| 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 09, 1986 ]
R.C.C. NO. 26
OPENING OF SESSION
At 2:55 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 Jose N. Nolledo.
Everybody remained standing for the Prayer.
PRAYER
MR. NOLLEDO: O Dakilang Diyos, hinihingi po namin ang Inyong awa, pagmamahal at pagkalinga sa aming makasaysayang pagbalangkas at pagbuo ng isang Saligang Batas na tunay na maka-Pilipino at maka-tao, isang Saligang Batas na tumatangkilik sa mga karapatang pambayan at hahango sa kahirapan ng marami naming mamamayan, isang Saligang Batas na magbibigay ng tunay na pag-asa sa aming mga kababayan at magpapatibay ng kanilang loob sa kanilang pagtahak sa daang puno ng tinik at kapighatian tungo sa masagana at maligayang kinabukasan at nawa'y makintal sa isipan ng buong sambayanang Pilipino sa lalong madaling panahon ang paniniwalang may langit din pala sa daigdig. Hinihingi po namin ang mga ito sa ngalan ng Inyong Bugtong na Anak na si Hesus na naghahari kasama po Ninyo at ng banal na Espiritu Santo, iisang Diyos, magpakailan man. 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 42 Members responded to the call.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair declares the presence of a quorum.
MR. CALDERON: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the Assistant Floor Leader is recognized.
APPROVAL OF JOURNAL
MR. CALDERON: I move that we dispense with the reading of the Journal of the previous session and that we approve the same. THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
MR. CALDERON: Madam President, I move that we proceed to the Reference of Business.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
The Secretary-General will read the Reference of Business.
REFERENCE OF BUSINESS
The Secretary-General read the following Proposed , Resolutions on First Reading, Communications and Committee Reports, the President making the corresponding references:
PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS ON FIRST READING
Proposed Resolution No. 446, entitled:
To the Committee on Constitutional Commissions and Agencies.
Proposed Resolution No. 447, entitled:
To the Committee on Citizenship, Bill of Rights, Political Rights and Obligations and Human Rights.
Proposed Resolution No. 448, entitled:
To the Committee on Citizenship, Bill of Rights, Political Rights and Obligations and Human Rights.
Proposed Resolution No. 449, entitled:
To the Committee on General Provisions.
Proposed Resolution No. 450, entitled:
To the Committee on General Provisions.
Proposed Resolution No. 451, entitled:
To the Committee on Human Resources.
Proposed Resolution No. 452, entitled:
To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of Principles.
Proposed Resolution No. 453, entitled:
To the Committee on the National Economy and Patrimony.
Proposed Resolution No. 454, entitled:
To the Committee on Citizenship, Bill of Rights, Political Rights and Obligations and Human Rights.
Proposed Resolution No. 457, entitled:
To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of Principles.
COMMUNICATIONS
Communication from Mr. Manuel A. Argel of Vigan, Ilocos Sur, proposing, among others, a parliamentary form of government patterned after that of France, the synchronization of elections, a bicameral legislature, and abandonment of the Sabah claim.
(Communication No. 146 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Steering Committee.
Unnumbered resolution of the Association of Disabled , Persons of Rinconada and Iriga City (ADPRIC) requesting the inclusion of provisions which would grant disabled, Filipinos priority of employment in government and private entities.
(Communication No. 147 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Social Justice.
Letter from Mr. Rolando R. Abad of San Isidro, Pili, Camarines Sur, requesting the inclusion of provisions on land reform, education and languages.
(Communication No. 148 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Social Justice.
Letter from Lakas ng Manggagawa signed by Mr. Daniel Edralin, submitting general proposals on basic constitutional issues and a particular resolution affording more protection to labor and guaranteeing human and trade union rights.
(Communication No. 149 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Social Justice.
Telegram from Ms. Maria Luisa Lorenzo of Manila, expressing opposition to any provision imposing a national language.
(Communication No. 150 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Human Resources.
Letter from Mr. Romulo P. Sandejas III of Legaspi City, proposing free education and health service, among others.
(Communication No. 151 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Social Justice.
Letter from GABRIELA signed by Sr. Mary John Mananzan, OSB, enclosing its manifesto calling for the full emancipation of women, and for justice, freedom, democracy and prosperity for the people.
(Communication No. 152 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Citizenship, Bill of Rights, Political Rights and Obligations and Human Rights.
Letter from the Philippine Institute of Environmental Planners signed by Mr. Cesar H. Concio, enclosing a position paper prepared by Mr. Rene S. Santiago and endorsing particularly the proposals on autonomous regional governments.
(Communication No. 153 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Local Governments.
Letter from Mr. Pedro M. Espina of the Knights of Columbus, Virgen Sa Barangay Council No. 8362, City of Tagbilaran, suggesting, among others, a bill of duties and obligations of citizens enumerated explicitly to counterbalance the Bill of Rights.
(Communication No. 154 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Citizenship, Bill of Rights, Political Rights and Obligations and Human Rights.
Letter from Mr. Prisco P. Orcullo, Jr. of Salvacion, San Agustin, Surigao del Sur, proposing the translation of the Constitution into different Philippine dialects and requiring every head of the family to secure a copy free or in exchange for sales receipts.
(Communication No. 155 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on General Provisions.
Letter from Mr. Fidel R. Milan and eleven others of Sta. Catalina, Zamboanga City, requesting provisions on urban land reform, free hospitalization, creation of Urban Poor Ministry, and handicraft skills training.
(Communication No. 156 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Social Justice.
Letter from Mr. Edward M. Kelly of Assumption Sapang Palay College, Inc., submitting proposals on the equality of man and woman, protection of the environment, housing and education, among others.
(Communication No. 157 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of Principles.
Letter from Mr. Orlando F. Caliolio of Southern City Colleges, Zamboanga City, requesting inclusion in the Bill of Rights of a provision granting the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.
(Communication No. 158 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Citizenship, Bill of Rights, Political Rights and Obligations and Human Rights.
Communication from Anchor Foundation, Inc. and Anchor Broadcast Council, Sta. Mesa, Manila, requesting inclusion of a provision that will promote and protect the people's right to the use of the airwaves for broadcast media.
(Communication No. 159 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on the National Economy and Patrimony.
Letter from the People's Secretariat for the Constitutional Commission signed by Mr. Rizal Ruiz Amon, forwarding the position paper of the Filipino Inventors Society proposing provisions for invention, science and technology.
(Communication No. 160 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Human Resources.
COMMITTEE REPORTS
Committee Report No. 16 on Proposed Resolution No. 455, prepared by the Committee on Accountability of Public Officers, entitled:
Sponsored by Hon. Monsod, Colayco and members of the Committee on Accountability of Public Officers.
To the Steering Committee.
Committee Report No. 17 on Proposed Resolution No. 456, prepared by the Committee on Accountability of Public Officers, entitled:
Sponsored by Hon. Monsod, Colayco and members of the Committee on Accountability of Public Officers.
To the Steering Committee.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I would like to inform the body of some changes on the referral of certain resolutions.
Proposed Resolution No. 277, proposing for a national health policy, has been referred to the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of Principles from the Committee on Justice; and Proposed Resolution Nos. 265, 266, 270, 96, 164 and 347 which were previously referred to the Committee on General Provisions, to the Committee on Human Resources.
THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; 10t the corresponding matters be recorded.
CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED
RESOLUTION NO. 322
(Article on Amendment or Revision )
Continuation
PERIOD OF SPONSORSHIP AND DEBATE
MR. RAMA: I move that we continue the consideration of Committee Report No. 7 on Proposed Resolution No. 322 on Second Reading. We are still in the period of sponsorship and debate.
I ask that the sponsor be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
The sponsor, Commissioner Suarez, is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Madam President.
May we respectfully call the attention of the Members of the Commission that pursuant to the mandate given to us last night, we submitted this afternoon a complete Committee Report No. 7 which embodies the proposed provision governing the matter of initiative. This is now covered by Section 2 of the complete committee report. With the permission of the Members, may I quote Section 2:
The people may, after five years from the date of the last plebiscite held, directly propose amendments to this Constitution thru initiative upon petition of at least ten percent of the registered voters.
This completes the blanks appearing in the original Committee Report No. 7. This proposal was suggested on the theory that this matter of initiative, which came about because of the extraordinary developments this year, has to be separated from the traditional modes of amending the Constitution as embodied in Section 1. The committee members felt that this system of initiative should be limited to amendments to the Constitution and should not extend to the revision of the entire Constitution, so we removed it from the operation of Section I of the proposed Article on Amendment or Revision. Also this power could be susceptible to abuse to such an extent that it could very well happen that the initiative method of amendment could be exercised, say, twice or thrice in a matter of one year; thus, a necessity for putting limitations to its exercise. The committee members also felt that putting a limitation within a five-year period after the date of the last plebiscite held is reasonable, as well as the percentage arrived at — meaning, ten percent of the registered voters. On the basis of the information given, we have about 26 or 27 million registered voters, which would necessitate getting the affirmative vote of at least 2.5, 2.6 or 2.7 million thereof. This, of course, is not an impossible task although it would pose some difficulties. The general idea as agreed upon is for us to try to make the process of amendment a little more difficult in order that we can have an enduring and lasting Constitution. After all, there are two other methods of amendment, the traditional ones, which we have provided under subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1. So, our Committee decided to propose this particular Section 2 as it is now embodied in the complete committee report.
We would like to clear up one other point, lest we be misunderstood in the interpretation of the provisions which now appear as Section 3 of the complete Committee Report No. 7. When we were asked by Commissioner Maambong last night about the applicability of Section 3 in connection with the employment of the words "election or plebiscite," we did not get the full significance of his questioning and we came up with an affirmative answer. We ventured the observation that in the application of Section 3, the calling of a constitutional convention could not be submitted to the people in a special plebiscite on the theory that this Section 3, formerly Section 2 operates only simultaneously with the calling of an election. The members of the Committee — and this was borne out by the proposal of Commissioner de Castro — agreed to delete after the word "electorate" the phrase appearing in the 1973 Constitution. In other words, the idea is clear that this Section 3 could operate with or without an election and a plebiscite for the purpose could be called independently of the election. So this is for the purpose of clearing up any possible misunderstanding of the provision which is now Section 3 of the completed Committee Report No. 7.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair would just like to clarify this point from the honorable sponsor.
We adjourned yesterday while we were in the process of closing the debate on the original resolution submitted by the Committee. Does the Chair understand that we will debate on this substitute resolution again, or is this one of the amendments?
MR. SUAREZ: We are not yet in the period of amendments, Madam President. I think we can accommodate interpellations regarding this proposed Section 2 of the completed Committee Report No. 7.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair would like to know whether or not we will close the debate on Committee Report No. 7.
MR. RAMA: Not yet, Madam President, because some Members would like to debate on certain portions of the Article on Amendment. As a matter of fact, Commissioner Rodrigo has reserved his turn to speak on the matter.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair would like to know whether we are now in the period of amendments.
MR. RAMA: We are still in the period of sponsorship and debate.
Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Rodrigo be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: Thank you, Madam President.
Madam President, last night I said the Committee on the Legislative drafted a provision for initiative or referendum on ordinary legislation, and I said that in that Article, the Committee on the Legislative provides that initiative or referendum shall be initiated by at least ten percent of the registered voters in the immediately preceding election. I am now reading from the final draft which will be considered this evening for final approval by the Committee. In the committee report, the committee also suggests 10 percent of the electorate to propose a constitutional amendment, so that the proportion of the people who can initiate an ordinary legislation is the same as that who can propose a constitutional amendment. In the resolution itself it is very evident that the intention of the Constitution is to make the process of proposing a constitutional amendment more difficult than that of an ordinary legislation. Section I states:
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.
A constitutional convention may be called by the National Assembly by a vote of two-thirds of all its Members. So, the norm is to have a bigger vote for proposals for constitutional amendments than for ordinary legislations. So, does not the sponsor think that instead of the same proportion of 10 percent of the electorate to propose constitutional amendments and to initiate ordinary legislations, the percentage to propose constitutional amendments should be much bigger?
MR. SUAREZ: The Committee will be glad to entertain proposals to amend this particular subject matter at the proper time.
