deemed, under the law, to have renounced their citizenship.
Section 3. Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law.
Section 4. Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship: Provided, has That those who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with Section 1, paragraph 3 above shall also be deemed natural-born citizen.
Section 5. Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Is the body now ready to vote?
Those in favor of the Article on Citizenship, as amended, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
Those against, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
The results show 35 votes in favor and 3 against.
Proposed Resolution No. 7, the Article on Citizenship, as amended, is hereby approved. (Applause)
May we know from the Acting Floor Leader what is next?
CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED
RESOLUTION NO. 322
(Article on Amendment or Revision)
PERIOD OF SPONSORSHIP AND DEBATE
MS. AQUINO: I move that we consider Committee Report No. 7 on Proposed Resolution No. 322 as reported out by the Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
Consideration of Proposed Resolution No. 322 is now in order. With the permission of the body, the Secretary-General will read only the title of the proposed resolution without prejudice to inserting in the Record the whole text thereof.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: Proposed Resolution No. 322, entitled:
COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 7
The Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions to which was referred Proposed Resolution No. 148, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCLUDE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION AN ARTICLE PROVIDING THE PROCEDURE FOR ITS AMENDMENTS,
has considered the same and has the honor to report it back to the Constitutional Commission of 1986 with the recommendation that Proposed Resolution No. 322 prepared by the Committee, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCLUDE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION AN ARTICLE PROVIDING THE PROCEDURE FOR ITS AMENDMENTS,
be approved in substitution for Proposed Resolution No. 148, subject to the reservation that Section 1 (c)of this substitute resolution shall only be incorporated if and when Proposed Resolution No. 161 is approved by the Committee on Citizenship, Bill of Rights, Political Rights and Obligations and Human Rights, with the Honorable Suarez, Honorable Jamir, and the members of the Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions as authors thereof.
(Sgd.) JOSE E. SUAREZ
Chairman
Committee on Amendments and
Transitory Provisions
PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 322
(Substitute Resolution)
Be it resolved by the Constitutional Commission in plenary session assembled, To incorporate and provide in the new Constitution the following article:
ARTICLE _____
AMENDMENT OR REVISION
Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed:
(a) by the National Assembly upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members; or
(b) by a constitutional convention; or
(c) directly by the people themselves thru initiative as provided for in Article ___ Section ____ of the Constitution.
Section 2. The National Assembly may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its Members, call a constitutional convention, or by a majority vote of all its Members, submit the question of calling such a convention to the electorate.
Section 3. Any amendment to, or revision of this Constitution shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days and not later than ninety days after the approval of such amendment or revision.
MS. AQUINO: May I request the recognition of the sponsor, Commissioner Suarez.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): The Chair declares a suspension of the session.
It was 4:14 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 4:31 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): The session is resumed.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that the sponsor, Commissioner Suarez, be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes). The sponsor, Commissioner Suarez, is recognized.
SPONSORSHIP SPEECH
OF COMMISSIONER SUAREZ
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
Ladies and gentlemen of the Constitutional Commission, in behalf of the Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions, I would like to ask for the consideration by the Commission of Committee Report No. 7 concerning the matter of amendment or revision to the Constitution. It is proposed that said Article on Amendment or Revision will read as follows:
Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed:
Section 2. The National Assembly may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its Members, call a constitutional convention, or by a majority vote of all its Members, submit the question of calling such a convention to the electorate.
Section 3. Any amendment to, or revision of this Constitution shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days and not later than ninety days after the approval of such amendment or revision.
Mr. Presiding Officer, the proposal is substantially adopted from the provisions on Amendments appearing under the 1973 Constitution, and we took into account also the draft submitted by the scholars of the University of the Philippines, but we introduced one innovative method of amendment and this was sponsored by the Honorable Ople. We are referring to the third method of amendment by a direct action of the people themselves through the system of initiative.
We would like to call the attention of the Commission to Proposed Resolution No. 161 authored by the Presiding Officer this evening, governing the system of recall, initiative and referendum. This has been submitted to the Committee on Citizenship, Bill of Rights, Political Rights and Obligations and Human Rights. So, our innovative method of proposing amendments to the Constitution by way of initiative necessarily must have to depend upon the results of the discussions and deliberations on this Proposed Resolution No. 161.
One of the problems met by the Committee is the frequency in the adoption of proposals for the amendment of the Constitution as related to the happenings during the martial law regime. The Members will recall that insofar as the 1935 Constitution is concerned, there were only three substantial amendments that were introduced up to the year 1971. The first one was effected sometime in 1937, and that placed the women on equal terms with the macho population when the right of suffrage was extended to women for the first time. And then in 1940, another amendment was introduced extending the terms of the President and Vice-President. In other words, from the original six-year term without reelection, an amendment was introduced, initiated by President Quezon, giving the President a tenure of four years subject to one reelection, without further reelection after that. At the same time, a bicameral system of legislature was introduced and the independent Commission on Elections was organized and established.
The third amendment of the 1935 Constitution was effected sometime in 1946 and it was known as the parity rights amendment. However, during the Marcos administration, by virtue of Proclamation No. 1102, the 1973 Constitution was formally adopted as the Constitution of the country after it was ratified through the citizens assemblies conducted in the early part of January.
Several amendments, a series of amendments, as a matter of fact, were introduced and ratified by the people in the form of citizens assemblies, referenda and plebiscites. I think about nine amendments altogether, if not more, were introduced during the period from 1973 up to 1984. So, the difficulty in preventing the frequency in proposing amendments to the Constitution was resolved by the Committee in the following manner: by introducing and/or reintroducing the requirement that the National Assembly can propose an amendment to the Constitution by constituting itself as a constituent assembly but with a required vote of three-fourths of all its members. The matter of calling a constitutional convention necessitates a vote of two-thirds of all its members, or alternatively, by a majority vote of all its members, it may submit the question of calling a constitutional convention to the electorate. We wanted to make the amendment process more difficult. Thus, we came up with the proposal, in the case of the method of amendment thru the people's initiative, a five-year prohibitory period.
The other problem that was before the Committee was relative to the use of the terms "election," "plebiscite" or "referendum." The word "election" was used under the 1935 Constitution. The word "referendum" was very much abused during the Marcos regime. It acquired some unsavory connotations. The Committee finally agreed on the use of the term "plebiscite" which we feel is more appropriate under the circumstances. And so, the Members will notice that under Section 3, it is proposed that any amendment or revision to this Constitution shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite.
The other issue resolved was the matter of determining when the plebiscite should be conducted or held. Again, we go back to the incidents which happened during the Marcos regime wherein many proposals to amend such a vital and supreme document as the Constitution were submitted to the people without giving them adequate opportunity to study thoroughly and at length said proposals. So, it was proposed that a period be established as to when the plebiscite should be held. We came up with the proposal that such a plebiscite should be held not earlier than 60 days and not later than 90 days after the approval of such amendment or revision. The obvious purpose is to enable the voting population to study and analyze the proposals submitted for the amendment of our Constitution.
The other matter that was taken up before the Committee was the distinction between the word "revision" and "amendment." Proposals were submitted that only the word "amendment" should be used just like in the 1973 Constitution. In our proposal, this Article has been captioned "AMENDMENT OR REVISION."
MR. RODRIGO: Mr. Presiding Officer. I am sorry to interrupt.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: May I ask a question?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes.
MR. RODRIGO: In the report of the Committee, there are two proposed resolutions: Proposed Resolution Nos. 322 and 148.
The sponsor mentioned "initiative" as one of the proposed methods of a amending, is that right?
MR. SUAREZ: That is right, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. RODRIGO: That is in Proposed Resolution No. 322?
MR. SUAREZ: That is right, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. RODRIGO: But that is not in Proposed Resolution No. 148?
MR. SUAREZ: That is correct.
MR. RODRIGO: On the other hand, the sponsor is now talking about the time when the plebiscite should be called.
MR. SUAREZ: Yes.
MR. RODRIGO: And that is in Proposed Resolution No. 148, but not in Proposed Resolution No. 322. Does not the sponsor have a consolidated report of the Committee?
MR. SUAREZ: It is consolidated under Proposed Resolution No. 322.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: I would like to raise a point of parliamentary inquiry.
MR. SUAREZ: Yes.
MR. MAAMBONG: Is the sponsorship speech terminated already? Are we now in the period of interpellations?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): The sponsor agreed to be interpellated in the course of his speech, but he is not yet through with his sponsorship.
MR. SUAREZ: Not yet. I have one more point.
MR. MAAMBONG: For purposes of orderliness, Mr. Presiding Officer, may I suggest that the sponsor be allowed to finish his sponsorship speech and that the period of interpellations proceed afterwards.
Thank you.
MR. RODRIGO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: I think anybody can interrupt the sponsor, if he agrees. The reason I interrupted is that I got lost while following the sponsorship speech. I cannot wait until the sponsor is finished because right now I am at a loss. This is the time to find myself.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Does Commissioner Suarez want to finish his sponsorship speech or does he agree to be interpellated in the course of his speech?
MR. SUAREZ: May I now lead Commissioner Rodrigo to the right direction?
MR. RODRIGO: Yes, please.
MR. SUAREZ: I am using Proposed Resolution No. 322 as my guide in discussing the matter.
MR. RODRIGO: Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): The sponsor may proceed with his sponsorship speech on Proposed Resolution No. 322.
MR. SUAREZ: One more point, and we will be through.
We mentioned the possible use of only one term and that is, "amendment." However, the Committee finally agreed to use the terms — "amendment" or "revision" when our attention was called by the honorable Vice-President to the substantial difference in the connotation and significance between the said terms. As a result of our research, we came up with the observations made in the famous — or notorious — Javellana doctrine, particularly the decision rendered by Honorable Justice Makasiar, wherein he made the following distinction between "amendment and "revision" of an existing Constitution: "Revision" may involve a rewriting of the whole Constitution. On the other hand, the act of amending a constitution envisages a change of specific provisions only. The intention of an act to amend is not the change of the entire Constitution, but only the improvement of specific parts or the addition of provisions deemed essential as a consequence of new conditions or the elimination of parts already considered obsolete or unresponsive to the needs of the times.
The 1973 Constitution is not a mere amendment to the 1935 Constitution. It is a completely new fundamental Chapter embodying new political, social and economic concepts.
So, the Committee finally came up with the proposal that these two terms should be employed in the formulation of the Article governing amendments or revisions to the new Constitution.
Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. RODRIGO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: Will the Gentleman yield to some questions?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): The sponsor may yield, if he so desires.
MR. SUAREZ: With pleasure.
MR. RODRIGO: The innovation sought here is to give the people directly, through "initiative," the power to propose amendments to the Constitution. Section 1, paragraph (c) states: "as provided for in Article ____ Section ____ of the Constitution."
If I remember right, we took up this matter in the Committee on the Legislative this afternoon, but the proposal was confined to "initiative" regarding ordinary statutes, and not constitutional amendments. So, if that is the provision being referred to here, then Section I refers only to initiative to enact ordinary laws but not to amend the Constitution.
MR. SUAREZ: I am sorry; we were not aware of that situation because all along, we were under the impression that the system of initiative covered the entire spectrum of the Constitution. So, we labored under that thinking in coming up with this proposal.
MR. RODRIGO: I am just saying that this is what we took up in the Committee on the Legislative. I do not know if there are other provisions regarding "initiative" being considered in other committees.
MR. SUAREZ: We thank Commissioner Rodrigo for the information and we will take it upon ourselves to make the necessary representations with the Committee on the Legislative to take up this system of initiative.
MR. RODRIGO: If I remember right, that proposed provision on "initiative" stated that the people — by signatures of at least 10 percent of the registered voters in the last election — may directly initiate the passage of a piece of legislation. So, for ordinary legislation, the needed number of signatures is at least 10 percent.
In an amendment to the Constitution, does not the sponsor believe that the number must be more than 10 percent?
MR. SUAREZ: I can settle for 10 percent. Assuming that we have 25 million electors, that would mean a minimum of 2.5 million electors. That is no easy task.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Yes.
MR. SUAREZ: It is correct.
MR. RODRIGO: Section 1 of this proposed resolution states that the National Assembly needs only a plurality vote to enact a statute but needs a vote of three-fourths of all its Members to propose an amendment to the Constitution. So, the philosophy is very clear — that a bigger number of votes is needed to propose an amendment to the Constitution than to pass an ordinary statute.
MR. SUAREZ: We join the Commissioner in that regard.
MR. RODRIGO: If that is the case, should we not insist on a higher percentage of signatures for "initiative" in amendments to the Constitution than a mere 10 percent which is needed in a simple legislation?
MR. SUAREZ We spelled out the general rule that as much as possible, we should make the system of amendment rather difficult. So, if the Commissioner feels that 10 percent is inadequate, we would certainly be amenable to a higher percentage, provided that the right is not effectively suppressed.
MR. RODRIGO: But the sponsor said that even just 10 percent, which means 2.5 million votes, is very difficult to secure. What more if we increase this to 20 percent? Does not the sponsor think that since this is such an important provision, we should first know what article and section are referred to, before we can discuss this proposed amendment intelligently? Does not the sponsor think we should defer consideration of this provision until we know the article and section alluded to?
MR. SUAREZ That point can be properly deferred. I pointed out in my sponsorship speech that this system of recall, initiative or referendum has been covered by Proposed Resolution No. 161, which we understand has been referred to the Committee on Citizenship, Bill of Rights, Political Rights and Obligations and Human Rights chaired by Honorable Bernas.
MR. RODRIGO: I have no objection to the rest of the resolution, which is practically a reiteration of the present provisions of the 1973 Constitution.
Thank you very much.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): The following Commissioners have registered to interpellate: Commissioners Joaquin G. Bernas, Florenz D. Regalado and Felicitas S. Aquino. They will be recognized in that order.
Commissioner Bernas is recognized.
FR. BERNAS: Will the sponsor yield to just a few simple questions?
MR. SUAREZ: With pleasure.
FR. BERNAS: Do I understand the proponent as saying that the only thing substantially different in this proposal from the article and amendments in the 1973 Constitution is paragraph (c) of Section 1?
MR. SUAREZ: Substantially, yes.
FR. BERNAS: And in the light of the manifestations and interpellations made by Commissioner Rodrigo, is it our understanding then that we shall postpone interpellations on paragraph (c) of Section 1 until a proper formula is presented to the body?
MR. SUAREZ: The Commissioner is absolutely correct.
FR. BERNAS: Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Regalado is recognized.