MR. RODRIGO: Section 2 of the complete committee report provides: "upon petition of at least 10 percent of the registered voters." How will we determine that 10 percent has been achieved? How will the voters manifest their desire, is it by signature?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, by signatures.
MR. RODRIGO: Let us look at the mechanics. Let us say some voters want to propose a constitutional amendment. Is the draft of the proposed constitutional amendment ready to be shown to the people when they are asked to sign?
MR. SUAREZ: That can be reasonably assumed, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: What does the sponsor mean? The draft is ready and shown to them before they sign. Now, who prepares the draft?
MR. SUAREZ: The people themselves, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: No, because before they sign there is already a draft shown to them and they are asked whether or not, they want to propose this constitutional amendment.
MR. SUAREZ: As it is envisioned, any Filipino can prepare that proposal and pass it around for signature.
MR. RODRIGO: Pass it around?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: So it is possible it be by one man.
MR. SUAREZ: One man or a group of men.
MR. RODRIGO: A group of men or ordinary citizens can prepare the draft and pass it around for signature.
MR. SUAREZ: That is right, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: And once they sign the draft, it is final. They cannot amend it anymore.
MR. SUAREZ: Probably, they could.
MR. RODRIGO: It is our experience right in this hall that in proposing amendments we are very careful about every word, even the comma. So, how can these 2.5 million signatories participate in the drafting of the amendment?
MR. SUAREZ: The mechanical details could be ironed out later, but substantially the democratic process will have to be followed; meaning, if a person has a proposal for amendment, he has to market its acceptability among ten percent of the electorate.
That is the general idea behind the introduction of this particular section.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, this proposed amendment will be distributed throughout the Philippines, in Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao.
MR. SUAREZ: Yes.
MR. RODRIGO: This may be prepared by one man or a group of men who will gather signatures. The sponsor said that amendments may be proposed. How can these be proposed? By 10 percent or 20 percent of the electorate. Suppose somebody wants to change a word before signing the proposal, say, "obnoxious" to "inconsistent," who will decide whether or not change it?
MR. SUAREZ: What probably would be the ultimate test of any particular proposal for the amendment of the Constitution under this system is its final presentation to the Commission on Elections for submission in the plebiscite called for the purpose, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: Yes, but who will draft that proposal?
Will the 2.5 million signatories have a hand in the drafting of that proposal?
MR. SUAREZ: Not necessarily, because this contemplates a situation where the proposal will be accepted by the required percentage. It does not require that the signatories would be coauthors of that proposal. They only signify their conformity to it and this ultimately will have to be submitted to the people for ratification in a plebiscite called for the purpose, Madam President.
The process of submitting the proposal for acceptance by the required percentage of voters is different from submitting the accepted proposal for ratification by the people in a plebiscite.
MR. RODRIGO: That is correct. But if the National Assembly (by a vote of three-fourths of its Members) or a constitutional convention or constitutional commission like ours makes the proposal, all the members participate. In other words, the ones who propose would study, debate, participate and vote on this.
What if the ten percent of the electorate will propose the amendment? Does the sponsor mean it is possible that only one man or a group of men will draft the proposal and have it signed by the people without their right to amend, revise or change it or participate in drafting it?
MR. SUAREZ: If 10 percent of the electorate signifies its acceptance and conformity to the proposal submitted by one man, that is just beautiful, Madam President. That means that the proposal of that single individual has been marketed for acceptability to the required percentage of the electorate.
MR. RODRIGO: So in the final analysis, we can say that this is a proposal not studied, neither drafted nor participated in by the people through initiative because initiative means the people act directly.
MR. SUAREZ: One might accept that situation, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: Now, Section 4 states:
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.
In the case of a proposal made by the National Assembly or by a convention, we know the date of its approval. How about that of the 10 percent of the electorate? When is the date of approval?
MR. SUAREZ: That is a very relevant question which was taken up during the committee meeting this morning. The idea, Madam President, although we did not include it in the draft proposal, is that in the case of proposals submitted through initiative, the operative period would be after the Commission on Elections has certified that the required number of registered voters has been obtained. This was the suggestion, but we thought it was wiser to throw this matter to the body at the appropriate time.
MR. RODRIGO: I have another question. A constitution is supposed to be the act of the sovereign people of the Philippines. The only requirement in this committee report is at least 10 percent of the electorate must petition. Let us say 10 percent of the electorate of the whole Philippines petitioned but this 10 percent came only from Metro Manila, would that be sufficient?
MR. SUAREZ: As it is envisioned, yes, Madam President, although again in the committee meeting this morning, that situation was precisely explored and ideas were given to the effect that at least a certain percentage of the electorate from the provinces should sign the proposal. There were suggestions that this percentage could amount to something like five percent from each province. Again, we leave this to the body to determine later on.
MR. RODRIGO: Which body?
MR. SUAREZ: The Commission, Madam President, by way of amendment.
MR. RODRIGO: During the period of amendments.
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: So, there will be a provision to that effect in Section 2 of the proposed resolution?
MR. SUAREZ: If that is the sense of the Commission, yes, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: But if nobody presents that amendment, does not the Committee think that that amendment should be incorporated in this section?
MR. SUAREZ: The Committee could very well submit that as a committee amendment for consideration by the Commission.:
MR. RODRIGO: Let me go back to a previous question. The Committee is not happy with, let us say, 10 percent of the votes coming from only one region like Metro Manila.
MR. SUAREZ: Yes.
MR. RODRIGO: But the way Section 2 is worded now, that is possible and admissible.
MR. SUAREZ: That situation is theoretically possible — that all of the 2.6 or 2.7 million registered voters would come from one area, say, from Luzon or from Metro Manila.
MR. RODRIGO: Yes. If it is the National Assembly that proposes the amendment, the whole Philippines is represented, is it not?
MR. SUAREZ: That is correct.
MR. RODRIGO: And if it is a constitutional convention which proposes the amendment, the whole Philippines is also presented.
MR. SUAREZ: That is correct, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: Whereas, if the people want to act directly, Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao might not be represented at all in the 10 percent electorate who proposes to amend the Constitution, is that correct?
MR. SUAREZ: That is correct.
MR. RODRIGO: Thank you very much.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Sarmiento be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, I am happy that the Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions decided to retain the system of initiative as a mode of amending the Constitution. I made a survey of American constitutions and I discovered that 13 states provide for a system of initiative as a mode of amending the Constitution — Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma and Oregon. The initiative for ordinary laws only is used in Idaho, Maine, Montana and South Dakota. So, I am happy that this was accepted or retained by the Committee.
About the matter of drafting, questions were raised as to who will draft the proposals of the people. I hope this information will be of help to the Committee and to the Commission.
In Alaska, the initiative petition is prepared by the lieutenant governor through a ballot title and proposition which summarizes the proposed law and he shall place this on the ballot for their first statewide election held more than 120 days after adjournment of the legislative session following the filing of the proposal. If before the election substantially the same measure has been enacted, the petition is void.
In the State of Colorado, the original draft or text of the proposed initiated constitutional amendments and initiated laws is submitted to the legislative research and drafting offices of the general assembly for review and comment. Not, later than two weeks after submission of the original draft unless withdrawn by the proponents, the legislative research and drafting offices of the general assembly shall render their comments to the proponents of the proposed measure at a meeting open to the public, which shall be held only after full and timely notice to the public.
Madam President, a book entitled: The American Federal Government's Suffrage, Nominations and Elections has this paragraph on initiative and on the matter of drafting a proposal:
The initiative is an electoral device through which an individual or a group may propose statutory legislation or constitutional amendments by securing the signatures of the requisite number of voters and may place the measure before the electorate for adoption or rejection. The drafting of such measures normally is done by interested groups or their attorneys. The number or proportion of signatures required is set by law or constitution.
I hope these points will be considered by the Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions.
Two more points, Madam President. Regarding the percentage of registered voters that will propose amendments to the Constitution through initiative, I think I agree with the first interpellator that this system of initiative should be made more difficult.
In the State of Arizona, the number of electorate that can propose a legislative measure is 10 percent, but it is higher for those who will propose any amendment to the Constitution. Maybe, since the Constitution is a fundamental law, it is more serious than a legislative measure. So, we can increase the percentage to 15 percent as in the case of Arizona.
Madam President, Section 2 provides:
The people may, after the years from the date of the last plebiscite held, directly propose amendments to this Constitution. . .
What if the people feel that there should be an amendment to meet a situation, does not the sponsor think this provision is quite stringent or strict? I ask this question because Section 4 of the State Constitution of Alaska provides that an initiative petition to proposed amendments to the Constitution may be filed any time.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Bacani be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: Will the honorable sponsor yield to two questions?
MR. SUAREZ: With pleasure, Madam President.
BISHOP BACANI: The first question is: Does the sponsor think that proposing amendments to the Constitution is necessary?
MR. SUAREZ: In view of recent developments and in order to give meaning and significance to the concept of people's power, I would answer in the affirmative, Madam President.
BISHOP BACANI: In other words, one cannot look forward to an effective way of proposing constitutional amendments anymore if Section 2 is not adopted?
MR. SUAREZ: Not necessarily, because we still have the two traditional methods of proposing amendments to the Constitution under Section 1, paragraphs (a) and (b) of the resolution, Madam President.
BISHOP BACANI: Therefore, it is not necessary; it is perhaps opportune at some time.
MR. SUAREZ: It could be necessary in a situation where the methods outlined under paragraphs (a) and (b) could not be utilized.
BISHOP BACANI: Thank you.
MR. SUAREZ: An example of this would be if, say, the National Assembly cannot muster the necessary three-fourths vote in order to constitute itself as a constituent assembly or that the two-thirds vote required for the calling of a constitutional convention could not be obtained, in which event this extraordinary situation develops and a single individual can take it upon himself or herself to resort to the exercise of this method of initiating an amendment to the Constitution. And I recall at one time — I think it was Honorable Ople who mentioned this — a gentleman, one single individual, in the State of California who came up with a proposition, and succeeded in amending or heading Proposition No. 13, which was accepted by the entire state. We are thinking along those lines.
BISHOP BACANI: Thank you.
The second major question is: Does this section allow for two or more groups concurrently getting signatures like, let us say, at. a certain period, five groups may be trying to get signatures from 2,700,000 people on different, maybe contradictory, proposals for amendments?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, Madam President. It could even contemplate that the two different groups would be submitting two different proposals which finally would have to be submitted to the people for ratification in a plebiscite.
BISHOP BACANI: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Bernas be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bernas is recognized.
FR. BERNAS; Madam President, just two simple submit the question of calling such a convention to the clarificatory questions.
First, on Section 1 on the matter of initiative upon referendum can be held quite independently of an petition of at least 10 percent, there are no details in election the provision on how to carry this out. Do we understand, therefore, that we are leaving this matter to the legislature?
MR. SUAREZ: That is right, Madam President.
FR. BERNAS: And do we also understand, therefore, that for as long as the legislature does not pass the necessary implementing law on this, this will not operate?
MR. SUAREZ: That matter was also taken up during the committee hearing, especially with respect to the budget appropriations which would have to be legislated so that the plebiscite could be called. We deemed it best that this matter be left to the legislature. The Gentleman is right. In any event, as envisioned, no amendment through the power of initiative can be called until after five years from the date of the ratification of this Constitution. Therefore, the first amendment that could be proposed through the exercise of this initiative power would be after five years. It is reasonably expected that within that five-year period, the National Assembly can come up with the appropriate rules governing the exercise of this power.
FR. BERNAS: Since the matter is left to the legislature — the details on how this is to be carried out — is it possible that, in effect, what will be presented to the people for ratification is the work of the legislature rather than of the people? Does this provision exclude that possibility?
MR. SUAREZ: No, it does not exclude that possibility because even the legislature itself as a body could propose that amendment, maybe individually or collectively, if it fails to muster the three-fourths vote in order to constitute itself as a constituent assembly and submit that proposal to the people for ratification through the process of an initiative.
FR. BERNAS: What I mean is: Does this procedure allow the legislature to amend the formula which may have been presented?
MR. SUAREZ: No, Madam President.
FR. BERNAS: It does not.
MR. SUAREZ: It does not contemplate that situation, definitely not.
FR. BERNAS: Thank you, Madam President. On another point, on Section 3, the last phrase says electorate." I notice that the word "electorate" is used. Earlier, the sponsor was saying that a plebiscite or a referendum can be held quite independently of an election.
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, Madam President.
FR. BERNAS: And when the word "electorate" was used here, would the sponsor not contradict his previous statement?
MR. SUAREZ: No, Madam President, because when we speak of electorate, these are the voters who would participate either in a plebiscite or an election.
FR. BERNAS: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Aquino be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: Will the honorable sponsor yield to a few questions?
MR. SUAREZ: With pleasure, Madam President.
MS. AQUINO: Do I understand from the sponsor that the intention in the proposal is to vest constituent power in the people to amend the Constitution?
MR. SUAREZ: That is absolutely correct, Madam President.
MS. AQUINO: I fully concur with the underlying precept of the proposal in terms of institutionalizing popular participation in the drafting of the Constitution or in the amendment thereof, but I would have a lot of difficulties in terms of accepting the draft of Section 2, as written. would the sponsor agree with me that in hierarchy of legal mandate, constituent power has primacy over legal mandates?
MR. SUAREZ: The Commissioner is right, Madam President.
MS. AQUINO: And would the sponsor agree with me that in the hierarchy of legal values, the Constitution is source of all legal mandates and that therefore we require a great deal of circumspection in the drafting and in the amendments of the Constitution?
MR. SUAREZ: That proposition is nondebatable.
MS. AQUINO: Such that in order to underscore the primacy of constituent power we have a separate article in the constitution that would specifically cover the process and the modes of amending the Constitution?
MR. SUAREZ: That is right, Madam President.
MS. AQUINO: Therefore, is the sponsor inclined, as the provisions are drafted now, to again concede to the legislature the process or the requirement of determining the mechanics of amending the Constitution by people's initiative?
MR. SUAREZ; The matter of implementing this could very well be placed in the hands of the National Assembly, not unless we can incorporate into this provision the mechanics that would adequately cover all the conceivable situations.
MS. AQUINO: In other words, the sponsor would be amenable at the proper time to accommodate amendments that would define or modify or amplify these provisions in Section 2 of this Article?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, Madam President. The Committee would be delighted to accept reasonable propositions at the appropriate time.
MS. AQUINO: On another point, do I understand it correctly that the provisions in Section 2 are not self-executing in the sense that it would further require the procedure enunciated in Section 4; that is, notwithstanding the source of the proposed amendment, it would have to be ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes.
MS. AQUINO: We understood that.
MR. SUAREZ: Section 2 must be interpreted together with the provisions of Section 4, except that in Section 4, as it is presently drafted, there is no take-off date for the 60-day and 90-day periods.
MS. AQUINO: Yes. In other words, Section 2 is another alternative mode of proposing amendments to the Constitution which would further require the process of submitting it in a plebiscite, in which case it is not self-executing.
MR. SUAREZ: No, not unless we settle and determine the take-off period.
MS. AQUINO: But as stated now, it is the process.
MR. SUAREZ: It is.
MS. AQUINO: In which case, I am seriously bothered by providing this process of initiative as a separate section in the Article on Amendment. Would the sponsor file amenable to accepting an amendment in terms of realigning Section 2 as another subparagraph (c) of Section 1, instead of setting it up as another separate section as if it were a self-executing provision?
MR. SUAREZ: We would be amenable except that, as we clarified a while ago, this process of initiative is limited to the matter of amendment and should not expand into a revision which contemplates a total overhaul of the Constitution. That was the sense that was conveyed by the Committee.
MS. AQUINO: In other words, the Committee was attempting to distinguish the coverage of modes (a) and (b) in Section 1 to include the process of revision; whereas, the process of initiation to amend, which is given to the public, would only apply to amendments?
MR. SUAREZ: That is right. Those were the terms envisioned in the Committee.
MS. AQUINO: I thank the sponsor; and thank you, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Guingona be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Guingona is recognized.
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you, Madam President.
Will the distinguished proponent yield to a few questions?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, Madam President.
MR. GUINGONA: Before I ask my questions, I would like to say that I concur with the view of Commissioner Sarmiento that the 10 percent might, perhaps, be increased to 15 percent for the reasons advanced by him. In answer to the question of Commissioner Rodrigo, the sponsor spoke of the 10 percent as referring to signatures obtained for this purpose. Am I correct?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, Madam President.
MR. GUINGONA; I know there is a dispute going on in one of the committees of this Commission as to whether or not illiterates should be allowed to vote. Does this mean that this Committee has already made a decision that, as far as this particular process is concerned, illiterates would be excluded?
MR. SUAREZ: They would not be excluded because they could signify their conformity to the proposal in the manner outlined by law.
MR. GUINGONA: So, it is not necessary to require signatures only?
MR. SUAREZ: No, Madam President.
MR. GUINGONA: I see. Thank you.
Speaking of initiative, the Committee on the Legislative headed by Commissioner Davide of which I am a member, has come up with a proposed provision which I thought might be more appropriate in view of the sponsor's answer to the question of Commissioner Bernas that the details of this matter concerning initiative will be left to the legislature; such matters, for example, as determining safeguards against any attempts to violate the sanctity of the expression of the people's will like bribery, questions on appropriation and so forth. The Legislative Committee has come up with a proposal that the National Assembly shall provide for a system of initiative whereby the people may, after five years from the date of the last plebiscite held, directly propose amendments to this Constitution through initiative. I am not just using the words of the provision, but I am applying them to the proposed provision on initiative. In other words, one distinction is that there is a specific reference to the National Assembly or the legislature.
MR. SUAREZ: Yes.
MR. GUINGONA: In the Committee's proposed provision, there is no such reference.
Second, I was going to add the words UP TO REGISTERED VOTERS in the immediately preceding election to clarify which registered voters this provision refers to.
MR. SUAREZ: We took that into account when we came up with this wording. In the contemplation that there could be a continuing process of registration, the take-off period should be counted from the date of submission of the proposed amendment. The list of registered voters that should prevail is the one existing at the time of the submission of the proposal, not from the date of the last voting or plebiscite as the case may be.
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you.
The last question may be a reversal to the supposition advanced by Commissioner Bacani that this proposal about initiative might not be approved. I would say, I am assuming that it will be approved. I was thinking that if this is to be approved, would it not be better that the last portion of Section 3, lines 17 to 18, which I will read: "or by a majority vote of all its Members, submit the question of calling such a convention to the electorate " be deleted if there is already the provision on initiative because this is rather a cumbersome process as pointed out by Dean Irene Cortez of the U.P.? We will call a convention and there will be, of course, the expenses resulting from such a convention, and then we will follow it with another exercise, which is the ratification after the proposal. I thought, maybe, if initiative were to be accepted by the honorable Members of this Commission, then perhaps this portion might be removed.
I thank the sponsor; thank you, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Natividad be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Natividad is recognized.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Will the Gentleman yield?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, Madam President.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Thank you.
Paragraph (a), Section 1, reads:
. . . 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.
Will this be automatic or will the legislature enact the enabling legislation to be presented to the people?
MR. SUAREZ: I am sorry I did not get the full meaning of the question.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Suppose the National Assembly, by a vote of three-fourths of all its Members, proposes an amendment to the Constitution, will this need legislation before a plebiscite can be held?
MR. SUAREZ: As I understand it, based on historical precedence, the National Assembly will come up with a proposition and then submit this to the people for ratification in a plebiscite called for the purpose.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Has there been any instance in this historical precedence that this has been delayed because of lack of legislation?
MR. SUAREZ: I am not aware of any such situation in the past, Madam President, What I was only aware of is the fact that time and again there were plebiscites called and the people were screaming that they had not been given the full opportunity to thoroughly discuss, analyze and review the proposals submitted.
MR. NATIVIDAD: How about the previous Con-Con? Was there any problem about enabling legislation?
MR. SUAREZ: No, we did not have any problem.
MR. NATIVIDAD: I see. In Section 2, there is a phrase which reads: "after five years from the date of the last plebiscite held." Is this designed to prevent frequent amendments to the Constitution?
MR. SUAREZ: That is right, Madam President. It is a measure to prevent too frequent amendments to the Constitution which might result in the impoverishment of the government.
MR. NATIVIDAD: But Section 2 refers to a mode of amendment by initiative only. Am I correct?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, Madam President.
MR. NATIVIDAD: But suppose we apply this to all modes of amendments so that we prevent frequent amendments to the Constitution that the powers-that-be would like to undertake. What we have witnessed is that the frequency of amendments to the Constitution is becoming a national sport.
MR. SUAREZ: Is the Gentleman suggesting that the five-year limitation period be applied equally to sub-sections (a) and (b) of Section 1 ?
MR. NATIVIDAD: It should apply to all modes and ways of amending the Constitution. Suppose we limit it to, say, once in every six years in order to prevent the frequent amendments to the Constitution to suit the powers-that-be.
MR. SUAREZ: That proposal or suggestion could be taken up at the appropriate time during the period of amendments.
MR. NATIVIDAD: This is just to preserve the Constitution because I think we are beginning to develop a reputation of changing the Constitution too often.
How about Section 3? Where is this amendment?
MR. SUAREZ: It is in Section 2.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Is this in Section 2?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, Madam President.
MR. NATIVIDAD: In the case of recall, it has been said that if the percentage is 10 or 20 percent, it would be inadvisable not to designate from what area it comes because in the realities of politics in this country, most politicians have bailiwicks to rely upon — the north, the south, the central part of the country. And a politician with a bailiwick can easily influence the mode of recall or initiative or referendum. The big families, the dynasties, can easily sway and martial big blocks of votes. So that in the case of recall, especially in small towns, the requirement of 20 percent, if not equitably distributed, would easily be collected and raised by a politician who has a bailiwick.
My question is: Does the Committee find no objection if a certain area of our country would raise this 10 percent and initiate any amendment to the Constitution, or would it rather propose that this be equitably distributed or spread out to make it more responsive? I was just thinking of our debates in the old Congress and the Batasan where the proposal of recall was met with resistance precisely because if we follow the trend, it will exacerbate a situation where there is too much politicking involving the law and the statutes in the Constitution of our country. So, is it the sponsor's view to let this pass without any equitable distribution? Is it acceptable to him as it is written now?
MR. SUAREZ: We pointed out a while ago that the Committee would be amenable to propositions spreading out, as the Gentleman has defined it, the matter of the people's participation even on the provincial level. And we were thinking in terms of five percent from each province as an example.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Yes. I am putting up this view, Madam President, because of the realities of politics and it might not achieve what the authors would like to achieve. At the proper time, we will present some volunteered information, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Maambong, the last speaker, be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, will the distinguished sponsor yield to a few questions?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, Madam President.
MR. MAAMBONG: First of all, I would like to thank the sponsor for clarifying his answer to my query last night. As it stands now, it is very clear to our mind that the matter of calling a constitutional convention can now be done not only by election but also by a plebiscite. This was also ,clarified in a clarificatory question of Commissioner Bernas. I would also like to indicate that it is now very clear in the Constitution that we have such words as "revision" or "amendment," which were not found in the 1935 Constitution. Previously, if I recall correctly, in the case of Occena vs. COMELEC (G.R. 56350, April 12, 1981), the Supreme Court interpreted the word "amendment" to cover a thorough revision of the Constitution, but that was also clarified by Commissioner Padilla.
As premise to my question, I would like to associate myself with the concern of Commissioner Rodrigo about the process we are now talking about because, as one authority puts it, the amending process of the Constitution could actually avert a revolution by providing a safety valve in bringing about changes in the Constitution through pacific means. This, in effect, operationalizes what political law authors call the "prescription of sovereignty." There is one point which is nagging my mind and, with the sponsor's indulgence, I would like to have this clarified. This is the term "constitutional convention." I understand that this was interpreted in the framing of the 1935 Constitution as it was also interpreted in the framing of the 1973 Constitution by the 1971 Constitutional Convention. But I am afraid that all these interpretations may not be acceptable in the present exercise that we are doing. So my first question is: When the decision to call a constitutional convention has been resolved by the people or the National Assembly, is it not a fact that there should be an election of delegates to the constitutional convention?
MR. SUAREZ: That is what is envisioned under this constitutional provision, Madam President.