MR. REGALADO: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
Will the sponsor yield to a few clarificatory questions?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): The sponsor may yield, if he so desires.
MR. SUAREZ: Yes.
MR. REGALADO: In the mode of amendment or revision under Section 1, paragraph (a), does this mean that the National Assembly meets as a constituent body and proposes the amendments or revisions by itself? Am I correct?
MR. SUAREZ: That is correct, as stated in Section 1 paragraph (a).
MR. REGALADO: With respect to calling a constitutional convention under paragraph (b), this would be possible only by a law enacted by the legislature upon a vote of two-thirds of its Members. Am I correct?
MR. SUAREZ: That is the one covered under Section 2.
MR. REGALADO: Yes, but that was mentioned in Section 2 with reference to Section 1, paragraph (b).
MR. SUAREZ: That is right.
MR. REGALADO: With respect to this clause which says:
. . . or by a majority vote of all its Members, submit the question of calling such a convention to the electorate, would this be in the nature of a referendum?
MR. SUAREZ: It could partake of the character of a referendum, except that the word "electorate" would point to the system of election.
MR. REGALADO: I also notice that both Sections 1 and 2 are premised on the anticipation that the Commission, not only the Committee, will opt for a unicameral body. In the event that a bicameral legislative body will carry the day, has the Committee prepared contingency proposals or resolutions?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, in that situation, we would propose to include the words IN JOINT SESSION ASSEMBLED.
MR. REGALADO: But still maintaining the same number of votes?
MR. SUAREZ: The Commissioner is right.
MR. REGALADO: Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
Am I correct in understanding that the premise of the Commissioner's recommendation in subparagraph (c), Section 1, is the same resolution on referendum and initiative petitions that was discussed by the Committee on the Legislative?
MR. SUAREZ: I am referring specifically to the Proposed Resolution No. 161, but I do not know whether it is the same resolution referred to the Committee on the Legislative.
MS. AQUINO: Do I understand it correctly that sub-paragraph (c) of Article ___, Section ____, of Section I refers to the initiative and referendum petitions that we have previously referred to?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, I mean the legislative power.
MS. AQUINO: Has the sponsor been previously advised by Commissioner Rodrigo that the Committee on the Legislative has decided on vesting legislative power also in the people by way of referendum and initiative petitions?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes.
MS. AQUINO: And that is confined to matters of ordinary legislation?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes.
MS. AQUINO: Do I understand it correctly that even if the body favorably considers the recommendatory conclusions of the Committee on the Legislative that referendum and initiative petitions refer only to legislation, the Committee would still insist on empowering the people as a constituent assembly to propose amendments to the Constitution?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes.
MS. AQUINO: Thank you, and I also thank the Presiding Officer.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Davide is the next interpellator, followed by Commissioner Bengzon.
MR. DAVIDE: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
Will the distinguished sponsor yield to some clarificatory questions.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: (Mr. de los Reyes): The sponsor may yield, if he so desires.
MR. SUAREZ: With pleasure.
MR. DAVIDE: Thank you.
I will proceed directly to Section 3, on the holding of plebiscite, which states:
. . . which shall be held not earlier than sixty days and not later than ninety days after the approval of such amendment or revision.
Whose approval is needed here?
MR. SUAREZ: Approval by the National Assembly or by the constitutional convention.
MR. DAVIDE: In other words, the sponsor now wants that the entire wording of the proposed Section 3 of the original Resolution No. 148 be incorporated here because it specifically provides for the National Assembly or the constitutional convention. But in the substitute resolution, the words "by the national assembly or the constitutional convention" have been deleted.
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, because it was felt that it was already understood-that the approval of such amendment or revision could only emanate from either the National Assembly or the constitutional convention.
MR. DAVIDE: But does not the sponsor believe that we should restore the phrase "by the national assembly or the constitutional convention" to make it really very clear and specific for purposes of computing the period?
MR. SUAREZ: We certainly would have no objection to that because we were the proponents of that resolution.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes. We now go to Section 2.
The last clause provides: "submit the question of calling such a convention to the electorate." In his answer, the sponsor adverted to the possibility of a referendum or a plebiscite.
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, depending upon the National Assembly.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes. But as worded in the 1973 Constitution, it is very clear that the submission of the question calling such a convention to the electorate must be done in an election.
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, but right now, because of the initiation of the system of initiative, recall and referendum, we are amenable to entertaining the possibility that it would assume the form of a referendum.
MR. DAVIDE: I see, but on the assumption that we will not allow the constitutional amendment or revision to be initiated by the people, it is necessary that we also restore the words "in an election."
MR. SUAREZ: The Committee agrees.
MR. DAVIDE: If the National Assembly is authorized by a vote of two-thirds of all its Members to call a constitutional convention, would it not be proper to make it mandatory that the National Assembly be provided with appropriations for that convention?
MR. SUAREZ: It may not be necessary at all because that is supposed to be already built-in when the National Assembly calls the constitutional convention. Normally, it should already provide for the appropriations for such purpose.
MR. DAVIDE: But it may not. The law may only provide for the calling of a constitutional convention and later another law may provide for the appropriations for the convention.
MR. SUAREZ: We will entertain amendments reflecting the Commissioner's idea on the matter.
MR. DAVIDE: Again on Section 2, on the submission of the question of calling a constitutional convention to the electorate, would this certainly be by a vote of a majority of all the votes cast in either election, referendum or plebiscite?
MR. SUAREZ: The Commissioner is right.
MR. DAVIDE: But necessarily it cannot be implemented unless the National Assembly must also be mandated to provide for the appropriations for that convention whose calling was voted upon favorably by the people.
MR. SUAREZ: The Commissioner is right.
MR. DAVIDE: I would like to inform the Committee and the sponsor that the initiative provided for in the proposed Article on National Assembly, as correctly stated by Commissioners Rodrigo and Aquino, is limited to initiation of legislations. And the National Assembly is mandated to provide, by ordinary legislation, the execution of the concept so that it could be carried out with certain limitations. The basic resolutions providing for initiative and referendum, more particularly the resolutions of Commissioner Romulo, et al and Commissioner Garcia, et al, limit the scope of initiative and referendum.
MR. SUAREZ: Will the Gentleman entertain a reverse interpellation?
MR. DAVIDE: If the Rules provides, I am willing to yield.
MR. SUAREZ: Would the Gentleman consider in this committee deliberations the inclusion of this particular idea as a committee resolution?
MR. DAVIDE: If the Committee on Transitory Provisions would insist on amendments by or through initiative, a proposal in this respect really properly belongs to the Committee on Transitory Provisions or as an exception to what is provided for in the Article on the Legislative.
MR. SUAREZ: So we take it that the Gentleman would rather leave the matter of "percentaging" to the Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions?
MR. DAVIDE: And the Commission.
MR. SUAREZ: I thank the distinguished Commissioner.
MR. DAVIDE: Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: For the record, Section 2, lines 17 and 18 states: ". . .submit the question of calling such a convention to the electorate." The interpretation or the Gentleman's contemplation here is that such a question, if it is decided to be submitted to the electorate, will have to wait for the next election. Am I correct?
MR. SUAREZ: That is right. The provision practically considers the possibility of avoiding expensive referendums or plebiscites. So, that is the general sense meant to be conveyed by the employment of this phrase "in an election" which does not now appear here.
MR. BENGZON: Regarding Section 1, paragraph (c), does the Gentleman agree that this mode of amending or revising a constitution is very complicated and very difficult to follow, particularly because it should require, perhaps, a greater number of percentage than the ordinary mode of initiative by legislation?
MR. SUAREZ: We agree to the difficulty in implementing this particular provision, but we are providing a channel for the expression of the sovereign will of the people through this initiative system.
MR. BENGZON: Is Section 1, paragraphs (a) and (b), not sufficient channel for expression of the will of the people, particularly in the amendment or revision of the Constitution?
MR. SUAREZ: Under normal circumstances, yes. But we know what happened during the 20 years under the Marcos administration. So, if the National Assembly, in a manner of speaking, is operating under the thumb of the Prime Minister or the President as the case may be, and the required number of votes could not be obtained, we would have to provide for a safety valve in order that the people could ventilate in a very peaceful way their desire for amendment to the Constitution.
It is very possible that although the people may be pressuring the National Assembly to constitute itself as a constituent assembly or to call a constitutional convention, the members thereof would not heed the people's desire and clamor. So, this is a third avenue that we are providing for the implementation of what is now popularly known as the people's power.
MR. BENGZON: In view of the awakening of the people of the Philippines, does the Gentleman agree that the events that took place in the past few years are very unlikely to be repeated in the future?
MR. SUAREZ: The Gentleman may be right, but it is also likely that these could again happen in the near future.
MR. BENGZON: Because we seem to be laboring under that particular syndrome of the traumatic experiences we had in the last 20 years. Perhaps, our minds and our eyes are just focused on those events and we forget that there are other circumstances that will take place.
I was about to suggest that if, indeed, Section 1, paragraphs (a) and (b) are sufficient avenues and channels for the people of the Philippines to amend the Constitution — as they have been historically tested without regard to the events of the recent past — perhaps the Committee might reconsider its decision in just confining itself to proposing Section 1, paragraphs (a) and (b), and doing away with paragraph (c). Is there a possibility that the mode of legislation by initiative will just be confined to the Article on the Legislative?
MR. SUAREZ: We would rather leave that to the Commission.
MR. BENGZON: So, at the proper time, perhaps during the period of amendments, this could be introduced.
MR. SUAREZ: Yes.
MR. BENGZON: I thank the distinguished Commissioner.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Azcuna is recognized, to be followed by Commissioner Ople and Commissioner Guingona.
MR. AZCUNA: Thank you.
Is the power to propose amendments or revisions to the Constitution legislative or constituent power?
MR. SUAREZ: I beg the Gentleman's pardon.
MR. AZCUNA: Is the power to propose amendments or revisions to the Constitution a legislative power or is it a different kind of power called a constituent power?
MR. SUAREZ: I would say it is a constituent power.
MR. AZCUNA: Therefore, a system of initiative or referendum provided for under the Article on the Legislative will not be the proper place to provide for the type of initiative the Gentleman has in mind since this is initiative as an exercise of a constituent power. Instead of referring to the legislative power provision which provides for initiative in making ordinary laws, I believe we should provide under this provision the exercise of constituent power. Perhaps, the Gentleman can already define here a manner in which this type of initiative as an exercise of constituent power can be made.
MR. SUAREZ: I take it that it is suggested even without depending upon the action that may be taken up in the Committee on the Legislative.
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer, I believe it is just proper because this is a constituent power and it belongs here.
MR. SUAREZ: In fact, Proposed Resolution No. 161 covers constitutional amendments to initiative.
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. SUAREZ: We will consider that.
MR. AZCUNA: I thank the honorable Commissioner.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: Mr. Presiding Officer, will the sponsor yield to a question?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): The sponsor may yield, if he so desires.
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, with pleasure to a member of our Committee.
MR. OPLE: Providentially, the previous remarks of Commissioner Azcuna and Commissioner Davide encouraged me to refer once again to this question on initiative as a new mode for proposing amendments to the Constitution. The sponsor was very kind to refer earlier to the fact that I sponsored this additional mode of proposing amendments to the Constitution in the Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions.
It looks like the Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions had been very courteous to the Committee on the Legislative and had hoped that this mode of proposing amendments through initiative, in addition to the older and traditional modes provided in the 1973 Constitution, could be dependent on the approval of a resolution in that body pertaining to the use of initiative, referendum and recall, with respect to legislation.
Will the Chairman of the Committee now consider the imminently reasonable proposals of Commissioners Azcuna and Davide to keep this an independent provision of the Article on Amendment so that this will not wait upon the action of the Legislative Committee?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, we will entertain that. As a matter of fact, by way of information, the Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions is scheduled to meet tomorrow morning between nine o'clock and twelve o'clock and we will take that matter up.
MR. OPLE: Moreover, Mr. Presiding Officer, I think Commissioner Bengzon had earlier raised the question of whether this new mode to proposing constitutional amendments which is untested could be deleted from the Article on Amendment on the ground that we may be experimenting with a mode of amendment that has no support in the past and which may be in the form of exaggerated reaction to what happened in the past. In response to Commissioner Bengzon's doubts, I think this is just the correct time in history when we should introduce an innovative mode of proposing amendments to the Constitution, vesting in the people and their organizations the right to formulate and propose their own amendments and revisions of the Constitution in a manner that will be binding upon the government. It is not that I believe this kind of direct action by the people for amending a constitution will be needed frequently in the future, but it is good to know that the ultimate reserves of sovereign power still rest upon the people and that in the exercise of that power, they can propose amendments or revisions to the Constitution.
I think this is the proper point to share Commissioner Padilla's learned insights on the difference between an amendment and a revision. We were the beneficiaries of the Committee's insights, according to which an amendment deals with only a piecemeal change in the Constitution; a revision, on the other hand, may entail a number of amendments and may even entail the revision of the entire Constitution. And the power to propose amendments as well as revisions, we now vest under paragraph (c), Section 1 of the Article on Amendment in the people and their organizations which they need not avail of, unless there is a very strong sentiment or undercurrent of sentiment in the future that will impel them to gather signatures, let us say, several million signatures to meet the standard that will be set forth in this Article on Amendment so that if they want to revise the Constitution according to the requirements of new conditions in the future, then they may do so. Of course, the traditional prerogative to introduce amendments or revisions will still be vested on the National Assembly.
Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Guingona is recognized.
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
I would like to ask the honorable proponent a question. In answer to the interpellations of Commissioner Bengzon, the sponsor said that paragraph (c) of Section 1 contemplates a situation where the National Assembly or the legislature would refuse to heed the people's will. My question is: As worded by the Committee, would not the National Assembly be able to frustrate the people's will by simply not appropriating the amount needed for the exercise or referendum that should be held?
MR. SUAREZ: The Gentleman is referring to the exercise by the people of the right vested under paragraph (c), Section 1.
MR. GUINGONA: Yes, because my understanding as a member of the Legislative Committee is that there are some restrictions with respect to the exercise of the power of initiative and referendum and I think one of the restrictions is in the appropriation of a sum of money. The power to appropriate would still be vested in the National Assembly. In the situation that the sponsor contemplates where the National Assembly ignores the people's will, is there not a possibility that this will be a paper provision because then they would not be able to exercise the right vested in them by Section 1, paragraph (c)?