MR. MAAMBONG: And when we say, there should be an election of delegates to the constitutional convention, there should also be an enabling law not only for that purpose but also for the purpose of providing funds therefor.
MR. SUAREZ: The Gentleman is right, although not only in connection with the budgetary situation but also in the number of the delegates to the constitutional convention.
MR. MAAMBONG. Thank you, Madam President.
With that reply, the next question would be: Instead of causing the election of delegates, has the legislature the power to just name the delegates to the constitutional convention?
MR. SUAREZ: Under what provision would the Gentleman relate that?
MR. MAAMBONG: I am following up the sponsor's answer that when we talk of constitutional convention, we are talking of elective delegates to the constitutional convention. In other words, it negates the authority of the legislature to just name delegates to the constitutional convention without calling an election.
MR. SUAREZ: That is very obvious, Madam President.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you, Madam President.
Since the legislature could not name delegates without calling an election, it also goes without saying that the legislature cannot delegate the power to somebody for that authority to name delegates to the constitutional convention?
MR. SUAREZ: The Gentleman is right.
MR. MAAMBONG: I thank the sponsor.
Can the legislature determine the number of delegates to be elected to the constitutional convention?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, as they did in 1971. In the 1970 enabling law, they specifically stated the number to be 320 delegates from all over the country.
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes, Madam President. And no other body can determine the number of elective delegates to the constitutional convention?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, Madam President.
MR. MAAMBONG: This will be my last question. Regarding the process of election of delegates, does the sponsor agree with the opinion of the Supreme Court and I am actually quoting this opinion of the Supreme Court of Maine, U.S.A., in the opinion of Justices 167 APL. 176 — that it is not valid to elect delegates to the constitutional convention at large? And the Supreme Court said and I quote:
Although a convention is summoned by the legislature, it derives its power from the sovereign people. It has accordingly been the practice to have as delegates those fairly representing the political subdivisions of the State. It is evident therefore that in every constitutional convention of which we have knowledge, delegates have been chosen not at large but from various localities within the State.
Would the sponsor agree with that?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes. And that is exactly what happened in connection with the 1971 Constitutional Convention, by districts and provinces.
MR. MAAMBONG: Forgive me, but I have one last question: Will the sponsor agree that once the constitutional convention is convened, the legislature has no more control over it?
MR. SUAREZ: That is absolutely correct, Madam President.
MR. MAAMBONG: I thank the sponsor; thank you, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, for the last clarificatory question, I ask that Commissioner Lerum be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Lerum is recognized.
MR. LERUM: I just have one question.
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, Madam President.
MR. LERUM: Referring to Section 2 which provides for at least 10 percent of registered voters, who will determine this 10 percent?
MR. SUAREZ: The Commission on Elections, Madam President; that is why we were thinking in terms of using as a take-off date the issuance of a certification by the Commission on Elections that the required number of registered voters have indeed been obtained.
MR. LERUM: Does it mean that the petition itself should also be addressed to the Commission on Elections?
MR. SUAREZ: I did not get the question.
MR. LERUM: What I mean is that after the 10 percent requirement has been obtained, will this have to be submitted to the Commission on Elections also?
MR. SUAREZ: That is what is envisioned, Madam President.
MR. LERUM: Thank you.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, since there are no more interpellators and there are no registered speakers pro or en contra, I move that we close the period of sponsorship and debate.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
PERIOD OF AMENDMENTS
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I move that we proceed to the period of amendments.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
The floor is open for amendments.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: I propose the following amendment: delete the whole Section 2.
Madam President, this new provision is not necessary. There is no need for it. The present provisions of the Constitution on the proposal for amendments to the Constitution are most satisfactory, very democratic. This is done by either the National Assembly composed of representatives elected by the people all over the Philippines by a vote of three-fourths or by a constitutional convention, again, composed of delegates elected by all from all parts of the Philippines. And, usually, these delegates are elected on the basis of their stand on certain constitutional issues.
Madam President, ours is a republican government which means a representative government. This satisfies the essence of democracy. I do not know why all of a sudden we now insist on this reserved "people power." If we base it on the EDSA peaceful revolution that is called "people power," that is one event in our history which, I think, can hardly be repeated — bloodless revolution that toppled the dictator. Now, we want to use people power even in enacting laws and in proposing amendments to the Constitution. Non sequitur, Madam President. It does not follow. There is no popular clamor for this. I do not know that our people, because of the EDSA peaceful revolution, are now clamoring to initiate constitutional amendments directly. There is no such clamor from the people. And so, why clutter our Constitution with a provision that is untried and impractical?
We are told that there are some states in the United States that follow this. But those are states in the United States with less population than the Philippines. And remember that the Philippines is an archipelago. It is so difficult to go around and obtain 2,700,000 signatures based on the 10-percent requirement; so, at 15 percent, more than 4,000,000 signatures. After all, these 4,000,000 people who will sign that, if one can get them, are not the ones who prepared the proposed amendment. They do not even participate in the drafting of the proposed amendment. Maybe, only one man, as the sponsor said, or a group of men would prepare this. And this would go around for signatures, and those whose signatures are affixed cannot even modify or amend the proposed amendment.
It is so impractical, Madam President, to have this go around the 7,000 islands in the country with so many different dialects. Maybe, this proposed amendment has to be translated in all the dialects. It is impractical. I think it is an exercise in futility. We will just clutter up our Constitution with a provision that will not, in any way, be used.
Madam President. we are here as a Constitutional Commission. We have a time constraint. Our aim is to go back to normal constitutional democracy as soon as possible. Let us not go into controversial matters like this which can hardly be understood by our people who, after all, are the ones who are going to either ratify or reject this Constitution. Let us go to the basics. Let us not depart radically from what we have found to be satisfactory in our country for the last half-century or more than half-century, and that is the republican form of government — a government run by duly-elected representatives of the people. This is practical. It is not perfect, but it is the best kind of government that we know.
Thank you very much.
MR. RAMA.: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is the amendment accepted by the sponsor?
MR. SUAREZ: The Committee regrets that it cannot accept the amendment by deletion submitted by the Honorable Rodrigo. First, we want to provide a mechanism that is very responsive to the sentiments of the people. Second, the fact that it is supposed to be impractical is fallacious in the sense that, if a situation develops where the mechanisms provided under Section 1 (a) and (b) could not be fully implemented in this wise, a time may come when in spite of the clamor of the people for proposing amendments to the Constitution, the National Assembly may not be able to muster enough votes in order to constitute itself as a constituent assembly or to call a constitutional convention. So, in that sense, it is a very practical avenue or safety valve which is available to the people. And with respect to the third ground we should go back to the basics of the Constitution. This is basic; this is fundamental because it emanates from the people. It is a direct representation made in behalf of the people. And so, it is a fundamental right that finds expression in this system of initiative. So, we regret that we cannot accept the proposed amendment. We would rather that this be submitted to the floor for consideration.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other speaker for the amendment?
MR. RAMA: Madam President, there are two speakers en contra.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it on the amendment of Commissioner Rodrigo?
MR. RAMA: Yes, Madam President, on the amendment of Commissioner Rodrigo, two members have registered to speak against and I have requested that we divide the five-minute limit between the two of them. So, I ask that Commissioner Tadeo be recognized for two minutes.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tadeo is recognized.
MR. TADEO: Madam President, alam naman natin na ang nagsampa sa Cory government ay ang people power. At kaya naririto ngayon ang Con-Com ay dahil sa people power. Noong pumunta tayo rito, punung-puno ang ating damdamin kung paano natin i-institutionalize ang people power. Paano natin ito ilalagay sa Saligang Batas? Dalawa ang kinakailangang magawa natin para magkaroon ng laman at dugo ang people power, para ito ay hindi papel lamang. Sa paanong paraan? Kinakailangang bigyan natin ang mamamayan ng political power; kinakailangang bigyan natin ang people power ng economic power. Ano ang isang nakita natin para magkaroon siya ng political power? Sa pamamagitan ng multi-party system na pinirmahan noong 17, kung saan sinasabi natin, yung 250, ang limampu ay para doon sa multisectoral. Alam natin na maliit pa iyan; 20 percent lang iyan. Maaaring maging isang dekorasyon iyan. Ano pa ang nakikita natin na pwedeng magbigay sa mga tao ng political power? Ang sabi natin, ang isang magandang nakita namin sa UP draft ay ang system of recall and system of initiative. Ngayon, anong ibig sabihin na ito ay impractical ayon sa sinabi ng aking kababayan na si Commissioner Rodrigo?
Kamukha ng Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP), kami ay isang pambansang organization. Ang system of initiative ay lalong iiral sa magsasaka at manggagawa na siyang pinakamalaking sector para magkaroon siya ng tinatawag na political power. Sapagkat kami ay pambansa, mayroon kaming tinatawag na makinarya. Hindi po yung sinasabi niyang individual o ilang grupo lang ng tao, kundi ang tinatawag na tunay na militanteng Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas. Mayroon kaming pang-regional na organization; mayroon kami sa Central Luzon, Northeastern Luzon, Bicol, Visayas at Mindanao. At ang nakikita lamang natin talaga na magdadagdag sa aming political power ay ang tinatawag na system of initiative. Hindi ito impractical kundi practical. Tinututulan ko ang tinatawag na "division." Kinakailangang manatili ang system of initiative.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Gascon be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Gascon is recognized.
MR. GASCON: Thank you, Madam President.
I would also like to express my objection to the amendment of Commissioner Rodrigo on the following grounds: First, we are trying to create a republican state which is supposed to be a representative government. Second, according to Commissioner Rodrigo this proposal of initiative is impractical. First and foremost, I would like to remind him that what we are doing here is also a basic affirmation of the fundamental will — that power emanates from the people. We are now expressing our will to put initiative in the Constitution because of the people power's revolution at EDSA.
I would like again to remind this body that even the basic issue of establishing a government is people power; we are trying to establish a government for the people, of the people and by the people. So it must be responsive to them. I feel that through this process of initiative, we assert that the power of the government emanates from the people and that the people's will must prevail. Because of such, I would like to support the basic principle that initiative must be enshrined in the Constitution. It is not an exercise in futility because I have faith in our people. In our long history of struggle for national independence and social change the people have shown their decision and definitiveness to fight for what is right. The people themselves can decide whenever they wish to, especially on matters pertaining to the Republic or the State which they claim to represent.
In reality there have been many cases where the representatives have only been the target and have only expressed the interest of their particular class. As such I would like to express my objection.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I move that we vote on the amendment of Commissioner Rodrigo.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: We will now vote on the amendment of Commissioner Rodrigo which is to delete Section 2 in the revised resolution submitted by the honorable sponsor this afternoon.
Those in favor of the amendment of Commissioner Rodrigo will please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
Those against, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
The results show 8 votes in favor and 27 against; the amendment is lost. (Applause)
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Davide be recognized for another amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: Thank you, Madam President.
I propose to substitute the entire Section 2 with the following: SECTION 2. — ANY AMENDMENT TO THIS CONSTITUTION MAY LIKEWISE BE DIRECTLY PROPOSED BY THE PEOPLE THROUGH INITIATIVE UPON A PETITION, DULY VERIFIED BEFORE THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS OR ANY OF ITS REGISTRARS, OF AT LEAST TEN PERCENT OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF REGISTERED VOTERS AS OF THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING NATIONAL ELECTION, OF WHICH EVERY LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT MUST BE REPRESENTED BY NOT LESS THAN TWO PERCENT THEREOF. THE PETITION SHALL BE FILED WITH THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS WHICH SHALL FORTHWITH TRANSMIT THE PETITION TO THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY. THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY SHALL, NOT LATER THAN THIRTY DAYS FROM RECEIPT THEREOF, ENACT A LAW SUBMITTING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR A PLEBISCITE.
NO AMENDMENT UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL BE AUTHORIZED WITHIN FIVE YEARS FROM THE APPROVAL OF THIS CONSTITUTION NOR OFTENER THAN ONCE EVERY FIVE YEARS THEREAFTER.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended for a few minutes in order to give the sponsor time to go over the proposed amendment.
MR. SUAREZ: We appreciate that, Madam President.