MR. SUAREZ: The mechanisms were not discussed in the manner the Gentleman brought out this evening although that is a very valid point. We hasten to add, however, that the methods provided under paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) may be availed of one after the other. In other words, one does not preclude the exercise of the other. They could even be availed of simultaneously, if necessary, but the matter of appropriation is indeed essential.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, will the distinguished sponsor yield to a few questions?
MR. SUAREZ: With pleasure, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. MAAMBONG: I hope the sponsor does not mind my interpellating him at this point, considering that I am a member of his Committee. But the other statements of the Commissioners before me provoked my thoughts.
I will advert to the point in the Article referring to the ratification process by the majority votes of the electorate.
The sponsor mentioned earlier that the Committee used the word "plebiscite" in Section 3 in contra-distinction with the word used in the 1935 Constitution which was "election." I suppose the sponsor followed the 1973 Constitution in the use of the word "plebiscite" and not the 1935 Constitution in the use of the word "election" because election connotes a process whereby a body of qualified voters in the country — whether it be nationwide, by district, by province, by municipality or barangay — choose public officials.
MR. SUAREZ: The Gentleman is right, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. MAAMBONG: The sponsor also appropriately used the word "plebiscite" because the book I am using here — which is incidentally my own — defines plebiscite as a direct voting by the qualified electors in regard to an important public question, usually to ratify a proposed constitution. Would that be a correct statement?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. MAAMBONG: Section 2 reads:
. . . by a majority vote of all its Members, submit the question of calling such a convention to the electorate.
In Section 2, the word "election" or "plebiscite" was not used. The question here is: What is the intendment of the Committee? Under Section 2 when the National Assembly submits the question to the electorate of whether to call a convention, would this be through election or a plebiscite?
MR. SUAREZ: It is supposed to coincide with the election, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. MAAMBONG: In other words, in Section 2, if there is no election, the question of calling a constitutional convention cannot be submitted in a plebiscite?
MR. SUAREZ: That is the meaning sought to be conveyed in connection with this particular section.
MR. MAAMBONG: We have a difficulty here, because the submission of the question of whether or not to call a convention might coincide with a new term of office of elective public officials. In other words, if there is an election, for example, for public officials in 1990, and in 1991 there is a need to present to the people the issue of whether we should call a constitutional convention or not, assuming that the term of office of the elective public officials will end in 1996, we will have to wait five or six years before we can submit the issue of calling a constitutional convention. Is that the intendment, Mr. Presiding Officer?
MR. SUAREZ: The Gentleman's statement and conclusion under this section are correct.
MR. MAAMBONG: Therefore, in the period of amendments, would the Committee be open to a suggestion to amend Section 2 to accommodate either election or plebiscite in the matter of calling a constitutional convention?
MR. SUAREZ: Without waiting for an election?
MR. MAAMBONG: Without waiting for an election which may take five years.
MR. SUAREZ: We will entertain such an amended proposal, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you.
We will now go to Section 3. In Section 3, the word "plebiscite" is again used. Does it also mean that under Section 3, if there is an incoming election we cannot submit the amendment or revision of the Constitution to the electorate together with that election? Under Section 3, the wording is very specific; it specifically refers to a plebiscite and not an election as we have already defined earlier.
MR. SUAREZ: Under the situation envisioned by the Gentleman, he would preclude a plebiscite in the calling of the election. In other words, there will be a separate election and a separate plebiscite. Is that the question?
MR. MAAMBONG: That is not the drift of my question. What I am trying to say is that under Section 3, as worded, there is a limiting factor wherein we cannot submit the ratification of any amendment to or revision of the Constitution together with an election because Section 3 specifically mentions plebiscite.
MR. SUAREZ: It will not preclude the holding of a plebiscite together with the election because it could very well be signified that this is an election and a plebiscite at the same time.
MR. MAAMBONG: In other words, if an election is forthcoming for the purpose of ratifying the Constitution, the issues in the plebiscite can be inserted in the same ballot and we can hold an election and a plebiscite at the same time.
MR. SUAREZ: I remember that happened in the January 30, 1980 elections wherein the plebiscite was tucked to the election, the plebiscite on whether or not the term of the Justices of the Supreme Court would be extended from 65 to 70 years old, anticipating the retirement of some friendly justices.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you for that, Mr. Presiding Officer.
Just one more point. We have been using here words like "election" and "plebiscite." In this amendatory or revision process of the Constitution, we never use the term "referendum." We either use "election" or "plebiscite" because, as the dictionary defines it, referendum is the principle or procedure of submitting measures already approved by the legislative body to the vote of the electorate for approval or disapproval. That is the reason we do not use "referendum" in matters of amendment or revision of the Constitution. Is that a correct statement?
MR. SUAREZ: Among others, yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. MAAMBONG: Lastly — this is just food for thought considering that the Committee will meet tomorrow to consider all the submission of other Commissioners — I notice that the bottom line in the ratification of an amendment or a revision to a constitution is always a majority of the votes cast by the electorate. On the other hand, if it is the National Assembly which constitutes itself as a constituent assembly to propose amendments to a constitution, it is by the vote of three-fourths of all its Members. All these things are submitted to the people for ratification. I am trying to connect this with the procedure for initiative for future consideration because the members of the National Assembly are representatives of the people in their individual constituencies and, therefore, would it not be appropriate mathematically to require a vote of three-fourths of the National Assembly in order to amend or revise the Constitution? Would it not be appropriate also to require a vote of three-fourths of the electorate in order to institute the process known as initiative? If the present trend of initiative is only 10 percent of the electorate, it would run counter to the required votes of the representatives of the people which are three-fourths or 75 percent. This is just food for thought and a question. Probably, we can take this up when the Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions meets.
Thank you very much, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: Mr. Presiding Officer, allow me to make some comments on the system of initiative which is a reserve power of the sovereign people. My colleagues pointed out that the system of initiative is limited and should be limited only to initiating legislation and not to proposing amendments. I will humbly disagree with my colleagues' observations. I wish to invite my colleagues' attention to the 1986 UP Law Constitution Project draft proposal. In one of its pages, it is stated, and I quote:
Thank you, Mr. Presiding Office.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): What is the pleasure of the Floor Leader?
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, there are no more interpellators and there are no more speakers for and against the resolution, so I move that we close the period of sponsorship and debate.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): What is the pleasure of Commissioner Rodrigo?
MR. RODRIGO: Have we not deferred the consideration of Section 1, paragraph (c)?
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): The Chair declares a suspension of the session.
It was 5:41 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 5:49 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): The session is resumed.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): The Floor Leader is recognized.
SUSPENSION OF CONSIDERATION
OF PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 322
(Article on Amendment or Revision)
MR. RAMA: I would like to amend my motion to a motion for deferment of the consideration of Committee Report No. 7 on Proposed Resolution No. 322 until tomorrow at 2:30 p.m.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Is there any objection to the motion for deferment? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I move to adjourn the session until tomorrow at 2:30 p.m.
It was 5:50 p.m.
* Appeared after the roll call.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is called to order.
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 Teodulo C. Natividad.
Everybody remained standing for the Prayer.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Amang Makapangyarihan sa lahat, itunghay Mo ang Iyong liwanag at ilagak ang Iyong mabiyayang tangkilik sa bulwagang ito na pinagtitipunan ng Iyong mga anak na inatangan ng mabigat at maselang tungkuling ang nakataya ay bukas, buhay at kapalaran ng aming lahi;
Pagningasin Mo, Ama, ang mga diwa at isip ng bawa't isa sa amin at nang sa gayon, ang talsik ng talino mula sa Iyong paglingap ay maging kasangkapan sa pagbuo ng Saligang Batas ng aming lahi, isang Saligang Batas na maka-Diyos at tunay na maka-tao;
Ilingap Mo, Ama, ang Iyong basbas sa kapulungang ito upang maging sulo namin sa pusikit na karimlan ng aming pakikipagtunggali sa masalimuot at mapanganib na kalagayan, hindi lamang ng aming bayan, kundi ng buong daigdig at ituro Mo sa amin ang tumpak na landas na aming daraanan upang makasapit sa dalampasigan ng tagumpay;
Itulot Mo rin, Mahal na Bathala, na ang mabalangkas namin ay ang Saligang Batas na tunay na tutugon sa adhikain, pangarap at simulain ng aming lahi;
Panginoon, wala kaming magagawa kung sa aming sarili lamang, nguni't sa patnubay Mo, Bathalang Makapangyarihan, wala kaming pagkabigo;
Panginoon, sa panahong ito na marami pang kaguluhan, kagalitan at himagsikan, tiklop tuhod naming hinihiling sa Iyo na nawa aming matugunan ang hamong nasa aming harap at maging tunay kaming kasangkapan ng pagkakaisa at pagkakasundo ng sambayanang Pilipino;
Isinasamo namin, Panginoon, na itulot Mong mawaksi ang imbot at sariling kapakanan sa puso ng bawa't isa sa amin at nang sa gayon ang mapag-ukulan lamang namin ng pansin ay ang tunay na kapakanan ng aming bayan. Marapatin Mo po sana na matapos namin ang Saligang Batas sa takdang panahon;
At kung matapos na naming sulatin ang bagong Saligang Batas, marapatin Mo po sana na ito ay pagtibayin ng sambayanang Pilipino at nang sa gayon ay maghari ang kapayapaan, kaisahan, kasaganaan at maihatid namin ang aming bansa sa lalong higit na magandang kinabukasan. Siya Nawa.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will please call the roll.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
| Abubakar | Present | Natividad | Present |
| Alonto | Present * | Nieva | Present |
Aquino | Present | Nolledo | Present |
| Azcuna | Present | Ople | Present |
| Bacani | Present | Padilla | Present |
| Bengzon | Present | Quesada | Present * |
| Bennagen | Present | Rama | Present * |
| Bernas | Present | Regalado | Present |
| RosarioBraid | Present | Reyes de los | Present |
| Brocka | Present | Rigos | Present |
| Calderon | Present * | Rodrigo | Present |
| Castro de | Present | Romulo | Present |
| Colayco | Present | Rosales | Absent |
| Concepcion | Present * | Sarmiento | Present |
| Davide | Present | Suarez | Present |
| Foz | Present | Sumulong | Present |
| Garcia | Present | Tadeo | Present |
| Gascon | Present | Tan | Present |
Guingona | Present | Tingson | Absent |
| Jamir | Present | Treñas | Present |
| Laurel | Present | Uka | Present |
| Lerum | Present * | Villacorta | Present |
Maambong | Present | Villegas | Present |
| Monsod | Present |
The President is present.
The roll call shows 40 Members responded to the call.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair declares the presence of a quorum.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, I move to dispense with the readings 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.
MS. AQUINO: 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.
The Secretary-General read the following Proposed Resolutions on First Reading, Communications and Committee Reports, the President making the corresponding references:
Proposed Resolution No. 429, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE ARTICLE ON TRANSITORY PROVISIONS A PROVISION FOR THE EXPROPRIATION OF ALL AGRICULTURAL AND NONAGRICULTURAL LANDS FRAUDULENTLY ACQUIRED BY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND THEIR CRONIES AND IMMEDIATE SUBJECTION OF THE SAME TO URBAN AND RURAL LAND REFORM.Introduced by Hon. Suarez, Tadeo and Sarmiento.
To the Committee on Social Justice.
Proposed Resolution No. 430, entitled:
RESOLUTION TERMINATING THE MILITARY BASES AGREEMENT BY 1991.Introduced by Hon. Ople, Maambong, Natividad, de los Reyes, Jr., Bengzon, Jr., Romulo, Calderon, Rigos, Treñas, Uka, Jamir and Lerum.
To the Committee on General Provisions.
Proposed Resolution No. 431, entitled:
RESOLUTION PROVIDING IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION IN THE NEW ARTICLE ON SOCIAL JUSTICE THAT AS A RESTITUTION, THE VICTIMS OF CRIMES BE GIVEN A SHARE OF FINES PAID IN COURT BY CONVICTED CRIMINALS.Introduced by Hon. Natividad, Ople, Maambong and de los Reyes, Jr.
To the Committee on Social Justice.
Proposed Resolution No. 432, entitled:
RESOLUTION LIMITING THE PRACTICE OF ANY PROFESSION TO FILIPINO CITIZENS SAVE IN CASES OF RECIPROCITY TO ALIENS OF ANOTHER COUNTRY UNDER CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED BY LAW.Introduced by Hon. Maambong, Ople, Natividad and de los Reyes, Jr.
To the Committee on the National Economy and Patrimony.
Proposed Resolution No. 433, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO LIMIT THE TERM OF THE PRESIDENT TO SIX (6) YEARS WITHOUT REELECTION.Introduced by Hon. Rama.
To the Committee on the Executive.
Proposed Resolution No. 434, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE ARTICLE ON SOCIAL JUSTICE A PROVISION PROVIDING BASIC CONSUMER RIGHTS TO ALL CITIZENS.Introduced by Hon. Rigos.
To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of Principles.
Proposed Resolution No. 436, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION ON THE NATIONAL NAME, ANTHEM AND SEAL.Introduced by Hon. Rosario Braid, Maambong, Uka and Rigos.
To the Committee on General Provisions.
Proposed Resolution No. 437, entitled:
RESOLUTION PROPOSING FOR THE INCLUSION OF A PROVISION ON THE DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION.Introduced by Hon. Tingson.
To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of Principles.
Proposed Resolution No. 438, entitled:
RESOLUTION INCORPORATING IN THE CONSTITUTION PROVISIONS ENSURING REMEDIES FOR VIOLATIONS OF RIGHTS.Introduced by Hon. Aquino.
To the Committee on Citizenship, Bill of Rights, Political Rights and Obligations and Human Rights.
Proposed Resolution No. 439, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO FURTHER STRENGTHEN THE BILL OF RIGHTS BY INCORPORATING IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION PROHIBITING THE INFLICTION OF TORTURE AND THE IMPOSITION OF OTHER CRUEL OR INHUMAN TREATMENT ON CONVICTS.Introduced by Hon. Davide, Jr.
To the Committee on Citizenship, Bill of Rights, Political Rights and Obligations and Human Rights.
Proposed Resolution No. 442, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION AN ARTICLE ENTITLED "EDUCATION, ARTS AND CULTURE, COMMUNICATION, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY."Introduced by Hon. Guingona.
To the Committee on Human Resources.
Proposed Resolution No. 443, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION AN ARTICLE ALLOWING FOR THE RE-ELECTION OF THE INCUMBENT PRESIDENT AND VICE-PRESIDENT BUT DISALLOWING THEM TO SERVE FOR MORE THAN EIGHT CONSECUTIVE YEARS.Introduced by Hon. Guingona.
To the Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions.
Proposed Resolution No. 444, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION PROVISIONS THAT WOULD DISALLOW DUAL CITIZENSHIP IN CERTAIN CASES.Introduced by Hon. Guingona.
To the Committee on Citizenship, Bill of Rights, Political Rights and Obligations and Human Rights.
Letter from the Consumers Groups signed by Ms. Zenaida S. Reyes, forwarding two resolutions providing for consumer protection.
(Communication No. 136 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of Principles.
Resolution No. ECVII-86-12 of the Executive Committee of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, proposing the creation of an independent Commission of Justice.
(Communication No. 137 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on the Judiciary.
Letter from Concerned Churches for Christian Liberty signed by Bro. Joseph L. Genato, submitting a resolution proposing a provision recognizing the fundamental right, responsibility and authority of the home and the church in the education of our children.
(Communication No. 138 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Human Resources.
Letter from Mr. Paterno D. Menzon of Labor Advisory Consultative Council (LAAC), submitting a resolution proposing to make the teaching of work ethic, philosophy and labor unionism compulsory in all levels of the educational system.
(Communication No. 139 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Human Resources.
Letter from Investments and Management Corporation signed by Mr. Luis F. Sison, submitting a proposed provision in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution on the right of self-defense.
(Communication No. 140 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Citizenship, Bill of Rights, Political Rights and Obligations and Human Rights.
Letter from Mr. N.B. Imperial of the Department of Comparative and International Education, University of London, enclosing proposed provisions on local governments and education, among others.
(Communication No. 141 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Steering Committee.
Letter from Concerned Parishioners of Sacred Heart Parish, Quezon City, signed by Mrs. Ester V. Salvosa and twenty-seven others, proposing the inclusion of provisions on the stability of the Filipino family.
(Communication No. 142 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of Principles.
Communication from Mr. Cayetano Palma proposing transitory provisions on the term of the incumbent President and Vice-President, the Batasan Members elected in 1984 and on local elections.
(Communication No. 143 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions.
Letter from the National Secretariat of Social Action, Justice and Peace of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines signed by Monsignor Antonio T. Fortich presenting its position on the US military bases in the Philippines, land reform and rights of indigenous peoples.
(Communication No. 144 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Steering Committee.
Letter from Mr. Abolais Batauas Deca of the Society of Educators for Educational Development, Marawi City, requesting the consideration of the Muslims' demand for local autonomy.
(Communication No. 145 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Local Governments.
Committee Report No. 13 on Proposed Resolution No. 440, prepared by the Committee on the Executive, entitled:
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT HIS TERM OF OFFICE, THE CANVASSING OF VOTES BY THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY AND THE PROCLAMATION OF THE ELECTED WINNER,recommending its approval in substitution of Proposed Resolution No. 198.
Sponsored by Hon. Sumulong and Maambong.
To the Steering Committee.
Committee Report No. 14 on Proposed Resolution No. 441, prepared by the Committee on the Executive, entitled:
RESOLUTION INCORPORATING INTO THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION REQUIRING THE CONCURRENCE OF A COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS TO HIGH RANKING POSITIONS IN THE GOVERNMENT,recommending its approval in substitution of Proposed Resolution No. 197.
Sponsored by Hon. Sumulong and Sarmiento.
To the Steering Committee.
Committee Report No. 15 on Proposed Resolution No. 445, prepared by the Committee on General Provisions, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO RETAIN IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION ARTICLE XV, SECTION 1 OF THE 1973 CONSTITUTION,recommending its approval in substitution of Proposed Resolution No. 97.
Sponsored by Hon. Rosario Braid, Rigos and Maambong.
To the Steering Committee.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.
It was 3:06 p.m.
At 3:08 p.m., the session was resumed with the Honorable Rustico F. de los Reyes, Jr. presiding.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): The session is resumed.
RESOLUTION NO. 7
(Article on Citizenship)
Continuation
PERIOD OF AMENDMENTS
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer, the parliamentary situation is that we are in the consideration of Committee Report No. 4 on Second Reading. I move that we continue the period of amendments.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): The sponsor of Committee Report No. 4 will please proceed to the podium for the continuation of the period of amendments.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer, we ask that Commissioner Ople be recognized to introduce an amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: Will the sponsor kindly yield?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): He may, if he so desires.
FR. BERNAS: Very willingly.
MR. OPLE: Will the Committee entertain an amendment to Committee Report No. 4 in the form of a new section which will read as follows: DUAL ALLEGIANCE IS INIMICAL TO CITIZENSHIP AND SHALL BE DEALT WITH ACCORDING TO LAW.
May I explain, Mr. Presiding Officer, the reason for this proposed amendment?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Ople may proceed.
MR. OPLE: In the course of the freewheeling debate, I put the question of whether or not the amendment on dual allegiance could be in time received or welcomed by the Committee on Citizenship. The candid answer then was that this would not exactly dismay the Committee.
I am aware, Mr. Presiding Officer, that the Committee's attitude towards amendments concerning double citizenship, in particular, has not been very hospitable during the past couple of days. I want to draw attention to the fact that dual allegiance is not dual citizenship. I have circulated a memorandum to the Bernas Committee according to which a dual allegiance — and I reiterate a dual allegiance — is larger and more threatening than that of mere double citizenship which is seldom intentional and, perhaps, never insidious. That is often a function of the accident of mixed marriages or of birth on foreign soil. And so, I do not question double citizenship at all.
What we would like the Committee to consider is to take constitutional cognizance of the problem of dual allegiance. For example, we all know what happens in the triennial elections of the Federation of Filipino-Chinese Chambers of Commerce which consists of about 600 chapters all over the country. There is a Peking ticket, as well as a Taipei ticket. Not widely known is the fact that the Filipino-Chinese community is represented in the Legislative Yuan of the Republic of China in Taiwan. And until recently, the sponsor might recall, in Mainland China in the People's Republic of China, they have the Associated Legislative Council for overseas Chinese wherein all of Southeast Asia including some European and Latin countries were represented, which they dissolved after several years because of diplomatic frictions. At that time, the Filipino-Chinese were also represented in that Overseas Council.
When I speak of double allegiance, therefore, I speak of this unsettled kind of allegiance of Filipinos, of citizens who are already Filipinos but who, by their acts, may be said to be bound by a second allegiance, either to Peking or Taiwan. I also took close note of the concern expressed by some Commissioners yesterday, including Commissioner Villacorta, who were concerned about the lack of guarantees of thorough assimilation, and especially Commissioner Concepcion who has always been worried about minority claims on our natural resources.
Dual allegiance can actually siphon scarce national capital to Taiwan, Singapore, China or Malaysia, and this is already happening. Some of the great commercial places in downtown Taipei are Filipino-owned, owned by Filipino-Chinese — it is of common knowledge in Manila. It can mean a tragic capital outflow when we have to endure a capital famine which also means economic stagnation, worsening unemployment and social unrest.
And so, this is exactly what we ask — that the Committee kindly consider incorporating a new section, probably Section 5, in the Article on Citizenship which will read as follows: DUAL ALLEGIANCE IS INIMICAL TO CITIZENSHIP AND SHALL BE DEALT WITH ACCORDING TO LAW.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): What is the reaction of the sponsor?
FR. BERNAS: May I preface my reply with certain remarks, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): The Gentleman may proceed.
FR. BERNAS: I quite agree that dual allegiance is a concept distinct from dual citizenship. I do not think that there is any debate about that. I am also in agreement with the patriotic and nationalistic spirit in which the amendment is being proposed. So, basically the problem we have here is whether this provision should be explicitly incorporated in the Constitution or not. The Committee has not had the opportunity to discuss this matter, so, whatever I say here will be spoken in my name. I would prefer the position I have constantly maintained here, that matters like these can be dealt with by ordinary legislation. And when I say this, I say it as a vote of confidence in the Committee on the Legislative, trusting that the Committee will be able to formulate a provision which will create a legislative body as patriotic and as nationalistic as this Commission, if not more so, and therefore quite capable of dealing with these problems.
On these premises, I would prefer that this matter be relegated to ordinary legislation. I would submit the matter to a vote by the body.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Does the proponent of the amendment have anything else to say?
MR. NOLLEDO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Nolledo is recognized.
MR. NOLLEDO: Mr. Presiding Officer, I would like to ask Commissioner Ople if he will yield to interpellations.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Ople may yield, if he so desires.
MR. OPLE: Very gladly, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. NOLLEDO: Commissioner Ople's proposed amendment may cover the situation contemplated by Commissioner Villacorta on assimilation of natural citizens into the mainstream of Filipino culture. Am I right?
MR. OPLE: Yes, because this mandate of the Constitution, which will be binding on a future legislature, will help arrest what they call a centrifugal pull of a second allegiance for, let us say, overseas Chinese already enjoying Filipino citizenship, and to that extent, therefore, they can be better directed to measures that will assimilate them as real citizens quite apart from the formality of citizenship of the Philippines.
MR. NOLLEDO: And the Gentleman said that dual citizenship is different and apart from dual allegiance?
MR. OPLE: Yes.
MR. NOLLEDO: So, could the Gentleman make a distinction between citizenship and allegiance?
MR. OPLE: Double citizenship does not reflect on the motives of citizens enjoying double citizenship. As I said, this is largely a function of accident of mixed marriages or of birth on foreign soil. But in the case of dual allegiance, we presume a situation where the Chinese have already been naturalized over the objection of Chief Justice Concepcion and yet they continued to manifest, let us say, an extra allegiance either to Peking or Taipei.
I have cited some examples which I can augment, if time is available, showing how dual allegiance has been exercised.
MR. NOLLEDO: I would like to be clarified on the words "shall be dealt with by law." Is the Gentleman talking of or contemplating prohibitions or regulation?
MR. OPLE: Dual allegiance, I think, has been a relatively unexplored problem up to now. I do not think researchers, whether legal or sociological, have paid real attention to this problem of dual allegiance. But at the level of the common people the perception is already very keen. This has emerged as a problem of very great implication for our country, our dignity, sovereignty and security, and that is the reason I have asked the Committee — as an exception to their repugnance to amendments of this nature — to receive this amendment because then it cannot be said that we turned our backs on a problem that the common people of this generation of Filipinos have already perceived to be a major problem requiring the attention of the Constitutional Commission.
MR. NOLLEDO: Without attempting to amend the Gentleman's amendment, would he agree if I suggest that the amendment should read as follows: THE LEGISLATURE SHALL BY LAW PROHIBIT OR REGULATE DUAL ALLEGIANCE.
MR. OPLE: The substance is there, but I am sorry to say that my original formulation might be a little bit more startling, but which is the effect that the proponents want to convey in proportion to the seriousness of this problem as perceived by many people today.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you, Commissioner Ople.
MR. OPLE: Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I address a few questions to Commissioner Ople.
MR. SARMIENTO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Ople may yield, if he so desires.
MR. OPLE: Very gladly.
MR. SARMIENTO: Commissioner Ople, I believe that this proposal was animated by a desire to protect our national interest. Is that correct?
MR. OPLE: Yes, I think that is the sole reason for this amendment.
MR. SARMIENTO: As a matter of fact, the Gentleman stated all the reasons in this memorandum for the Bernas Committee.
MR. OPLE: Yes, I did.
MR. SARMIENTO: So, the Gentleman will agree with me that dual allegiance is inconsistent with or repugnant to the national interest.
MR. OPLE; Yes, yes, it is repugnant to the nation interest.
MR. SARMIENTO: Will Commissioner Ople agree with me that instead of using the words "obnoxious to citizenship," we use the words "obnoxious to NATIONAL INTEREST."
MR. OPLE: I will have no objection to that, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. SARMIENTO: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Does the sponsor have anything else to add to what the Commissioner said before?
FR. BERNAS: We will just reiterate our position that we prefer to leave this matter to ordinary legislation under Section 3 and under a general police power of the legislature which governs not only citizenship but also matters of allegiance quite apart from citizenship. So, we will just throw the matter to the body for decision.
MR. OPLE: Mr. Presiding Officer, as amended by previous speakers including Commissioners Sarmiento and Nolledo, this proposed amendment would now read: DUAL ALLEGIANCE IS OBNOXIOUS TO THE NATIONAL INTEREST AND SHALL BE DEALT WITH ACCORDING TO LAW.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Point of parliamentary inquiry.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): The Commissioner may proceed.
MR. MAAMBONG: In the assumption that the proposed amendment will be put to a vote, does it mean the sponsor is prepared to abide by the result of the vote, considering his prefatory statement that he has not consulted the Committee on this matter?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): What does the sponsor say?
FR. BERNAS: If this is voted upon and accepted by the body, then I take that as binding on the Committee.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. I thank the sponsor.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Yes, Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: May I be allowed to interpellate Commissioner Ople?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Ople may yield, if he so desires.
MR. OPLE: I gladly yield to the Lady.
MS. AQUINO: Commissioner Ople seems to impress upon us that dual allegiance is a sinister problem.
May we ask what the specific operative acts are that would amount to dual allegiance which may merit the Commission's attention for them to be placed in the draft?
MR. OPLE: Yes, I believe that on this occasion we can take cognizance of what is common knowledge that every October on the occasion of the Double Ten, very considerable delegations of Filipino-Chinese go to Taipei. According to some witnesses who had been there — and this is also a matter of common knowledge — when the oath of allegiance was administered, a good number of these Filipino-Chinese, maybe in the hope that they would not be found out, also raised their hands. I already spoke of this very remarkable phenomenon where the Filipino-Chinese in the Philippines were represented in the Legislative Yuan in Taiwan. I have also referred to the fact that until recently the Overseas Chinese Council, an associate legislative body, functioned in Peking and the Filipino-Chinese were also represented there, together with the other Chinese overseas communities in Southeast Asia. These common-knowledge practices raised a question of dual allegiance. I am not speaking of dual citizenship, but of a situation where Chinese naturalized as Filipinos seem to continue to subscribe to another allegiance than that required by their Filipino citizenship.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer, the proponent of the amendment seems to classify dual allegiance as a mala in se. It is an act that is by itself prohibited without requiring a law. Is that the intention of the proponent?