It was 4:33 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 4:59 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Davide be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, I have modified the proposed amendment after taking into account the modifications submitted by the sponsor himself and the honorable Commissioners Guingona, Monsod, Rama, Ople, de los Reyes and Romulo. The modified amendment in substitution of the proposed Section 2 will now read as follows: "SECTION 2. — AMENDMENTS TO THIS CONSTITUTION MAY LIKEWISE BE DIRECTLY PROPOSED BY THE PEOPLE THROUGH INITIATIVE UPON A PETITION OF AT LEAST TWELVE PERCENT OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF REGISTERED VOTERS, OF WHICH EVERY LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT MUST BE REPRESENTED BY AT LEAST THREE PERCENT OF THE REGISTERED VOTERS THEREOF. NO AMENDMENT UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL BE AUTHORIZED WITHIN FIVE YEARS FOLLOWING THE RATIFICATION OF THIS CONSTITUTION NOR OFTENER THAN ONCE EVERY FIVE YEARS THEREAFTER.
THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY SHALL BY LAW PROVIDE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EXERCISE OF THIS RIGHT."
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, considering that the proposed amendment is reflective of the sense contained in Section 2 of our completed Committee Report No. 7, we accept the proposed amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Are we ready to vote on this proposed amendment?
MS. AQUINO: Excuse me, Madam President. May we request written copies of Commissioner Davide's amendment so that we can adequately decide on it?
MR. DAVIDE: We will request the Secretariat to prepare typewritten copies.
THE PRESIDENT: The sponsor will please furnish a copy to the Secretariat. In the meantime, can we proceed with other amendments, if there are any?
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Romulo be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Romulo is recognized.
MR. ROMULO: Will Commissioner Davide yield to a few questions regarding his amendment?
MR. DAVIDE: Gladly, Madam President.
MR. ROMULO: Under Commissioner Davide's amendment, is it possible for the legislature to set forth certain procedures to carry out the initiative, as in some American states where the proposition is normally submitted to the state attorney-general who puts it in proper form before it is submitted to the people for voting? Under the Commissioner's amendment, would the legislature be allowed to set forth such a procedure?
MR. DAVIDE: It can.
MR. ROMULO: Under those systems, if the proposition as stated by the attorney-general is not accepted by the proponents, they are allowed to go to court to challenge his submission of their proposition.
MR. DAVIDE: The proponents can, if the legislative body will really leave that particular matter to another body.
MR. ROMULO: In this case it is the COMELEC who will put it in proper form.
MR. DAVIDE: No, it is already silent.
MR. ROMULO: No, but it says "shall be submitted to the COMELEC."
MR. DAVIDE: That was the original proposal; it was already deleted.
MR. ROMULO: But the Commissioner's amendment does not prevent the legislature from asking another body to set the proposition in proper form.
MR. DAVIDE: The Commissioner is correct. In other words, the implementation of this particular right would be subject to legislation, provided the legislature cannot determine anymore the percentage of the requirement.
MR. ROMULO: But the procedures, including the determination of the proper form for submission to the people, may be subject to legislation.
MR. DAVIDE: As long as it will not destroy the substantive right to initiate. In other words, none of the procedures to be proposed by the legislative body must diminish or impair the right conceded here.
MR. ROMULO: In that provision of the Constitution can the procedures which I have discussed be legislated?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Natividad be given the floor.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Natividad is recognized.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Madam President, will Commissioner Davide yield?
MR. DAVIDE: Willingly, Madam President.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Is Commissioner Davide willing to consider a possible amendment to his amendment? This amendment is brought about by comments I read from a book from PHILCONSA on constitutional and policy issues and it is based on the comments of a certain Fortunato de Leon who recommends that the Constitution, in order that it will not fall into the hands of the powers that be, should only be amended no oftener than once in six years.
I would also premise my question by reading the comments of our own colleague here, Chief Justice Concepcion. His article entitled, "The Constitution and The Proposed Amendments Thereto" states and I quote:
A Constitution is not only a legal document, not merely a covenant between the people of a democratic society like ours. It is a symbol of the unity of the people; it is a rallying point for them as a nation. If the Constitution is to retain this role as the rallying point for the people, it should not be touched except when absolutely necessary or when there is no other possible choice.
A Constitution that does not suffer many changes accumulated in the course of time, a mass of customs, traditions and practices tending to impart to the people the feeling that their nation has a solid foundation; that it is strong enough to withstand the buffetings of the ages. A Constitution should not be amended, unless the people feel that their welfare would otherwise be in imminent danger of serious impairment.
My proposal is that instead of five years could it be six years as proposed by the eminent authors hereof?
MR. DAVIDE: The Committee has already accepted the individual amendment. Personally, I do not think that one year would make a lot of a difference. What is one year among friends? As a matter of fact, since the National Assembly is also authorized to propose amendments by a vote of three-fourths of its members or to submit the question of calling a constitutional convention by a majority vote, amendments may actually be more frequent than once every five years. We are limiting the right of the people, by initiative, to submit a proposal for amendment only, not for revision, only once every five years. But we cannot prevent the legislature from proposing amendments as often as it would want to under its authority by a vote of three-fourths and also its authority to submit the question of calling a convention to the people.
MR. NATIVIDAD: If it is the sense of the Constitutional Commission, I think we may, if we have been given a frame of reference to the power of initiative.
MR. DAVIDE: If at all we should limit the period for the submission of an amendment, it should also be made applicable to amendments proposed by the legislature.
MR. NATIVIDAD: That is my proposal. If the Commissioner is willing to make the initiative pegged to five or six years, I feel that there would be no basis for us not to make this applicable to the legislature also. But, as the distinguished sponsor said, the idea here is not to embark into frequent amendments of the Constitution
MR. DAVIDE: By initiative.
MR. NATIVIDAD: By initiative, yes, but not by any other means as what the sponsor said, if it is accepted that the Constitution is not supposed to be changed as often as a law. So, if we accept that postulate, then, perhaps we should consider that if we limit the exercise of initiative we can also limit the exercise of the other modes of amending the Constitution. If our purpose now is to indicate through these amendments that our Constitution should not be tampered with very often as had been done, then this is the time to do it. The problems confronting the nation are easily addressed by law. It is not necessary that at any given time we may tamper with the Constitution.
So, I propose to change "5" to 6 years so that if the final decision of the Commission would be a six-year term for the President, then this will dovetail the six-year term of the President and it will work as guideline that the Constitution will not be amended more than once during the term of the President.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, I have no objection to that proposal, provided we preserve the proposal that a similar prohibition shall be imposed upon the National Assembly in calling a constitutional convention or proposing an amendment. So probably the Commissioner may introduce an amendment to that effect.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Madam President, in that case, may I address this amendment to the distinguished sponsor?
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner may proceed.
MR. NATIVIDAD: If it is seasonably proper, may I then propose an amendment to Section 1. On line 7, after the word "proposed," delete the colon (:) and in lieu thereof, put a comma (,) and add the following words: BUT NOT MORE OFTEN THAN EVERY SIX (6) YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE LAST PLEBISCITE.
The whole section will read: "Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed, BUT NOT MORE OFTEN THAN EVERY SIX (6) YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE LAST PLEBISCITE."
MR. SUAREZ: The Committee suggests that the amendment be submitted to the floor for consideration.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Thank you.
My amendment is to change "5" to 6 years to dove-tail the six-year term of the President.
THE PRESIDENT: The idea is also to limit the authority of the National Assembly to propose amendments to the Constitution.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Yes, Madam President, in line with the suggestion of the distinguished proponent of the amendment.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Padilla is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, before we take up the proposed amendment of having 6 years instead of "5" years, I intend to ask the sponsor of the amendment some questions. Thereafter, the proposed amendment of Commissioner Natividad to the amendment of Commissioner Davide may then be considered.
THE PRESIDENT: Actually, the amendment of Commissioner Natividad is on Section 1, while that of Commissioner Davide is on Section 2. Is that correct?
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, but we are talking of Section 2.
MR. SUAREZ: That was deferred.
THE PRESIDENT: So, it is now Section I where Commissioner Natividad is proposing an amendment.
MR. PADILLA: I did not know that it was deferred. I wanted to ask some questions regarding the amendment by substitution.
THE PRESIDENT: We will have that later on.
Is the proposed amendment of Commissioner Natividad acceptable to the honorable sponsor?
MR. SUAREZ: As we suggested a while ago, we would rather that the matter be decided by the Commission.
THE PRESIDENT: Does Commissioner Natividad insist on his amendment? Then, let us put it to a vote.
Will Commissioner Natividad kindly repeat his proposed amendment on Section 1 ?
MR. NATIVIDAD: My amendment is to delete the colon (:) after the word "proposed" on line 7, and in lieu thereof, put a comma (,) and add the following: BUT NOT MORE OFTEN THAN EVERY SIX (6) YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE LAST PLEBISCITE."
The section will now read: "Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be pro (6) YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE LAST PLEBISCITE."
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: Those in favor of the proposed amendment of Commissioner Natividad will please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
Those against, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
The results show 6 votes in favor and 25 against; the amendment is lost.
Is there any other proposed amendment?
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Padilla be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Padilla is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: Thank you, Madam President.
Will the distinguished sponsor, Commissioner Davide, yield to a few questions?
THE PRESIDENT: He may, if he so desires.
MR. DAVIDE: Very gladly, Madam President.
MR. PADILLA: The Committee has submitted its original report which made reference to Section 1, paragraph (c) which states: "directly by the people themselves thru initiative as provided for in Article VIII, Section 27 of the Constitution." But since it was explained that the initiative refers to ordinary legislation of the National Assembly, the Committee on Amendments had to introduce Section 2 which is now sought to be amended by substitution.
I notice that we have 10 percent, and it is now sought to be increased to 12 percent. With regard to ordinary legislation, the Committee on the Legislative proposed a 10-percent requirement for initiative by the people. Does not the Commissioner believe that we should reduce the 10-percent requirement for purposes of initiating legislation rather than increasing the requirement for constitutional amendments to 12 percent? In other words, since the Committee on the Legislative has 10 percent, the proposed amendment now is for a higher percentage, which is 12 percent for a constitutional amendment.
MR. DAVIDE: A distinction has to be made for the reason that under this proposal, what is involved is an amendment to the Constitution. To amend a Constitution would ordinarily require a proposal by the National Assembly by a vote of three-fourths; and to call a constitutional convention would require a higher number. Moreover, just to submit the issue of calling a constitutional convention, a majority of the National Assembly is required, the import being that the process of amendment must be made more rigorous and difficult than probably initiating an ordinary legislation or putting an end to a law proposed by the National Assembly by way of a referendum. I cannot agree to reducing the requirement approved by the Committee on the Legislative because it would require another voting by the Committee, and the voting was precisely based on a requirement of 10 percent. Perhaps, I might present such a proposal, by way of an amendment, when the Commission shall take up the Article on the Legislative or on the National Assembly on plenary sessions.
MR. PADILLA: Thank you.
We agree that there must be a greater percentage for an amendment to the Constitution, and a lower percentage for an amendment to ordinary legislation. The Article on the National Assembly or the Legislative will be an anterior article, Article VIII, I suppose, whereas the Article on Amendment will be subsequent, Article VI. I notice that the committee report on the legislature mentions a petition signed by at least 10 percent of the registered voters in the immediately preceding elections. However, I do not see in this report on the legislature any particulars as to whether the signatures will be verified by the COMELEC and then referred to the National Assembly for action, and then for providing appropriations, et cetera. Does not the Commissioner believe that if such procedural details are necessary for a proposed amendment allowing the people, through initiative, to amend or even repeal an ordinary legislation, which will appear at the earlier part of the Constitution, such details should be included in the Article on National Assembly? Hence, if all those details are necessary even for the proposed amendment of the Constitution by initiative of the people, then we can just make reference to Article VIII, Section 27 of the report on the National Assembly. In other words, what I wish to say is that if all those details are necessary, why do we not insert them in an anterior article, so that if those details can be referred to by reference, they do not have to be repeated in a subsequent article?
MR. DAVIDE: We appreciate the proposal. However, we feel that in the matter of authorizing the people to initiate an amendment to the Constitution, the proper situs for that would really be the Article on Amendment. We will clearly distinguish between the right of the people in proposing an ordinary legislation and that in proposing amendments to the Constitution which would become a constituent function, not just an ordinary legislative function. The mere fact that this may come later in the Constitution does not mean that this will repeal a previous provision under the National Assembly because the two concepts are entirely distinct and separate from one another.