MR. OPLE: Yes, it is that, plus my submission that as a political and sociological problem, the problem of dual allegiance has not been sufficiently explored and investigated, maybe because it is not socially very comfortable and convenient to look into this more deeply. That the problem exists is, however, acknowledged by many people, and I really see no reason why the Committee on Citizenship should not make an exception of this proposed amendment and consider it for inclusion as a separate section in the Article on Citizenship since it does address what many people think is a fundamental problem with implications for our sovereignty and security at this time.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer, if it is the intention of the proponent to classify dual allegiance almost like a crime, as it is apparently the intendment of his proposal, would it not belong, as a proper subject, to the domain of the legislature?
MR. OPLE: Yes, actually, it is a mandate on future legislatures to deal with this problem as they see fit.
MS. AQUINO: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. VILLACORTA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. REGALADO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Villacorta is recognized.
MR. VILLACORTA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I would like to ask the proponent, Commissioner Ople, a question.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Ople may yield, if he so desires.
MR. OPLE: Yes, very gladly, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. VILLACORTA: I would like to know whether this amendment is also addressed to natural-born Filipinos with dual allegiance. There are Filipinos who espouse statehood. Would they be included in the intention of the Commissioner's amendment?
MR. OPLE: It does not really extend the definition to its farthest limits, Mr. Presiding Officer, but if these are natural-born Filipinos who espouse statehood, I think there should be a presumption in favor of good faith, which means that if one enters another domain of values which is a plurality of beliefs and, perhaps, freedom of speech and freedom of expression but where dual allegiance is detected by a future legislature to be embraced in a future definition of what constitutes dual allegiance, then I will not say that these natural-born Filipinos will be entirely excluded from the ambit of dual allegiance. But as I said, it will be taking the definition to its farthest limits.
MR. VILLACORTA: I see. In that case, I fully support this amendment.
Thank you.
MR. OPLE: Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Regalado is recognized, after which Commissioners Guingona, Rodrigo and Monsod will follow.
MR. REGALADO: Mr. Presiding Officer, will the proponent of the amendment clarify a few questions.
MR. OPLE: Very willingly, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. REGALADO: The Commissioner has stated that insofar as the concept of dual citizenship is concerned, that seems to be settled because it is a matter of political law and cognizance, but the matter of dual allegiance, as the Commissioner said, has not even been carefully considered either from the legal, sociological, psychological or psychiatric aspect. Did I get him correctly?
MR. OPLE: Yes, not to the farthest extent that the importance of the problem deserves, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. REGALADO: And did I get the Commissioner correctly that this is also to mean that when we speak of dual allegiance, there are operative acts, as Commissioner Aquino has stated, which have to be studied to determine whether these acts are, in effect, a manifestation of loyalty or preference for a particular country?
MR. OPLE: That is the reason we are calling on future legislature to study this problem further and to deal with it in accordance with law and with the national interest in mind.
MR. REGALADO: Mr. Presiding Officer, we are asked to consider a constitutional provision which involves the phrase "dual allegiance," the particular facts, causative effects and motivation of which I assume the Members of the Commission are not yet in a position to consider for lack of any legislative criteria or empirical data.
MR. OPLE: I have given some examples, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. REGALADO: Commissioner Ople has mentioned the Chinese naturalized as Filipino citizens who go to Taipei on the occasion of the Double Ten, which to them is a major political event. We also have Filipinos abroad who are naturalized American citizens but who are also extremely concerned with certain major political events in the Philippines. If they should come here regularly for that purpose, for instance on June 12, and because the Filipino blood still runs in their veins; would that also be, in effect, or in pari materia, the same consideration that we would call dual allegiance?
MR. OPLE: I do not know how American law would construe that. But I think if we reverse the example where Filipino-Chinese join in the mass oath-taking and pledge of allegiance in Taipei on the occasion of the Double Ten, which is equivalent to Filipinos naturalized as American citizens who swear allegiance to the United States, then that would be one of the acts, I suppose, that could be encompassed by the phrase "dual allegiance." But I have been very candid from the beginning that this proposed amendment was inspired by a now general perception in our country that some of the Chinese we have naturalized continue to show an unsettled kind of sentiment about this country that they continue to manifest in several ways what appears to be a second allegiance to another country close to them by history and by consanguinity. This is exactly what we hope is a very real problem this proposed amendment seeks to address through a constitutional provision.
MR. REGALADO: Would the Commissioner, therefore, be more prone to underscore the concept of dual allegiance from the standpoint of a manifestation of political rather than of economic allegiance to another country?
MR. OPLE: Political allegiance is broad enough to accommodate the economic aspect. I speak in this memorandum to the Bernas Committee of the fact that some of the commercial places in Taipei, including the world's biggest hotel, are already owned by Filipinos of previous Chinese citizenship. If a future assembly investigate this phenomenon, then, I would discover interesting facts about dual allegiance which is exactly what we hope to put under constitutional and legislative control through this proposed amendment.
MR. REGALADO: Since the sponsor of this resolution opts to have this the subject of ordinary legislation instead of to take official cognizance of this matter and try to vote for a conclusion on the basis of unknown premises, would it not be better instead — and I am sure the members of our future legislature will have by themselves taken cognizance of our concern expressed here on this floor — if we trust in their sagacity to take it upon themselves to make a legislative study on the matter because then they have more facilities, more time and more data they could collate?
MR. OPLE: Mr. Presiding Officer, we are not pre-empting the future legislature; we are merely giving them a mandate. It is the task of a constitution to send mandates for the future and I think this issue is important enough to be a subject of one of those mandates.
MR. REGALADO: Will the Commissioner recommend that if the future legislative body eventually comes up with what it conceives as the proper conception of dual allegiance, that fact would also be a sufficient ground to divest that naturalized Filipino citizen of his citizenship?
MR. OPLE: I do not want to pre-empt the wisdom of future legislatures. In effect, what we merely see is not to settle this problem now because we are humble and realistic enough to admit that this is a great problem, and our knowledge about it is fairly limited and circumscribed. So, we are content to see constitutional cognizance of the problem and would like future law-makers to address the implementation.
MR. REGALADO: I will rephrase my question. The Commissioner said this matter of dual allegiance is one of extreme gravity. Will he agree to the proposition that a recommendation be made to the future legislature that an act of dual allegiance by a naturalized Filipino citizen will be a ground for his denaturalization?
MR. OPLE: Yes, that would probably make this citizenship provision more meaningful, but I am afraid it will increase the jeopardy for this amendment in the hands of the Bernas Committee.
MR. REGALADO: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Guingona is recognized.
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer. The honorable Members of this Commission know that I have expressed a strong stand against dual citizenship. I would just like to make one comment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Guingona may please proceed.
MR. GUINGONA: The primary concern this time is the ill effects that might be brought about by dual allegiance, therefore, I strongly support the proposed amendment of Honorable Blas Ople. This is a minor point but I wonder if the Commissioner is willing to change the word "obnoxious" to INCONSISTENT WITH.
MR. OPLE: So, it would read: "DUAL ALLEGIANCE IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE NATIONAL INTEREST." The Commissioner's original proposal was to change it to "INIMICAL."
MR. GUINGONA: I hear a lot of my fellow Commissioners use the word "inimical," so, I would change my amendment to INIMICAL.
MR. OPLE: So, it will now read: "DUAL ALLEGIANCE IS INIMICAL TO THE NATIONAL INTEREST AND SHALL BE DEALT WITH ACCORDING TO LAW."
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: Mr. Presiding Officer, I would like to ask a few questions. I observe that the issue between the sponsor and the proponent is not clear-cut. It seems that both the sponsor and the proponent consider dual allegiance undesirable. May I ask the sponsor if such is his stand?
FR. BERNAS: Yes, I said that.
MR. RODRIGO: And, of course, I do not have to ask the proponent that he also considers this undesirable. The sponsor wants this matter left to ordinary legislation. And the proponent also wants it "dealt with by law"; so, it is also by ordinary legislation. Is that correct?
MR. OPLE: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. RODRIGO: So, what is the difference between the stand of the sponsor and the proponent? Before I cast my vote, I would like to know just what the difference is.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): May we know to whom the question is addressed.
MR. OPLE: I think the sponsor wants to be fair to all those he turned down yesterday by also turning down this amendment.
FR. BERNAS: The only difference is this: The sponsor feels that it is unnecessary to state this that with or without this there is a mandate for the legislature to attend to it, and also he would like to make a vote of confidence in favor of the legislative committee, trusting that it will be able to structure a legislature as nationalistic and as patriotic, if not more so, as this body that will attend to this.
There is also another point: The proponent of the amendment does not seem to link allegiance with citizenship, because he says that if he links it with citizenship the jeopardy in the Bernas Committee increases. Actually, it is the Laurel Committee, not the Bernas Committee. Allegiance is either linked with citizenship or it is not. If it is linked with dual citizenship, then it is already attended to by our position that dual citizenship be attended to by ordinary legislation. If it is not linked with citizenship, then it has no place in the Article on Citizenship.
MR. RODRIGO: What does the proponent say to that? Before I vote, I want to know: Ano ba ang pagkakaiba?
MR. OPLE: This is linked to citizenship in the original version before I accepted the Sarmiento amendment. Actually, it reads: "DUAL ALLEGIANCE IS OBNOXIOUS TO CITIZENSHIP," until it was replaced by "NATIONAL INTEREST." We speak of a problem that in order to understand its importance, we really should locate it in the area of citizenship, because we generally speak of newly naturalized Filipinos who continue to manifest dual allegiance. Although we cannot be too detailed in a constitutional provision, that is in the immediate as well as in the distant background of this proposed amendment, Mr. Presiding Officer. So it is linked to citizenship.
MR. RODRIGO: Thank you. I am still a little confused.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: Will the honorable Commissioner yield to a few questions?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Ople may yield, if he so desires.
MR. OPLE: Gladly, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. MONSOD: I assume that when we say "dual allegiance is obnoxious to citizenship," any act that promotes, cultivates or manifests dual allegiance is obnoxious.
MR. OPLE: Yes, obnoxious, pernicious, repugnant. inimical, offensive.
MR. MONSOD: Will the presence of such a provision in our Constitution be an inhibiting provision, or will it prohibit us from trying to attract our balikbayans back who have acquired American citizenship to reinvest and reestablish their linkages with their former country?
MR. OPLE: No, Mr. Presiding Officer. As a matter of fact, I recall that during the freewheeling debates under the auspices of the Committee on Citizenship, I had stressed that very point — that we should make it as easy as possible for Filipinos, who out of necessity had adopted foreign citizenship but who have shown contrition in later years, to repossess their birthright of Filipino citizenship. I had the assurance of the sponsor then that that is not a problem because all that that citizen has to do is to take his oath. But that is not one of those contingencies foreseen here.
MR. MONSOD: No, Mr. Presiding Officer, I was not referring to any act that would attract them back to reacquire or choose Filipino citizenship. I am referring to our own programs of attracting them to invest or to visit, to renew their ties with their former country by which acts would show, in effect, allegiance to the Philippines. My clarificatory question really is: Will this provision now prohibit us, as a matter of principle, from instituting programs such as these?
MR. OPLE: No, dual allegiance is involved in that case, according to the concept of the proposed amendment, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. MONSOD: Thank you.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer, I ask that Commissioner Bacani be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: Will Commissioner Ople yield to two questions?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Ople may yield, if he so desires.
MR. OPLE: Very gladly.
BISHOP BACANI: Mr. Presiding Officer, does citizenship always include allegiance?
MR. OPLE: Yes.
BISHOP BACANI: Therefore, if we have dual citizenship, we have dual allegiance.
MR. OPLE: Allegiance at the formal level. There is another allegiance at an inner and deeper level — formality versus the authentic sentiment of the citizen. I said that dual citizenship is a formality; I am not disturbed by it. It is often a function of an accident, say, a mixed marriage or birth in a foreign soil. There is nothing insidious in it; there is nothing in it that threatens national security or sovereignty.
BISHOP BACANI: Yes, but if every citizenship includes allegiance, if we deny dual allegiance, we also deny dual citizenship. Is this not yet foreclosed by the interpretation of Section 2?
MR. OPLE: Actually, I think the future legislature that will deal with this problem of dual allegiance will address many specific borderline cases, and all I am saying is there is no necessary correlation between dual allegiance and dual citizenship.
In dual allegiance, there can be malice, or an insidious threat to our sovereignty and security. But in dual citizenship, especially for those Filipinos born in American soil and have become American citizens as a consequence thereof, I will not read any embarrassment of a dual allegiance in that situation. I think dual allegiance, as interpreted in this amendment, refers to more insidious acts than merely the accident — whether welcome or unwelcome — of a dual citizenship occurring out of mixed marriages or birth in a foreign soil.
BISHOP BACANI: At any rate, if it is formal allegiance, I wonder whether or not we could really regulate that by law because we are making that distinction.
MR. OPLE: I think that part of it will have to be treated as an exceptional case, where Filipino children born in the United States, for example, because of the jus soli doctrine there, have to grow up having, in effect, dual citizenship, although upon the attainment of maturity, that dilemma, if dual allegiance exists, can actually be overcome by election by this particular person as to whether to become a Filipino or an American citizen.
BISHOP BACANI: Just one last question. When the Gentleman speaks of dual allegiance, does he mean two contradictory allegiances or two complimentary allegiances?
MR. OPLE: I speak of dual allegiance in a way that it is offensive to the national interest. Therefore, very largely it probably would encompass what one may call conflicting allegiances and occasionally sympathetic allegiance also.
BISHOP BACANI: Thank you very much.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I ask that Commissioner Villacorta be recognized?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Villacorta is recognized
MR. VILLACORTA: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I address a question to Commissioner Bernas first and to Commissioner Ople later?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Yes, please proceed.
MR. VILLACORTA: In the 1973 Constitution, there is an Article on Duties and Obligations of Citizens. Is that within the purview of the Committee as well?
FR. BERNAS: It is within the purview of the Committee.
MR. VILLACORTA: I see, thank you.
May I address my question to Commissioner Ople?
MR. OPLE: Yes.
MR. VILLACORTA: As I said while I fully support the amendment, does not the sponsor think that this amendment properly belongs to the Article on Duties and Obligations of Citizens? May I read the relevant section:
It shall be the duty of the citizen to be loyal to the Republic and to honor the Philippine flag, to defend the State and contribute to its development and welfare, to uphold the Constitution and obey the laws, and to cooperate with the duly constituted authorities in the attainment and preservation of a just and orderly society.
Cannot the Gentleman's amendment be incorporated in this section?
MR. OPLE: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
I appreciate that there is indeed a linkage to the obligations and duties of citizenship, but I would prefer not to decouple it right now from the Article on Citizenship and the jurisdiction of the Bernas Committee.
MR. VILLACORTA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I just would like to express my frustration in having to spend so much time arguing the importance of singular allegiance to a country. I wonder if similar constitution-making bodies of other countries would have to spend so much time. Why do we have to convince our colleagues that singular allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines is as fundamental as the civil rights of citizens? It is part of the obligation of every citizen to render allegiance to only one country. I do not know why we have to argue on this.
Thank you.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: Since the sponsor did not accept the proposed amendment, and on the observation that there are no other discussants on the proposed amendment, I move that we proceed to vote on the amendment of Commissioner Ople.
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: I still have an amendment to the proposed amendment, if the proponent will accept.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Will the Gentleman please state his amendment to the proposed amendment?
MR. DAVIDE: The proposed amendment is, after "ALLEGIANCE," insert the words OF CITIZENS then delete "OBNOXIOUS TO CITIZENSHIP," and in lieu thereof insert the word PROHIBITED; between "WITH" and "BY" on the third line, insert the word SEVERELY, so that the entire proposed new section would read: "DUAL ALLEGIANCE OF CITIZENS IS PROHIBITED AND SHALL BE DEALT WITH SEVERELY BY LAW."
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): What does the proponent of the amendment say?
MR. OPLE: I accept the first part of the amendment and decline the rest.
With the permission of those who have submitted their previous amendments and were accepted, the following is a partial satisfaction of Commissioner Davide's proposed amendment: "DUAL ALLEGIANCE OF CITIZENS IS PROHIBITED AND SHALL BE DEALT WITH BY LAW."
MR. DAVIDE: As modified by the proponent himself, I will accept. But it is understood very clearly that after "ALLEGIANCE" we have to insert the words OF CITIZENS.
MR. OPLE: There are some objections from other Members who have a vested right on amendments already approved. They asked why "national interest" has disappeared from the text. And, therefore, especially upon the prompting of Commissioner Nolledo and following what they consider as the trend of general advice among kibitzers around me, I am now compelled to decline the proposed amendment of Commissioner Davide and will adhere to the original amendment, as amended.
MR. DAVIDE: Then may I be allowed to explain?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): The Chair is suspending the session to give the proponent of the amendment and all those who want to introduce amendments to the amendment time to talk these things over.
It was 4:01 p.m.
At 4:02 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): The session is resumed.
MR. OPLE: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: With the permission of the sponsor, may I read the final text of this proposed amendment, as amended, and it reads as follows: "DUAL ALLEGIANCE OF CITIZENS IS INIMICAL TO THE NATIONAL INTEREST AND SHALL BE DEALT WITH BY LAW."
I move for a vote.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Now that the amendment has been amended, is the proponent still insisting on his stand?
FR. BERNAS: The position of the proponent is that this should be a matter for ordinary legislation and need not be provided for in the Constitution.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): So we put this to a vote.
FR. BERNAS: Yes.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Those in favor of the Ople amendment, as amended, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand)
Those against the amendment, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
The results show 23 votes in favor and 12 against; the Ople amendment, as amended, is approved.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer, may we ask if there are other proponents of amendments to Committee Report No. 4.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Who are the other proponents of amendments? Are there anymore?
Commissioner Bacani is recognized to introduce amendments. Commissioner Treñas will follow.
BISHOP BACANI: May I ask the proponent if he would agree with an amendment which would say at the end: BOTH NATURALIZED AND NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS SHALL HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS BEFORE THE LAW.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): What is the reaction of the sponsor?
FR. BERNAS: This is a matter that was taken up by the Committee. As a matter of fact, there was a specific proposal to this effect. The position of the Committee is that this is unnecessary because it is established in existing jurisprudence that natural-born citizens and naturalized citizens are to be treated equally except in those cases where the Constitution itself makes a distinction. The position of the Committee is that this is unnecessary; it is adequately covered by the equal protection clause of the Bill of Rights.
BISHOP BACANI: Yes, but the intention of the amendment is that even in those cases which are mentioned by the Constitution, the distinctions would be eliminated. The Constitution would not place such distinctions because they would seem to be classifying citizens into first-class and second-class citizens.
FR. BERNAS: In such a case, therefore, the position would be that this matter should be taken up when a distinction is made in a specific provision. For instance, when we come to the Article on the Executive, if the proponents on the Executive say that a President must be a natural-born citizen, then that is the time to propose the amendment.
BISHOP BACANI: Is it not possible to decide that matter in advance in this Article?
FR. BERNAS: I would prefer not to preempt the other committees.
BISHOP BACANI: Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Is there any other amendment? Commissioner Treñas is recognized.
MR. TREÑAS: Mr. Presiding Officer, the sponsor will recall that yesterday I presented an amendment to subsection 3 of Section 1 which he asked to be deferred pending consideration of Section 4. May I now know the status of my proposed a amendment?
MR. TREÑAS: Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): What is the amendment? Will the Gentleman please state his amendment?
MR. NOLLEDO: May I know the proposed amendment, please?
MR. TREÑAS: The proposed amendment on Section 3 should read: THOSE BORN BEFORE JANUARY 17, 1973 WHOSE MOTHERS ARE CITIZENS OF THE PHILIPPINES AND UPON REACHING THE AGE OF MAJORITY ELECT PHILIPPINE CITIZENSHIP.
MR. NOLLEDO: I would like to know the status of children who were born before January 17, 1973 but because they have not yet reached the age of majority, they have not elected Philippine citizenship. Are they covered?
MR. TREÑAS: They are covered.
FR. BERNAS: Yes, they are covered.
MR. NOLLEDO: So, they will be considered natural-born citizens.
MR. TREÑAS: Yes.
FR. BERNAS: Yes. So, my position is, unless somebody in my Committee objects to that amendment, I would accept the amendment.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is approved.
The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer, if there are no other amendments, I move to terminate the period of amendments.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
RESOLUTION NO. 7 ON SECOND READING
(Article on Citizenship)
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer, I move that we proceed to vote on Committee Report No. 4, as amended, on Second Reading.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
We shall now vote on the Article on Citizenship.
MS. AQUINO: Mr. Presiding Officer, may we request the sponsor to read the entire Article, as amended.
FR. BERNAS: The Article will now read:
CITIZENSHIP
Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines:
1) Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this Constitution;
2) Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines;
3) Those born before January 17, 1973 of Filipino mothers, who upon reaching the age of majority elect Philippine citizenship; and
4) Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
Section 2. Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship, unless by their act or omission they are deemed, under the law, to have renounced their citizenship.
Section 3. Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law.
Section 4. Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship: Provided, has That those who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with Section 1, paragraph 3 above shall also be deemed natural-born citizen.
Section 5. Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Is the body now ready to vote?
Those in favor of the Article on Citizenship, as amended, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
Those against, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
The results show 35 votes in favor and 3 against.
Proposed Resolution No. 7, the Article on Citizenship, as amended, is hereby approved. (Applause)
May we know from the Acting Floor Leader what is next?
CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED
(Article on Amendment or Revision)
PERIOD OF SPONSORSHIP AND DEBATE
MS. AQUINO: I move that we consider Committee Report No. 7 on Proposed Resolution No. 322 as reported out by the Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
Consideration of Proposed Resolution No. 322 is now in order. With the permission of the body, the Secretary-General will read only the title of the proposed resolution without prejudice to inserting in the Record the whole text thereof.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: Proposed Resolution No. 322, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCLUDE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION AN ARTICLE PROVIDING THE PROCEDURE FOR ITS AMENDMENTS.(The following is the whole text of the substitute resolution per C.R. No. 7.)
The Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions to which was referred Proposed Resolution No. 148, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCLUDE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION AN ARTICLE PROVIDING THE PROCEDURE FOR ITS AMENDMENTS,
has considered the same and has the honor to report it back to the Constitutional Commission of 1986 with the recommendation that Proposed Resolution No. 322 prepared by the Committee, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCLUDE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION AN ARTICLE PROVIDING THE PROCEDURE FOR ITS AMENDMENTS,
be approved in substitution for Proposed Resolution No. 148, subject to the reservation that Section 1 (c)of this substitute resolution shall only be incorporated if and when Proposed Resolution No. 161 is approved by the Committee on Citizenship, Bill of Rights, Political Rights and Obligations and Human Rights, with the Honorable Suarez, Honorable Jamir, and the members of the Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions as authors thereof.
Chairman
Committee on Amendments and
Transitory Provisions
PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 322
(Substitute Resolution)
RESOLUTION TO INCLUDE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION AN ARTICLE PROVIDING THE PROCEDURE FOR ITS AMENDMENTS.
Be it resolved by the Constitutional Commission in plenary session assembled, To incorporate and provide in the new Constitution the following article:
AMENDMENT OR REVISION
Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed:
(a) by the National Assembly upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members; or
(b) by a constitutional convention; or
(c) directly by the people themselves thru initiative as provided for in Article ___ Section ____ of the Constitution.
Section 2. The National Assembly may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its Members, call a constitutional convention, or by a majority vote of all its Members, submit the question of calling such a convention to the electorate.
Section 3. Any amendment to, or revision of this Constitution shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days and not later than ninety days after the approval of such amendment or revision.
MS. AQUINO: May I request the recognition of the sponsor, Commissioner Suarez.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): The Chair declares a suspension of the session.
It was 4:14 p.m.
At 4:31 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): The session is resumed.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that the sponsor, Commissioner Suarez, be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes). The sponsor, Commissioner Suarez, is recognized.
OF COMMISSIONER SUAREZ
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
Ladies and gentlemen of the Constitutional Commission, in behalf of the Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions, I would like to ask for the consideration by the Commission of Committee Report No. 7 concerning the matter of amendment or revision to the Constitution. It is proposed that said Article on Amendment or Revision will read as follows:
Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed:
| (a) | by the National Assembly upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members; or |
| (b) | by a constitutional convention; or |
| (c) | directly by the people themselves thru initiative as provided for in Article ___ Section ____ of the Constitution. |
Section 2. The National Assembly may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its Members, call a constitutional convention, or by a majority vote of all its Members, submit the question of calling such a convention to the electorate.
Section 3. Any amendment to, or revision of this Constitution shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite which shall be held not earlier than sixty days and not later than ninety days after the approval of such amendment or revision.
Mr. Presiding Officer, the proposal is substantially adopted from the provisions on Amendments appearing under the 1973 Constitution, and we took into account also the draft submitted by the scholars of the University of the Philippines, but we introduced one innovative method of amendment and this was sponsored by the Honorable Ople. We are referring to the third method of amendment by a direct action of the people themselves through the system of initiative.
We would like to call the attention of the Commission to Proposed Resolution No. 161 authored by the Presiding Officer this evening, governing the system of recall, initiative and referendum. This has been submitted to the Committee on Citizenship, Bill of Rights, Political Rights and Obligations and Human Rights. So, our innovative method of proposing amendments to the Constitution by way of initiative necessarily must have to depend upon the results of the discussions and deliberations on this Proposed Resolution No. 161.
One of the problems met by the Committee is the frequency in the adoption of proposals for the amendment of the Constitution as related to the happenings during the martial law regime. The Members will recall that insofar as the 1935 Constitution is concerned, there were only three substantial amendments that were introduced up to the year 1971. The first one was effected sometime in 1937, and that placed the women on equal terms with the macho population when the right of suffrage was extended to women for the first time. And then in 1940, another amendment was introduced extending the terms of the President and Vice-President. In other words, from the original six-year term without reelection, an amendment was introduced, initiated by President Quezon, giving the President a tenure of four years subject to one reelection, without further reelection after that. At the same time, a bicameral system of legislature was introduced and the independent Commission on Elections was organized and established.
The third amendment of the 1935 Constitution was effected sometime in 1946 and it was known as the parity rights amendment. However, during the Marcos administration, by virtue of Proclamation No. 1102, the 1973 Constitution was formally adopted as the Constitution of the country after it was ratified through the citizens assemblies conducted in the early part of January.
Several amendments, a series of amendments, as a matter of fact, were introduced and ratified by the people in the form of citizens assemblies, referenda and plebiscites. I think about nine amendments altogether, if not more, were introduced during the period from 1973 up to 1984. So, the difficulty in preventing the frequency in proposing amendments to the Constitution was resolved by the Committee in the following manner: by introducing and/or reintroducing the requirement that the National Assembly can propose an amendment to the Constitution by constituting itself as a constituent assembly but with a required vote of three-fourths of all its members. The matter of calling a constitutional convention necessitates a vote of two-thirds of all its members, or alternatively, by a majority vote of all its members, it may submit the question of calling a constitutional convention to the electorate. We wanted to make the amendment process more difficult. Thus, we came up with the proposal, in the case of the method of amendment thru the people's initiative, a five-year prohibitory period.
The other problem that was before the Committee was relative to the use of the terms "election," "plebiscite" or "referendum." The word "election" was used under the 1935 Constitution. The word "referendum" was very much abused during the Marcos regime. It acquired some unsavory connotations. The Committee finally agreed on the use of the term "plebiscite" which we feel is more appropriate under the circumstances. And so, the Members will notice that under Section 3, it is proposed that any amendment or revision to this Constitution shall be valid when ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite.
The other issue resolved was the matter of determining when the plebiscite should be conducted or held. Again, we go back to the incidents which happened during the Marcos regime wherein many proposals to amend such a vital and supreme document as the Constitution were submitted to the people without giving them adequate opportunity to study thoroughly and at length said proposals. So, it was proposed that a period be established as to when the plebiscite should be held. We came up with the proposal that such a plebiscite should be held not earlier than 60 days and not later than 90 days after the approval of such amendment or revision. The obvious purpose is to enable the voting population to study and analyze the proposals submitted for the amendment of our Constitution.
The other matter that was taken up before the Committee was the distinction between the word "revision" and "amendment." Proposals were submitted that only the word "amendment" should be used just like in the 1973 Constitution. In our proposal, this Article has been captioned "AMENDMENT OR REVISION."
MR. RODRIGO: Mr. Presiding Officer. I am sorry to interrupt.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: May I ask a question?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes.
MR. RODRIGO: In the report of the Committee, there are two proposed resolutions: Proposed Resolution Nos. 322 and 148.
The sponsor mentioned "initiative" as one of the proposed methods of a amending, is that right?
MR. SUAREZ: That is right, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. RODRIGO: That is in Proposed Resolution No. 322?