MR. PADILLA: We recognize that an amendment to ordinary legislation is different from an amendment to the Constitution. But what I am wondering about is, if in the provision on the National Assembly there is already the phrase "a petition signed by at least 10 percent of the registered voters in the immediately preceding elections" and there are no further specifics or details for its implementation, why should not the same percentage of registered voters with regard to an amendment to the Constitution be followed without all these specifics or details?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President and Mr. Vice-President, actually, the proposal on initiative and referendum in the proposed Article on the National Assembly would also lead to ordinary legislation, the mechanics, the manner and even the exceptions thereto. The only requirement that is mandatory upon the legislature is on the number of signatures in a petition for initiative or a petition for referendum. So, we have parity already. Here, we leave it to the National Assembly to implement the exercise of the right, and in the Article on the National Assembly, a legislation is also necessary to implement the concept of initiative and referendum.
MR. PADILLA: Do I understand that under Section 27 of the committee report on the National Assembly, this phrase "at least 10 percent of the registered voters in the immediately preceding elections" will be determined by the National Assembly regardless of any action to be taken by the COMELEC?
MR. DAVIDE: That requirement will be mandatory in the law to be enacted by the legislature to implement the right of initiative and referendum. It was also the sense of the Committee that the matter of requiring a certain percentage of the total number of votes in any given areas within the 10-percent requirement should be provided by law.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Maambong be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, will the distinguished proponent of the amendment yield to a few questions?
MR. DAVIDE: With pleasure, Madam President.
MR. MAAMBONG: My first question: Commissioner Davide's proposed amendment on line I refers to "amendments." Does it not cover the word "revision" as defined by Commissioner Padilla when he made the distinction between the words "amendments" and "revision"?
MR. DAVIDE: No, it does not, because "amendments" and "revision" should be covered by Section 1. So insofar as initiative is concerned, it can only relate to "amendments" not "revision."
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you.
The second point is, there is a time frame on line 5 to line 8. Is it the intention of the proponent that this time frame will only apply to amendments by initiative and not to the other forms of amendments found in the other parts of the section?
MR. DAVIDE: The Commissioner is absolutely correct.
MR. MAAMBONG: As far as I am concerned, this last point is a very worrisome problem. It is indicated on lines 2 and 3 that:
. . . upon petition of at least 12 percent of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three percent of registered voters thereof.
I contemplate a scenario of this nature on the assumption that the 12 percent is not nationwide, such that when we say we have 200 legislative districts, that is only an assumption. In one district for example, the 7th District of Cebu from where I come, less than three percent of the votes cast is in favor of this amendment. Would it mean that even though we get more than 12 percent and that one district votes less than three percent, the amendment through initiative is lost?
MR. DAVIDE: That is correct. The entire proposed amendment will be lost, but I doubt very much if in the 7th District of Cebu where the Commissioner might be the Assemblyman by then, he will not be able to obtain more than three percent because that would be a very critical issue. He has to support it; otherwise, he will lose the support of his people.
MR. MAAMBONG: The point here is really academic. By way of academic discussion it is, therefore, possible for an amendment to be acceptable even by 50 percent of the whole nation, but it can be lost just because the leader in a certain legislative district strongly opposes it. Is that the intention of the proponent?
MR. DAVIDE: That would really be the effect because we would like that the 10 percent be truly representative of all districts and that is why we require a certain percentage of the registered voters in any given district or in all districts. So, anyone campaigning for an amendment through initiative must see to it that he will have more than three percent in all the representative districts, and I do not fear that this proposal can easily be supported by at least three percent because we have the contending political parties thereat.
MR. MAAMBONG: Without presenting any specific amendment, I suggest that the proponent and the distinguished sponsor who accepted this amendment should perhaps think this over considering that one district could defeat the intention of the whole country.
Thank you very much, Madam President.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, actually, the original proposal of this Member was only two percent, but by way of amendment, there were modificiations made by other Commissioners. So, I yielded to the collective wisdom of those who wanted to make a modification on the requirement.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Monsod be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: Thank you.
Will the proponent yield to some questions?
MR. DAVIDE: Willingly, Madam President.
MR. MONSOD: I have just two clarificatory questions.
The first is on the interpretation that the first petition can be filed after five years. Am I right?
MR. DAVIDE: The first limitation is five years from the ratification of this Constitution.
MR. MONSOD: That is right; since the sentence says "every five years thereafter" not oftener than once, can there be another one on the sixth year?
MR. DAVIDE: There can be; but between the sixth and the tenth year, we can only have one.
MR. MONSOD: That is right. So, we can have one on the sixth and one on the eleventh.
MR. DAVIDE: It can be done; the second may be on the eleventh year.
MR. MONSOD: My second question is: Is the Commission on Elections envisaged to be the body that will pass on the authenticity of the signatures?
MR. DAVIDE: That may be provided for in a law by the National Assembly for the implementation of the exercise of this right.
MR. MONSOD: Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Rigos be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rigos is recognized.
REV. RIGOS: Madam President, I would like to file a motion to amend the proposed amendment of Commissioner Davide: namely, that we eliminate or delete the last sentence of the first paragraph which reads: "NO AMENDMENT UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL BE AUTHORIZED WITHIN FIVE YEARS FOLLOWING THE RATIFICATION OF THIS CONSTITUTION NOR OFTENER THAN ONCE EVERY FIVE YEARS THEREAFTER." If we are not willing to limit the National Assembly in making the necessary amendments, the more reason we should not limit the people in making the necessary amendments any time they think amendments are needed.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, the only amendment of this Member on this matter is the initiative calling for amendment after the first five years. Insofar as the first five years is concerned, that was an original proposal of the Committee. Insofar as that portion of the proposal covered by my original amendment is concerned, it is with deep regret that I cannot accept the proposal. That might even be divisive because every year people might be campaigning for a proposed amendment. It will really destroy the sense of stability of a constitution. It is enough that we recognize that right to be exercised by them at least once every five years.
REV. RIGOS: Madam President, I do not see the logic in giving full freedom to the National Assembly in making the necessary amendments, and yet limiting the people to every five years. It seems to me that I will ask the House to vote on this proposal.
MR. SUAREZ: Since the amendment to the amendment has not been accepted by the proponent, may we request a vote on the matter, Madam President.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: For clarification, the amendment of Commissioner Rigos is to delete the second sentence of the first paragraph of Section 2.
As many as are in favor of the proposed amendment of Commissioner Rigos, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
The results show 13 votes in favor of the amendment and 18 against; the amendment to the amendment is lost.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Rodrigo be recognized for one question.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: I move to delete the portion limiting my question to one.
Will the Gentleman yield?
THE PRESIDENT: The Gentleman may yield, if he so desires.
MR. RODRIGO: The proposed amendment says that a petition of at least 12 percent of the total number of registered voters is required. Is it possible that two national groups, let us say, two national political groups or two nationwide labor organizations, campaign for two inconsistent amendments and both of them get more than 12 percent and both amendments also get at least 3 percent in every legislative district.
MR. DAVIDE: It should be done simultaneously because if it would be one after the other within a period of five years following the first five years after the ratification, then it cannot be done.
MR. RODRIGO: Yes, simultaneously, one organization senses or knows.
MR. DAVIDE: Two or three or four amendments can be proposed simultaneously but it can only be submitted to a plebiscite once every five years.
MR. RODRIGO: What happens if four inconsistent amendments get more than 12 percent?
MR. DAVIDE: In other words, both amendments qualify with the requirements and numbers.
MR. RODRIGO: I was starting with only two amendments but the Gentleman said it is even possible to have four. What will be done with those four amendments, all of which qualify under this section?
MR. DAVIDE: Even if these amendments are inconsistent with one another, the people will have the final say in the plebiscite.
MR. RODRIGO: How will they be presented to the people in a plebiscite?
MR. DAVIDE: The National Assembly shall, by law, provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right. So, the law may provide that in such instances where there are separate and inconsistent proposals for amendments, then whichever of the amendments may be approved by a majority of the people will be deemed valid amendments. We leave it to the people, if they agree to inconsistent provisions.
MR. RODRIGO: So, in a plebiscite it is possible for the people to approve by a majority vote two inconsistent amendments to the Constitution.
MR. DAVIDE: That is the will of the people in a plebiscite — to opt for a proposal for amendments submitted.
MR. RODRIGO: That is why I say this is impractical because in the case of an amendment proposed by the legislature or by a constitutional convention, no such situation would arise. But precisely it is not the mechanics of this that I object to. I like the idea but I will be in favor of the idea only if I see it is practical.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, that may be remote. But in the event it happens, there is still the power of the legislature to propose an amendment by a vote of three-fourths to cure the inconsistency.
MR. RODRIGO: There is an initiative by the people by means of the required number of votes. The last sentence says that the National Assembly shall, by law, provide for the implementation and exercise thereof, which means to say that the National Assembly must appropriate the money and submit the amendments to the people in a plebiscite.
MR. DAVIDE: That would depend now on the provision of the particular enabling statute. For instance, if the legislature can foresee such a situation where inconsistent amendments are presented by initiative in a given year, it might agree to defer the consideration of an inconsistent amendment, say, after five years, provided the two amendments are so inconsistent that the danger of them being approved might result in an absurdity.
MR. RODRIGO: Then what happens to the required 10 percent vote?
MR. DAVIDE: That is why if, indeed, two or more simultaneous amendatory proposals would be clearly and substantially inconsistent with one another, we leave it to the sound discretion of the legislature.
MR. RODRIGO: Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Jamir be recognized to present an amendment to the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Jamir is recognized.
MR. JAMIR: My amendment is with respect to the second line of the proposed amendment. Delete the words "THROUGH INITIATIVE" after the word "PEOPLE" because the proposal is made by the people so that the phrase "THROUGH INITIATIVE" is already redundant. That is the reason for the suggested deletion.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that acceptable, Commissioner Davide?
MR. DAVIDE: May I refer to the Committee?
MR. SUAREZ: The Committee finds merit in the proposed amendment to the amendment but would rather leave this to the body.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the pleasure of Commissioner Ople?
MR. OPLE: Madam President, on this subject at hand, may I just say that there is not necessarily incongruity or superfluity in saying that the people may act directly through initiative because then that puts the stamp of a great democratic institution or tradition on this formulation, which means the Gentleman connects to the great traditions of democracy, such as the thousand-year old tradition of the initiative and referendum in the cantons of Switzerland. We are not really reinventing the will in installing initiative as additional mode of proposing an amendment to the Constitution, and as a reserve power, of the sovereign people, when they are dissatisfied with the National Assembly in responding to a critical situation requiring a constitutional amendment, this initiative vests the power of direct action in the people themselves. It is largely, I think, reserve power, precisely a fallback position of the people in the event that they are dissatisfied. When we include the word "initiative," then we introduce into the formulation the great body of democratic conditions based on initiative especially in the countries where this has been most successful.
So, I would like to request Commissioner Jamir — If it does not detract too much from his own sense of being important — to kindly leave the word "initiative" there. It also matches to some extent or correlates the initiative, referendum and recall that are actually used in the Legislative Committee.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the pleasure of Commissioner Jamir?
MR. JAMIR: Considering the eloquent request of the Gentleman from Bulacan, I agree to withdraw my amendment.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Sarmiento be recognized to make an amendment to the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I address a few questions to the distinguished proponent of the amendment?
MR. DAVIDE: Willingly, Madam President.
MR. SARMIENTO: The U.P. draft and the state constitutions refer to initiative as a reserved power, together with recall and referendum. The last line of the amendment mentions exercise of this right. Will the Gentleman agree to use the word "exercise" instead of "right"?
MR. DAVIDE: So, it will read: "THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY SHALL BY LAW PROVIDE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS POWER."
MR. SARMIENTO: Yes.
MR. DAVIDE: No objection.
MR. SARMIENTO: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Committee accept the amendment?
MR. SUAREZ: We have no objection.
MR. SARMIENTO: Thank you very much.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: We will first put this proposed amendment to a vote.