MR. SUAREZ: That is right, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. RODRIGO: But that is not in Proposed Resolution No. 148?
MR. SUAREZ: That is correct.
MR. RODRIGO: On the other hand, the sponsor is now talking about the time when the plebiscite should be called.
MR. SUAREZ: Yes.
MR. RODRIGO: And that is in Proposed Resolution No. 148, but not in Proposed Resolution No. 322. Does not the sponsor have a consolidated report of the Committee?
MR. SUAREZ: It is consolidated under Proposed Resolution No. 322.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: I would like to raise a point of parliamentary inquiry.
MR. SUAREZ: Yes.
MR. MAAMBONG: Is the sponsorship speech terminated already? Are we now in the period of interpellations?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): The sponsor agreed to be interpellated in the course of his speech, but he is not yet through with his sponsorship.
MR. SUAREZ: Not yet. I have one more point.
MR. MAAMBONG: For purposes of orderliness, Mr. Presiding Officer, may I suggest that the sponsor be allowed to finish his sponsorship speech and that the period of interpellations proceed afterwards.
Thank you.
MR. RODRIGO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: I think anybody can interrupt the sponsor, if he agrees. The reason I interrupted is that I got lost while following the sponsorship speech. I cannot wait until the sponsor is finished because right now I am at a loss. This is the time to find myself.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Does Commissioner Suarez want to finish his sponsorship speech or does he agree to be interpellated in the course of his speech?
MR. SUAREZ: May I now lead Commissioner Rodrigo to the right direction?
MR. RODRIGO: Yes, please.
MR. SUAREZ: I am using Proposed Resolution No. 322 as my guide in discussing the matter.
MR. RODRIGO: Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): The sponsor may proceed with his sponsorship speech on Proposed Resolution No. 322.
MR. SUAREZ: One more point, and we will be through.
We mentioned the possible use of only one term and that is, "amendment." However, the Committee finally agreed to use the terms — "amendment" or "revision" when our attention was called by the honorable Vice-President to the substantial difference in the connotation and significance between the said terms. As a result of our research, we came up with the observations made in the famous — or notorious — Javellana doctrine, particularly the decision rendered by Honorable Justice Makasiar, wherein he made the following distinction between "amendment and "revision" of an existing Constitution: "Revision" may involve a rewriting of the whole Constitution. On the other hand, the act of amending a constitution envisages a change of specific provisions only. The intention of an act to amend is not the change of the entire Constitution, but only the improvement of specific parts or the addition of provisions deemed essential as a consequence of new conditions or the elimination of parts already considered obsolete or unresponsive to the needs of the times.
The 1973 Constitution is not a mere amendment to the 1935 Constitution. It is a completely new fundamental Chapter embodying new political, social and economic concepts.
So, the Committee finally came up with the proposal that these two terms should be employed in the formulation of the Article governing amendments or revisions to the new Constitution.
Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. RODRIGO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: Will the Gentleman yield to some questions?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): The sponsor may yield, if he so desires.
MR. SUAREZ: With pleasure.
MR. RODRIGO: The innovation sought here is to give the people directly, through "initiative," the power to propose amendments to the Constitution. Section 1, paragraph (c) states: "as provided for in Article ____ Section ____ of the Constitution."
If I remember right, we took up this matter in the Committee on the Legislative this afternoon, but the proposal was confined to "initiative" regarding ordinary statutes, and not constitutional amendments. So, if that is the provision being referred to here, then Section I refers only to initiative to enact ordinary laws but not to amend the Constitution.
MR. SUAREZ: I am sorry; we were not aware of that situation because all along, we were under the impression that the system of initiative covered the entire spectrum of the Constitution. So, we labored under that thinking in coming up with this proposal.
MR. RODRIGO: I am just saying that this is what we took up in the Committee on the Legislative. I do not know if there are other provisions regarding "initiative" being considered in other committees.
MR. SUAREZ: We thank Commissioner Rodrigo for the information and we will take it upon ourselves to make the necessary representations with the Committee on the Legislative to take up this system of initiative.
MR. RODRIGO: If I remember right, that proposed provision on "initiative" stated that the people — by signatures of at least 10 percent of the registered voters in the last election — may directly initiate the passage of a piece of legislation. So, for ordinary legislation, the needed number of signatures is at least 10 percent.
In an amendment to the Constitution, does not the sponsor believe that the number must be more than 10 percent?
MR. SUAREZ: I can settle for 10 percent. Assuming that we have 25 million electors, that would mean a minimum of 2.5 million electors. That is no easy task.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Yes.
MR. SUAREZ: It is correct.
MR. RODRIGO: Section 1 of this proposed resolution states that the National Assembly needs only a plurality vote to enact a statute but needs a vote of three-fourths of all its Members to propose an amendment to the Constitution. So, the philosophy is very clear — that a bigger number of votes is needed to propose an amendment to the Constitution than to pass an ordinary statute.
MR. SUAREZ: We join the Commissioner in that regard.
MR. RODRIGO: If that is the case, should we not insist on a higher percentage of signatures for "initiative" in amendments to the Constitution than a mere 10 percent which is needed in a simple legislation?
MR. SUAREZ We spelled out the general rule that as much as possible, we should make the system of amendment rather difficult. So, if the Commissioner feels that 10 percent is inadequate, we would certainly be amenable to a higher percentage, provided that the right is not effectively suppressed.
MR. RODRIGO: But the sponsor said that even just 10 percent, which means 2.5 million votes, is very difficult to secure. What more if we increase this to 20 percent? Does not the sponsor think that since this is such an important provision, we should first know what article and section are referred to, before we can discuss this proposed amendment intelligently? Does not the sponsor think we should defer consideration of this provision until we know the article and section alluded to?
MR. SUAREZ That point can be properly deferred. I pointed out in my sponsorship speech that this system of recall, initiative or referendum has been covered by Proposed Resolution No. 161, which we understand has been referred to the Committee on Citizenship, Bill of Rights, Political Rights and Obligations and Human Rights chaired by Honorable Bernas.
MR. RODRIGO: I have no objection to the rest of the resolution, which is practically a reiteration of the present provisions of the 1973 Constitution.
Thank you very much.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): The following Commissioners have registered to interpellate: Commissioners Joaquin G. Bernas, Florenz D. Regalado and Felicitas S. Aquino. They will be recognized in that order.
Commissioner Bernas is recognized.
FR. BERNAS: Will the sponsor yield to just a few simple questions?
MR. SUAREZ: With pleasure.
FR. BERNAS: Do I understand the proponent as saying that the only thing substantially different in this proposal from the article and amendments in the 1973 Constitution is paragraph (c) of Section 1?
MR. SUAREZ: Substantially, yes.
FR. BERNAS: And in the light of the manifestations and interpellations made by Commissioner Rodrigo, is it our understanding then that we shall postpone interpellations on paragraph (c) of Section 1 until a proper formula is presented to the body?
MR. SUAREZ: The Commissioner is absolutely correct.
FR. BERNAS: Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Regalado is recognized.
MR. REGALADO: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
Will the sponsor yield to a few clarificatory questions?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): The sponsor may yield, if he so desires.
MR. SUAREZ: Yes.
MR. REGALADO: In the mode of amendment or revision under Section 1, paragraph (a), does this mean that the National Assembly meets as a constituent body and proposes the amendments or revisions by itself? Am I correct?
MR. SUAREZ: That is correct, as stated in Section 1 paragraph (a).
MR. REGALADO: With respect to calling a constitutional convention under paragraph (b), this would be possible only by a law enacted by the legislature upon a vote of two-thirds of its Members. Am I correct?
MR. SUAREZ: That is the one covered under Section 2.
MR. REGALADO: Yes, but that was mentioned in Section 2 with reference to Section 1, paragraph (b).
MR. SUAREZ: That is right.
MR. REGALADO: With respect to this clause which says:
. . . or by a majority vote of all its Members, submit the question of calling such a convention to the electorate, would this be in the nature of a referendum?
MR. SUAREZ: It could partake of the character of a referendum, except that the word "electorate" would point to the system of election.
MR. REGALADO: I also notice that both Sections 1 and 2 are premised on the anticipation that the Commission, not only the Committee, will opt for a unicameral body. In the event that a bicameral legislative body will carry the day, has the Committee prepared contingency proposals or resolutions?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, in that situation, we would propose to include the words IN JOINT SESSION ASSEMBLED.
MR. REGALADO: But still maintaining the same number of votes?
MR. SUAREZ: The Commissioner is right.
MR. REGALADO: Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
Am I correct in understanding that the premise of the Commissioner's recommendation in subparagraph (c), Section 1, is the same resolution on referendum and initiative petitions that was discussed by the Committee on the Legislative?
MR. SUAREZ: I am referring specifically to the Proposed Resolution No. 161, but I do not know whether it is the same resolution referred to the Committee on the Legislative.
MS. AQUINO: Do I understand it correctly that sub-paragraph (c) of Article ___, Section ____, of Section I refers to the initiative and referendum petitions that we have previously referred to?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, I mean the legislative power.
MS. AQUINO: Has the sponsor been previously advised by Commissioner Rodrigo that the Committee on the Legislative has decided on vesting legislative power also in the people by way of referendum and initiative petitions?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes.
MS. AQUINO: And that is confined to matters of ordinary legislation?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes.
MS. AQUINO: Do I understand it correctly that even if the body favorably considers the recommendatory conclusions of the Committee on the Legislative that referendum and initiative petitions refer only to legislation, the Committee would still insist on empowering the people as a constituent assembly to propose amendments to the Constitution?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes.
MS. AQUINO: Thank you, and I also thank the Presiding Officer.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Davide is the next interpellator, followed by Commissioner Bengzon.
MR. DAVIDE: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
Will the distinguished sponsor yield to some clarificatory questions.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER: (Mr. de los Reyes): The sponsor may yield, if he so desires.
MR. SUAREZ: With pleasure.
MR. DAVIDE: Thank you.
I will proceed directly to Section 3, on the holding of plebiscite, which states:
. . . which shall be held not earlier than sixty days and not later than ninety days after the approval of such amendment or revision.
Whose approval is needed here?
MR. SUAREZ: Approval by the National Assembly or by the constitutional convention.
MR. DAVIDE: In other words, the sponsor now wants that the entire wording of the proposed Section 3 of the original Resolution No. 148 be incorporated here because it specifically provides for the National Assembly or the constitutional convention. But in the substitute resolution, the words "by the national assembly or the constitutional convention" have been deleted.
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, because it was felt that it was already understood-that the approval of such amendment or revision could only emanate from either the National Assembly or the constitutional convention.
MR. DAVIDE: But does not the sponsor believe that we should restore the phrase "by the national assembly or the constitutional convention" to make it really very clear and specific for purposes of computing the period?
MR. SUAREZ: We certainly would have no objection to that because we were the proponents of that resolution.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes. We now go to Section 2.
The last clause provides: "submit the question of calling such a convention to the electorate." In his answer, the sponsor adverted to the possibility of a referendum or a plebiscite.
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, depending upon the National Assembly.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes. But as worded in the 1973 Constitution, it is very clear that the submission of the question calling such a convention to the electorate must be done in an election.
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, but right now, because of the initiation of the system of initiative, recall and referendum, we are amenable to entertaining the possibility that it would assume the form of a referendum.
MR. DAVIDE: I see, but on the assumption that we will not allow the constitutional amendment or revision to be initiated by the people, it is necessary that we also restore the words "in an election."
MR. SUAREZ: The Committee agrees.
MR. DAVIDE: If the National Assembly is authorized by a vote of two-thirds of all its Members to call a constitutional convention, would it not be proper to make it mandatory that the National Assembly be provided with appropriations for that convention?
MR. SUAREZ: It may not be necessary at all because that is supposed to be already built-in when the National Assembly calls the constitutional convention. Normally, it should already provide for the appropriations for such purpose.
MR. DAVIDE: But it may not. The law may only provide for the calling of a constitutional convention and later another law may provide for the appropriations for the convention.
MR. SUAREZ: We will entertain amendments reflecting the Commissioner's idea on the matter.
MR. DAVIDE: Again on Section 2, on the submission of the question of calling a constitutional convention to the electorate, would this certainly be by a vote of a majority of all the votes cast in either election, referendum or plebiscite?
MR. SUAREZ: The Commissioner is right.
MR. DAVIDE: But necessarily it cannot be implemented unless the National Assembly must also be mandated to provide for the appropriations for that convention whose calling was voted upon favorably by the people.
MR. SUAREZ: The Commissioner is right.
MR. DAVIDE: I would like to inform the Committee and the sponsor that the initiative provided for in the proposed Article on National Assembly, as correctly stated by Commissioners Rodrigo and Aquino, is limited to initiation of legislations. And the National Assembly is mandated to provide, by ordinary legislation, the execution of the concept so that it could be carried out with certain limitations. The basic resolutions providing for initiative and referendum, more particularly the resolutions of Commissioner Romulo, et al and Commissioner Garcia, et al, limit the scope of initiative and referendum.
MR. SUAREZ: Will the Gentleman entertain a reverse interpellation?
MR. DAVIDE: If the Rules provides, I am willing to yield.
MR. SUAREZ: Would the Gentleman consider in this committee deliberations the inclusion of this particular idea as a committee resolution?
MR. DAVIDE: If the Committee on Transitory Provisions would insist on amendments by or through initiative, a proposal in this respect really properly belongs to the Committee on Transitory Provisions or as an exception to what is provided for in the Article on the Legislative.
MR. SUAREZ: So we take it that the Gentleman would rather leave the matter of "percentaging" to the Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions?
MR. DAVIDE: And the Commission.
MR. SUAREZ: I thank the distinguished Commissioner.
MR. DAVIDE: Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: For the record, Section 2, lines 17 and 18 states: ". . .submit the question of calling such a convention to the electorate." The interpretation or the Gentleman's contemplation here is that such a question, if it is decided to be submitted to the electorate, will have to wait for the next election. Am I correct?
MR. SUAREZ: That is right. The provision practically considers the possibility of avoiding expensive referendums or plebiscites. So, that is the general sense meant to be conveyed by the employment of this phrase "in an election" which does not now appear here.
MR. BENGZON: Regarding Section 1, paragraph (c), does the Gentleman agree that this mode of amending or revising a constitution is very complicated and very difficult to follow, particularly because it should require, perhaps, a greater number of percentage than the ordinary mode of initiative by legislation?