As many as are in favor of the proposed amendment of Commissioner Sarmiento, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
The results show 26 votes in favor and 2 against; the amendment is approved.
MR. SARMIENTO: For the last two questions, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Gentleman may proceed.
MR. SARMIENTO: Line 3 reads: "AT LEAST TWELVE PERCENT OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF REGISTERED VOTERS." Nothing is specified whether these are registered voters of the preceding general election. The state constitutions I read make mention of registered voters of the preceding general election. Will the honorable proponent agree with me to include the words: REGISTERED VOTERS OF THE PRECEDING GENERAL ELECTION.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, the original proposal of this Member made reference to the total number of registered voters in the immediately preceding national election but there were amendments there to and the original draft of the Committee made reference to a registered number of voters only, the idea being that the total number of registered voters as of the presentation of the proposed amendment to the Constitution must be the basis. I yielded to the wisdom of that proposal because we limit now the amendment by initiative after the first five years following the ratification of this Constitution and not oftener than once every five years thereafter. So, if we have to make as a reference the total number of registered voters in the immediately preceding general election, the total number of signatories required would be very much less, and, therefore, it might not adequately represent the sentiments of those who may have registered after the immediately preceding election.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, with that manifestation I withdraw my proposed amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: The proposed amendment is withdrawn.
MR. SARMIENTO: Last question, Madam President.
May I invite the attention of the honorable proponent to line 2 which states: "PROPOSED BY THE PEOPLE THROUGH INITIATIVE UPON A PETITION OF." Commissioner Jamir gladly accommodated the eloquent manifestation of Commissioner Ople and he agreed that the words "THROUGH INITIATIVE" be maintained. I was looking at state constitutions, Madam President, and the words they used were these: "proposed by the people upon an initiative petition." I am not for the deletion of the words "THROUGH INITIATIVE" but a reformulation, so that line 2 would read: "PROPOSED BY THE PEOPLE UPON AN INITIATIVE PETITION OF AT LEAST TWELVE PERCENT."
MR. DAVIDE: The wording, as proposed and as appearing in the original committee report; that is, "THROUGH INITIATIVE UPON A PETITION," may be much better than the language as proposed which would appear to be foreign. Let us have our own phraseology in the proposal.
MR. SARMIENTO: If the intent is pro-Filipino, pro-people, then I withdraw my proposed amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, there are no more registered speakers to propose amendments on Section 2. However, there is still somebody who would like to amend or present an amendment to the amendment.
I ask that Commissioner Gascon be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Gascon is recognized.
MR. GASCON: I would like to ask a question first with regard to line 4. May I know why the line states "LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT"?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, the Committee on the Legislative voted on a scheme of representation for Members of the National Assembly by district.
So, that is the reason we speak here of "LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT."
MR. GASCON: The proposal to include "LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT" is mainly to advert to the problem that may arise from too much concentration in a particular region of a particular initiative petition, is that correct?
MR. DAVIDE: That is correct, Madam President.
MR. GASCON: However, a legislative district is much smaller than a province or a region; is that correct?
MR. DAVIDE: A legislative district may be the same as the province if the population of the province is less than the number of the ratio provided for, or it could be several districts in a given province, depending on the number of inhabitants in the province.
MR. GASCON: Actually, I would like to support the spirit behind the inclusion of the term "LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT" but upon considering it further, it might make the principle of initiative very difficult for the people.
So, I would like to propose an amendment. Instead of using the term "LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT," let us use REGION.
MR. DAVIDE: We have to define the word. Right now, for political administration, we have 13 regions, including the National Capital Region. If the Gentleman refers to the traditional geographical regions, we have only three.
MR. GASCON: As far as the definition of region is concerned, I would allow the legislature to define such because there are proposals for autonomous regions and I believe that this should be included.
So, when I speak of region, I am thinking of the 13 existing regions, plus whatever may be created as autonomous regions.
MR. DAVIDE: I would rather throw it to the body, Madam President, because of the difficulty, first, of defining what a region is since there are several regions, and, second, it might dilute the sanctity of the original proposal.
MR. GASCON: If that is the case, I withdraw my proposal for the word REGION and instead change "LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT" to PROVINCE.
THE PRESIDENT: "PROVINCE OR CITY."
MR. GASCON: Yes, PROVINCE OR CITY.
MR. DAVIDE: I would like to ask the Committee.
THE PRESIDENT: What does the Committee say?
MR. SUAREZ: How about the cities?
MR. GASCON: My issue is basically to make it much easier for the people to initiate.
MR. DAVIDE: What about the cities?
MR. GASCON: EVERY PROVINCE OR CITY.
MR. SUAREZ: As far as the Committee is concerned, that is an acceptable proposal.
MR. DAVIDE: It is also acceptable to this Member, Madam President, provided it would be: "OF WHICH EVERY PROVINCE OR CITY MUST BE REPRESENTED BY AT LEAST THREE PERCENT OF THE REGISTERED VOTERS THEREOF."
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Committee accept the amendment?
MR. SUAREZ: The Committee accepts, Madam President.
MR. DAVIDE: It is also acceptable to this Member, Madam President.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: By city, does the Gentleman mean chartered city? There are 16 chartered cities but there are about 50 cities. What are we referring to here — chartered cities or all cities?
MR. GASCON: All cities.
MR. MONSOD: All right; thank you.
MR. DAVIDE: All cities, whether component or highly urbanized.
MR. BENGZON: Before we take a vote, Madam President, may I just have one minute to speak against that proposed amendment?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bengzon may proceed.
MR. BENGZON: I am afraid that if we do pass that amendment, it is going to be used as a political tool by the politicians because there are certain big provinces that have so many districts. If certain politicians band together and do away with some of the districts, they can generate the necessary three percent by just getting the necessary three percent from the various districts and disregard completely the other districts in that province. So, it is a very tempting situation to be used as a political tool. That is why I am opposed to it.
MR.: GASCON: May I speak then, Madam President?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Gascon may proceed.
MR. GASCON: But the basic issue is the initiative process. I think we should make it as easy as possible for the people to initiate. In recognition of the problem that it might be too concentrated in one particular region, let us say, Metro Manila, I am supporting the issue to have a specified political region, whether it be legislative district, province or region. I would also like to emphasize that the initiative process does not end there. After it goes through the initiative process, it will be presented to the people for approval or disapproval. So, that problem which the Gentleman raised can easily be responded to by the process of ratification of the amendment.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I move that we take a vote on the amendment to the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: We will proceed to take a vote.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, may I ask a question for clarification?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo may proceed.
MR. RODRIGO: Does the amendment say "EVERY PROVINCE OR CITY"?
THE PRESIDENT: Both.
MR. DAVIDE: Province and city.
MR. RODRIGO: How about Metro Manila? The City of Manila, City of Pasay, City of Caloocan?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. RODRIGO: Usually, Metro Manila is treated differently, and it is so stated in the law because Metro Manila is composed of four cities.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide requests that he answer the question; he may proceed.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, Madam President. Metropolitan Manila was evolved because of the creation of the Metropolitan Manila Commission. It is composed of provinces from Rizal and from Bulacan and the cities within the area. So, under the proposal, we have to consider every city in Metro Manila and the municipalities in relation to the provinces to which they belong, Rizal and Bulacan.
MR. RODRIGO: Valenzuela no longer belongs to Bulacan.
MR. DAVIDE: Under the Metropolitan Manila Commission, but I do not think the Commission is recognized as a separate political subdivision under the Committee on Local Governments — I really do not know — because there is even a move to abolish this metropolitan concept of government.
MR. RODRIGO: Let us have this clarified because this is a very important provision. So, in case of Metro Manila, if it is by city, then at least three percent is needed in the City of Manila, Pasay City, Quezon City and Caloocan City. How about San Juan and Mandaluyong?
MR. DAVIDE: San Juan will be considered part of Rizal.
MR. RODRIGO: But who will decide that? I did not know that. I always thought of San Juan and Mandaluyong as part of Metro Manila. This is a very important provision; we must specify; we must make it clear.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, this matter may be reviewed later depending on what is the report of the Committee on Local Governments. The municipalities in the metropolitan area will be returned to each respective province. So, now in computing the percentage for purposes of initiative, the vote in that particular municipality must be taken into account with the votes of the rest of the province to where that municipality actually belongs.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended for a few minutes.
MR. DAVIDE: May I answer that, Madam President?
It was 6:05 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 6:09 p.m., the Session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Gascon be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Gascon is recognized.
MR. GASCON: Thank you, Madam President. After assessing the whole thing and with the assurance that retaining "LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT" may make it easier for the people to assert their sovereign will in as far as initiative is concerned, I withdraw my proposed amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: The proposed amendment is then withdrawn.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I move that we take a vote on the entire Section 2.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: I may be out of order but I would seek the kind indulgence and liberality of the Chair to allow me to seek reconsideration of the voting that amended the last sentence of Section 2 by changing the word "Right" to POWER.
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner may proceed.
MS. AQUINO: This is significant for me because POWER represents a concept; it is not just a matter of words or lexicon. I believe that the word "right" is even more potent and even more determinative as against POWER. Power, in the nature of its connotation, is a political concept which requires as a condition the presence of strength before one could even invoke it; while right, when enshrined in a law, is a right, regardless of whether one has the strength or the power to assert it. Thus, I believe the word "right" is even more potent than the word POWER.
It was because the Chair immediately called for a division of the House that I was not able to timely interpose my objection to the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the motion for reconsideration of the amendment to change the word "Right" to POWER?
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, I object to the motion for reconsideration. Firstly, the proposition or the motion is out of order. Secondly, I believe that POWER is stronger than the word "right." It is people's power. All along we have been speaking of people's power-participatory democracy, blessings of people's power. I have already mentioned the reasons why POWER is more appropriate than "right." I respectfully submit, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I reiterate my motion that we take a vote on the whole Section 2.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, I submit to the ruling of the Chair on my motion for reconsideration.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the Chair will first make its ruling.
Commissioner Aquino has appealed to the liberality of the Chair, and I believe I choose to be liberal this afternoon. Therefore, I will just submit the motion to the body for reconsideration.
As many as are in favor of the motion of Commissioner Aquino to reconsider the amendment, that is, to retain the word "Right" in the last sentence of Section 2, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
The results show 22 votes in favor of the reconsideration and 6 against; the motion for reconsideration is approved and the word "Right" in the last sentence of Section 2 is retained.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I reiterate my motion that we take a vote on the whole Section 2.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection that we take a vote on the whole Section 2?
Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, may I request a reading of the section so that we will understand. There have been so many amendments.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the sponsor please read Section 2, as amended?
MR. DAVIDE: Thank you, Madam President.
Section 2, as amended, reads as follows: "AMENDMENTS TO THIS CONSTITUTION MAY LIKEWISE BE DIRECTLY PROPOSED BY THE PEOPLE THROUGH INITIATIVE UPON A PETITION OF AT LEAST TWELVE PERCENT OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF REGISTERED VOTERS, OF WHICH EVERY LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT MUST BE REPRESENTED BY AT LEAST THREE PERCENT OF THE REGISTERED VOTERS THEREOF, NO AMENDMENT UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL BE AUTHORIZED WITHIN FIVE YEARS FOLLOWING THE RATIFICATION OF THIS CONSTITUTION NOR OFTENER THAN ONCE EVERY FIVE YEARS THEREAFTER.
THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY SHALL BY LAW PROVIDE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EXERCISE OF THIS RIGHT."
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of Section 2, as amended, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
The results show 31 votes in favor and 3 against: Section 2, as amended, is approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Monsod be recognized to present the last amendment to the last section.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: I would like to propose an amendment to Section 4 in order to reflect the necessity of a plebiscite in the exercise of the right under Section 2. As it reads now, the phrase "after the approval of such amendment or revision" refers only to amendments under Section 1.
So, I would like to propose the addition of the following lines after the phrase "approval of such amendment or revision": UNDER SECTION 1 OR THE DECLARATION BY THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS OF THE COMPLETION OF THE PETITION FOR AMENDMENT UNDER SECTION 2 OF THIS ARTICLE.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Madam President, will the proponent of the amendment accept an amendment to the amendment.
MR. MONSOD: The Gentleman will please state his amendment.