MR. SUAREZ: We agree to the difficulty in implementing this particular provision, but we are providing a channel for the expression of the sovereign will of the people through this initiative system.
MR. BENGZON: Is Section 1, paragraphs (a) and (b), not sufficient channel for expression of the will of the people, particularly in the amendment or revision of the Constitution?
MR. SUAREZ: Under normal circumstances, yes. But we know what happened during the 20 years under the Marcos administration. So, if the National Assembly, in a manner of speaking, is operating under the thumb of the Prime Minister or the President as the case may be, and the required number of votes could not be obtained, we would have to provide for a safety valve in order that the people could ventilate in a very peaceful way their desire for amendment to the Constitution.
It is very possible that although the people may be pressuring the National Assembly to constitute itself as a constituent assembly or to call a constitutional convention, the members thereof would not heed the people's desire and clamor. So, this is a third avenue that we are providing for the implementation of what is now popularly known as the people's power.
MR. BENGZON: In view of the awakening of the people of the Philippines, does the Gentleman agree that the events that took place in the past few years are very unlikely to be repeated in the future?
MR. SUAREZ: The Gentleman may be right, but it is also likely that these could again happen in the near future.
MR. BENGZON: Because we seem to be laboring under that particular syndrome of the traumatic experiences we had in the last 20 years. Perhaps, our minds and our eyes are just focused on those events and we forget that there are other circumstances that will take place.
I was about to suggest that if, indeed, Section 1, paragraphs (a) and (b) are sufficient avenues and channels for the people of the Philippines to amend the Constitution — as they have been historically tested without regard to the events of the recent past — perhaps the Committee might reconsider its decision in just confining itself to proposing Section 1, paragraphs (a) and (b), and doing away with paragraph (c). Is there a possibility that the mode of legislation by initiative will just be confined to the Article on the Legislative?
MR. SUAREZ: We would rather leave that to the Commission.
MR. BENGZON: So, at the proper time, perhaps during the period of amendments, this could be introduced.
MR. SUAREZ: Yes.
MR. BENGZON: I thank the distinguished Commissioner.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Azcuna is recognized, to be followed by Commissioner Ople and Commissioner Guingona.
MR. AZCUNA: Thank you.
Is the power to propose amendments or revisions to the Constitution legislative or constituent power?
MR. SUAREZ: I beg the Gentleman's pardon.
MR. AZCUNA: Is the power to propose amendments or revisions to the Constitution a legislative power or is it a different kind of power called a constituent power?
MR. SUAREZ: I would say it is a constituent power.
MR. AZCUNA: Therefore, a system of initiative or referendum provided for under the Article on the Legislative will not be the proper place to provide for the type of initiative the Gentleman has in mind since this is initiative as an exercise of a constituent power. Instead of referring to the legislative power provision which provides for initiative in making ordinary laws, I believe we should provide under this provision the exercise of constituent power. Perhaps, the Gentleman can already define here a manner in which this type of initiative as an exercise of constituent power can be made.
MR. SUAREZ: I take it that it is suggested even without depending upon the action that may be taken up in the Committee on the Legislative.
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer, I believe it is just proper because this is a constituent power and it belongs here.
MR. SUAREZ: In fact, Proposed Resolution No. 161 covers constitutional amendments to initiative.
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. SUAREZ: We will consider that.
MR. AZCUNA: I thank the honorable Commissioner.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: Mr. Presiding Officer, will the sponsor yield to a question?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): The sponsor may yield, if he so desires.
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, with pleasure to a member of our Committee.
MR. OPLE: Providentially, the previous remarks of Commissioner Azcuna and Commissioner Davide encouraged me to refer once again to this question on initiative as a new mode for proposing amendments to the Constitution. The sponsor was very kind to refer earlier to the fact that I sponsored this additional mode of proposing amendments to the Constitution in the Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions.
It looks like the Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions had been very courteous to the Committee on the Legislative and had hoped that this mode of proposing amendments through initiative, in addition to the older and traditional modes provided in the 1973 Constitution, could be dependent on the approval of a resolution in that body pertaining to the use of initiative, referendum and recall, with respect to legislation.
Will the Chairman of the Committee now consider the imminently reasonable proposals of Commissioners Azcuna and Davide to keep this an independent provision of the Article on Amendment so that this will not wait upon the action of the Legislative Committee?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, we will entertain that. As a matter of fact, by way of information, the Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions is scheduled to meet tomorrow morning between nine o'clock and twelve o'clock and we will take that matter up.
MR. OPLE: Moreover, Mr. Presiding Officer, I think Commissioner Bengzon had earlier raised the question of whether this new mode to proposing constitutional amendments which is untested could be deleted from the Article on Amendment on the ground that we may be experimenting with a mode of amendment that has no support in the past and which may be in the form of exaggerated reaction to what happened in the past. In response to Commissioner Bengzon's doubts, I think this is just the correct time in history when we should introduce an innovative mode of proposing amendments to the Constitution, vesting in the people and their organizations the right to formulate and propose their own amendments and revisions of the Constitution in a manner that will be binding upon the government. It is not that I believe this kind of direct action by the people for amending a constitution will be needed frequently in the future, but it is good to know that the ultimate reserves of sovereign power still rest upon the people and that in the exercise of that power, they can propose amendments or revisions to the Constitution.
I think this is the proper point to share Commissioner Padilla's learned insights on the difference between an amendment and a revision. We were the beneficiaries of the Committee's insights, according to which an amendment deals with only a piecemeal change in the Constitution; a revision, on the other hand, may entail a number of amendments and may even entail the revision of the entire Constitution. And the power to propose amendments as well as revisions, we now vest under paragraph (c), Section 1 of the Article on Amendment in the people and their organizations which they need not avail of, unless there is a very strong sentiment or undercurrent of sentiment in the future that will impel them to gather signatures, let us say, several million signatures to meet the standard that will be set forth in this Article on Amendment so that if they want to revise the Constitution according to the requirements of new conditions in the future, then they may do so. Of course, the traditional prerogative to introduce amendments or revisions will still be vested on the National Assembly.
Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Guingona is recognized.
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
I would like to ask the honorable proponent a question. In answer to the interpellations of Commissioner Bengzon, the sponsor said that paragraph (c) of Section 1 contemplates a situation where the National Assembly or the legislature would refuse to heed the people's will. My question is: As worded by the Committee, would not the National Assembly be able to frustrate the people's will by simply not appropriating the amount needed for the exercise or referendum that should be held?
MR. SUAREZ: The Gentleman is referring to the exercise by the people of the right vested under paragraph (c), Section 1.
MR. GUINGONA: Yes, because my understanding as a member of the Legislative Committee is that there are some restrictions with respect to the exercise of the power of initiative and referendum and I think one of the restrictions is in the appropriation of a sum of money. The power to appropriate would still be vested in the National Assembly. In the situation that the sponsor contemplates where the National Assembly ignores the people's will, is there not a possibility that this will be a paper provision because then they would not be able to exercise the right vested in them by Section 1, paragraph (c)?
MR. SUAREZ: The mechanisms were not discussed in the manner the Gentleman brought out this evening although that is a very valid point. We hasten to add, however, that the methods provided under paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) may be availed of one after the other. In other words, one does not preclude the exercise of the other. They could even be availed of simultaneously, if necessary, but the matter of appropriation is indeed essential.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, will the distinguished sponsor yield to a few questions?
MR. SUAREZ: With pleasure, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. MAAMBONG: I hope the sponsor does not mind my interpellating him at this point, considering that I am a member of his Committee. But the other statements of the Commissioners before me provoked my thoughts.
I will advert to the point in the Article referring to the ratification process by the majority votes of the electorate.
The sponsor mentioned earlier that the Committee used the word "plebiscite" in Section 3 in contra-distinction with the word used in the 1935 Constitution which was "election." I suppose the sponsor followed the 1973 Constitution in the use of the word "plebiscite" and not the 1935 Constitution in the use of the word "election" because election connotes a process whereby a body of qualified voters in the country — whether it be nationwide, by district, by province, by municipality or barangay — choose public officials.
MR. SUAREZ: The Gentleman is right, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. MAAMBONG: The sponsor also appropriately used the word "plebiscite" because the book I am using here — which is incidentally my own — defines plebiscite as a direct voting by the qualified electors in regard to an important public question, usually to ratify a proposed constitution. Would that be a correct statement?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. MAAMBONG: Section 2 reads:
. . . by a majority vote of all its Members, submit the question of calling such a convention to the electorate.
In Section 2, the word "election" or "plebiscite" was not used. The question here is: What is the intendment of the Committee? Under Section 2 when the National Assembly submits the question to the electorate of whether to call a convention, would this be through election or a plebiscite?
MR. SUAREZ: It is supposed to coincide with the election, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. MAAMBONG: In other words, in Section 2, if there is no election, the question of calling a constitutional convention cannot be submitted in a plebiscite?
MR. SUAREZ: That is the meaning sought to be conveyed in connection with this particular section.
MR. MAAMBONG: We have a difficulty here, because the submission of the question of whether or not to call a convention might coincide with a new term of office of elective public officials. In other words, if there is an election, for example, for public officials in 1990, and in 1991 there is a need to present to the people the issue of whether we should call a constitutional convention or not, assuming that the term of office of the elective public officials will end in 1996, we will have to wait five or six years before we can submit the issue of calling a constitutional convention. Is that the intendment, Mr. Presiding Officer?
MR. SUAREZ: The Gentleman's statement and conclusion under this section are correct.
MR. MAAMBONG: Therefore, in the period of amendments, would the Committee be open to a suggestion to amend Section 2 to accommodate either election or plebiscite in the matter of calling a constitutional convention?
MR. SUAREZ: Without waiting for an election?
MR. MAAMBONG: Without waiting for an election which may take five years.
MR. SUAREZ: We will entertain such an amended proposal, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you.
We will now go to Section 3. In Section 3, the word "plebiscite" is again used. Does it also mean that under Section 3, if there is an incoming election we cannot submit the amendment or revision of the Constitution to the electorate together with that election? Under Section 3, the wording is very specific; it specifically refers to a plebiscite and not an election as we have already defined earlier.
MR. SUAREZ: Under the situation envisioned by the Gentleman, he would preclude a plebiscite in the calling of the election. In other words, there will be a separate election and a separate plebiscite. Is that the question?
MR. MAAMBONG: That is not the drift of my question. What I am trying to say is that under Section 3, as worded, there is a limiting factor wherein we cannot submit the ratification of any amendment to or revision of the Constitution together with an election because Section 3 specifically mentions plebiscite.
MR. SUAREZ: It will not preclude the holding of a plebiscite together with the election because it could very well be signified that this is an election and a plebiscite at the same time.
MR. MAAMBONG: In other words, if an election is forthcoming for the purpose of ratifying the Constitution, the issues in the plebiscite can be inserted in the same ballot and we can hold an election and a plebiscite at the same time.
MR. SUAREZ: I remember that happened in the January 30, 1980 elections wherein the plebiscite was tucked to the election, the plebiscite on whether or not the term of the Justices of the Supreme Court would be extended from 65 to 70 years old, anticipating the retirement of some friendly justices.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you for that, Mr. Presiding Officer.
Just one more point. We have been using here words like "election" and "plebiscite." In this amendatory or revision process of the Constitution, we never use the term "referendum." We either use "election" or "plebiscite" because, as the dictionary defines it, referendum is the principle or procedure of submitting measures already approved by the legislative body to the vote of the electorate for approval or disapproval. That is the reason we do not use "referendum" in matters of amendment or revision of the Constitution. Is that a correct statement?
MR. SUAREZ: Among others, yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. MAAMBONG: Lastly — this is just food for thought considering that the Committee will meet tomorrow to consider all the submission of other Commissioners — I notice that the bottom line in the ratification of an amendment or a revision to a constitution is always a majority of the votes cast by the electorate. On the other hand, if it is the National Assembly which constitutes itself as a constituent assembly to propose amendments to a constitution, it is by the vote of three-fourths of all its Members. All these things are submitted to the people for ratification. I am trying to connect this with the procedure for initiative for future consideration because the members of the National Assembly are representatives of the people in their individual constituencies and, therefore, would it not be appropriate mathematically to require a vote of three-fourths of the National Assembly in order to amend or revise the Constitution? Would it not be appropriate also to require a vote of three-fourths of the electorate in order to institute the process known as initiative? If the present trend of initiative is only 10 percent of the electorate, it would run counter to the required votes of the representatives of the people which are three-fourths or 75 percent. This is just food for thought and a question. Probably, we can take this up when the Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions meets.
Thank you very much, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: Mr. Presiding Officer, allow me to make some comments on the system of initiative which is a reserve power of the sovereign people. My colleagues pointed out that the system of initiative is limited and should be limited only to initiating legislation and not to proposing amendments. I will humbly disagree with my colleagues' observations. I wish to invite my colleagues' attention to the 1986 UP Law Constitution Project draft proposal. In one of its pages, it is stated, and I quote:
The devices of recall, initiative and referendum are well-established methods for asserting people sovereignty by way of shortening the terms of officials, elective or appointive, and of initiating legislation or constitutional amendments. . .I wish to emphasize the words "of initiating legislation or constitutional amendments." The text continues:
. . . or subjecting the acts of the legislature to the approval or disapproval of the people. In some jurisdiction, while the three processes are adopted in the constitution, the details for their implementation are left to the enactment of legislation by the regular assemblies of the state. . .Because of this pronouncement in the draft proposal of the 1986 UP Law Constitution Project, I will support Commissioner Ople's proposal that the mode of initiative be retained in the Article on Amendment or Revision.
Thank you, Mr. Presiding Office.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): What is the pleasure of the Floor Leader?
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, there are no more interpellators and there are no more speakers for and against the resolution, so I move that we close the period of sponsorship and debate.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): What is the pleasure of Commissioner Rodrigo?
MR. RODRIGO: Have we not deferred the consideration of Section 1, paragraph (c)?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): The Chair declares a suspension of the session.
It was 5:41 p.m.
At 5:49 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): The session is resumed.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): The Floor Leader is recognized.
OF PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 322
(Article on Amendment or Revision)
MR. RAMA: I would like to amend my motion to a motion for deferment of the consideration of Committee Report No. 7 on Proposed Resolution No. 322 until tomorrow at 2:30 p.m.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. de los Reyes): Is there any objection to the motion for deferment? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I move to adjourn the session until tomorrow at 2:30 p.m.
It was 5:50 p.m.
* Appeared after the roll call.