MR. DE LOS REYES: I propose that on line 20, between the words "Constitution" and "shall," we insert the phrase UNDER SECTION 1, SUBPARAGRAPHS (A) AND (B). Is that all right?
MR. MONSOD: That is all right, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: What line, please?
MR. DE LOS REYES: Line 20, Madam President. Between the words "Constitution" and "shall," insert the phrase UNDER SECTION 1, SUBPARAGRAPHS (A) AND (B) to indicate the fact that Section 4 refers to the amendment under Section 1 (a) and (b) — by the National Assembly or by the constitutional convention.
MR. MONSOD: I accept the amendment to the amendment.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Then, I propose to include another paragraph after line 23, which will read: AMENDMENT UNDER SECTION 2 SHALL BE VALID WHEN RATIFIED BY A MAJORITY OF THE VOTES CAST IN A PLEBISCITE WHICH SHALL BE HELD . . . The continuation will be the Gentleman's amendment.
MR. MONSOD: Yes. It reads: NOT EARLIER THAN SIXTY DAYS AND NOT LATER THAN NINETY DAYS AFTER THE DECLARATION BY THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS OF THE COMPLETION OF THE PETITION.
MR. DE LOS REYES: That is my amendment.
MR. MONSOD: I accept the amendment to the amendment.
MR. SUAREZ: What is the complete wording, Madam President?
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
MR. DE LOS REYES: I move for a suspension of the session so that we can consolidate our amendments.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.
It was 6:19 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 6:23 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Monsod be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: May I read the proposed amendment which is a consolidation of the proposals of Commissioners de los Reyes, Aquino and myself. Section 4 will now read: :ANY AMENDMENT TO, OR REVISION OF THIS CONSTITUTION UNDER SECTION ONE (1) SUBPARAGRAPHS (A) AND (B) SHALL BE VALID AND 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.
AMENDMENT UNDER SECTION TWO (2) 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 CERTIFICATION BY THE COMELEC OF THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE PETITION."
THE PRESIDENT: Is the proposed amendment accepted by the honorable sponsor?
MR. SUAREZ: It is accepted, Madam President, except that the word "COMELEC" should read: COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS.
MR. MONSOD: Yes, "COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS," Madam President.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any other comments? Are we ready to vote on the proposed amendment, as amended, of Commissioner Monsod?
As many as are in favor of the proposed amendment, as amended, of Commissioner Monsod, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand )
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (No Member raised his hand.)
The results show 30 votes in favor and none against; the proposed amendment, as amended, is approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Davide be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized .
MR. DAVIDE: Thank you, Madam President.
This is the last amendment intended to give more teeth to Section 3. On line 18., after the word "electorate," add the phrase IN A REFERENDUM and after that, add a new sentence to read as follows: IF THE QUESTION IS AFFIRMATIVELY VOTED UPON, THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY SHALL, WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM THE DAY OF THE REFERENDUM, ENACT THE LAW CALLING THE CONVENTION.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, the Committee would rather submit the proposal to the floor for consideration.
MR. DAVIDE: May I be allowed to explain.
THE PRESIDENT: Please do so.
MR. DAVIDE: In the original provision of both the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, the submission to the electorate of the question calling such a convention is in an election. That was eliminated by the proposal, the idea being probably, that since it would be tied up with an election, the issue on the call may not be meritoriously considered by the people. So it is necessary that we should put here that the submission must be in a referendum which can never be simultaneous with an election.
Secondly, if we do not add the new sentence; IF THE QUESTION IS AFFIRMATIVELY VOTED UPON, THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY SHALL, WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM THE DAY OF THE REFERENDUM, ENACT THE LAW CALLING THE CONVENTION, the will of the people in approving the matter of submitting the revision or amendment to a constitutional convention might easily be frustrated by Congress by not acting at all after the question has been submitted and affirmatively voted upon by the people. So I submit that the proposed amendment is necessary to give teeth to Section 3.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
MR. MAAMBONG: I thought that this matter on Section 3 has already been properly explained by the sponsor to the extent that this could actually be done either in an election or a plebiscite. At any rate, the proposed amendment is too involved.
May I ask for a suspension of the session, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.
It was 6:28 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 6:30 p.m., the session was resumed
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that the sponsor be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, we would like to call the attention ,of the movant to the fact that under Section 3, it is the National Assembly that is ordained by a two-thirds vote of all its Members to call a constitutional convention, and it is incumbent upon the National Assembly to come up with the enabling act providing the necessary mechanism for the constitutional convention to submit the proposed amendment to the people in a plebiscite called for the purpose. This is already built-in in whatever enabling act the National Assembly may promulgate, and that is the reason the Committee feels that it is no longer necessary to provide the statement suggested by the Gentleman.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, on the understanding that the call is in itself the enabling statute for the constitutional convention, if the question is affirmatively voted upon by the people, then I am willing to withdraw the proposed amendment.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
The proposed amendment is hereby withdrawn.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the Floor Leader is recognized.
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 322
ON SECOND READING
(Article on Amendment or Revision)
MR. RAMA: I move that we now vote on Proposed Resolution No. 322, as amended, the whole Article on Amendment or Revision.
THE PRESIDENT: We will now proceed to the voting. As many as are in favor of Proposed Resolution No. 322, the Article on Amendment or Revision of the Constitution, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (No Member raised his hand.)
The results show 29 votes in favor and none against.
Proposed Resolution No. 322, as amended, is approved on Second Reading. (Applause)
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, in behalf of the members of the Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions, may we extend our deepest gratitude to each and everyone of the Members of the Commission for bearing with us in this marathon session.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The message of the Gentleman is duly noted.
Is there any other business?
MR. RAMA. Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
NOMINAL VOTING ON PROPOSED
RESOLUTION NO. 263 ON THIRD READING
(Article on National Territory)
MR. RAMA: I move that we vote on Third Reading on Proposed Resolution No. 263.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
Printed copies of Proposed Resolution No. 263 were distributed on July 8, 1986, pursuant to Section 28, Rule VI of the Rules of the Constitutional Commission.
Voting on the proposed resolution on Third Reading is, therefore, in order.
The Secretary-General will read the title of the proposed resolution.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL. Proposed Resolution No. 263, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION AN ARTICLE ON NATIONAL TERRITORY.
FIRST ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT: The body will now vote on this resolution, and the Secretary-General will call the roll.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President, I would like to explain my vote.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bacani has three minutes to explain his vote.
COMMISSIONER BACANI EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
BISHOP BACANI: Fundamentally, the reason I vote no is because voting yes seems to me to be foreclosing the claim to Sabah. I have no objection to dropping the claim, but it seems that despite the protestations that the claim is not foreclosed in any way whatsoever, it is nevertheless actually foreclosed. I can foresee a possible scenario like this in the future — the Philippine government trying to renegotiate the claim and the people of Sabah saying, "Why do you claim Sabah? Is this your territory?" And we would answer: "Well, we are not sure whether it is our territory or not, but it may be." Then they can just say, "It certainly is not your territory." Why?
According to the Committee's definition of "territory," it is "all the ,other territories over which the government exercises sovereign jurisdiction." However, we do not exercise sovereign jurisdiction over this now, and, therefore, this is in no way ours, and we cannot lay any claim to it. Therefore, for this reason, I vote no. But if it is approved, I would like to emphasize that this formulation, in no way, forecloses the claim to Sabah. Nevertheless, I cannot see that being realized because language is only flexible to a certain extent, and this formulation cannot bear the burden of the interpretation that is being given to it.
Thank you.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
FR. BERNAS: Madam President, may I be allowed to explain my vote?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bernas has three minutes.
COMMISSIONER BERNAS EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
FR. BERNAS: I vote yes for three reasons: First, because the last sentence is a statement of one aspect of the archipelagic principle which we, together with many other nations, accept. Second, I vote yes because it is a good description of the territory we actually have today. That territory comprises two parts: The first part is the Philippine Archipelago; that is, all the territories ceded by Spain to the United States, and eventually transferred to the sovereignty of the Republic of the Philippines. The second part comprises all other territories — territories outside the Archipelago over which the government exercises jurisdiction. Third, I also vote yes because the Article does not make any uncertain claim of any territory, and, therefore, avoids creating useless or even harmful friction. At the same time, however, under the generally accepted principles of international law which we adopt, it does not prevent us from making use of any accepted modes of establishing a claim to a territory. For these reasons, I vote yes.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President, may I explain my vote?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de Castro has three minutes.
COMMISSIONER DE CASTRO EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President, I vote no because with the proposed statement in our national territory, we are giving up our claim on Sabah. Through no amount of hard thinking can I convince myself that the phrase "and all other territories over which the government exercises sovereign jurisdiction" means we are still keeping our claim over Sabah; for, indeed, Madam President, everybody knows that at this time we do not exercise sovereignty nor jurisdiction over Sabah. Our claim is based on historic right, the right established by our forefathers. To give up that right by a play of words such as "over which the government exercises sovereign jurisdiction" and then say that we are still keeping our claim on Sabah is gravely misleading.
The citation of areas over which the Philippines holds historic and legal rights as belonging to our national territory may be the only way of solidifying the Philippine position preparatory to negotiation. Any agreement later would not run counter to this provision, but would become a clarification.
Let history record, therefore, that today the Constitutional Commission of 1986, by a majority vote, is dropping the Philippine claim on Sabah without giving the Executive an opportunity to be heard on such a grave and important question.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
MR. CONCEPCION: Madam President, may I explain my vote?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Concepcion has three minutes.
COMMISSIONER CONCEPCION EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. CONCEPCION: I regret to say that I cannot vote affirmatively by reason of one word, that is, "exercises." If that word "exercises" were substituted with "HAS jurisdiction," there would be no problem. May I add a few more words. Actual exercise of sovereignty is essential to the acquisition of a territory but is not essential to the retention of the sovereignty over that territory. And that is why when the Philippines was occupied by the Japanese forces, we did not lose sovereignty. But to require that our claim to territories out-side the Archipelago be subject to the exercise of sovereignty not only weakens our claim. but defeats it.
My interpretation of the votes cast yesterday is that many of the Members of the Commission are not sure or are not prepared to render a judgment on whether or not we have a valid claim to Sabah, and that without passing upon the "mouth" of this issue, they would like to keep the door open to the assertion of our right to Sabah.
It is one thing to exercise sovereignty; another thing is to be sovereign. Once he acquires sovereign rights, he does not need actual exercise of those rights to retain sovereignty. To require the exercise of our sovereignty over territories not forming part of our archipelago, is to deal a deathblow upon our claim on Sabah.
My vote is no.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Davide
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, may I be allowed to explain my vote?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide has three minutes to explain his vote.
COMMISSIONER DAVIDE EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. DAVIDE: Although the committee report is based on my resolution, I am constrained to vote no to the final draft for the following reasons: First, it casts a serious cloud of doubt on the validity of our claim over Sabah. Secondly, it diminishes our right to pursue or enforce our historic and rightful claim over Sabah; and, finally, Madam President, a vote of yes on the proposal would be an act of liberality on our part to accommodate not the Filipinos but some other people.
So, I vote no.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
MR. GASCON: Madam President, I would like to explain my vote.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Gascon has three minutes.
COMMISSIONER GASCON EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. GASCON: Because I believe that as we continue the struggle for independence and self-determination, we must also recognize the will of other peoples of the world, particularly in Southeast Asia, for their own liberation, and for giving peace a chance, I vote yes in favor of the Article.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Guingona
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President, may I be allowed to explain my vote?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Guingona has three minutes.
COMMISSIONER GUINGONA EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you.
I have stated before that the proposed provision on National Territory should be made as flexible as possible so as not to close the door to any claim which our government may wish to make in the future, claims that are foreseen such as the Sabah claim, as well as those that are unforeseen.
I have objected to the Bernas' amendment, first, because the provision, as amended, could be construed correctly or misconstrued to mean that we have abandoned our claim to Sabah even before a thorough, unbiased and searching evaluation has been made. There are many issues to be resolved, Madam President, and many questions remain unanswered, including the so-called self-determination by the Sabahans.
Second, we are presuming that our officials would be making, on our behalf, irresponsible and illegal claims which, I think, would contradict the statement made by the honorable proponent of the amendment that we should presume that our officials would perform their functions properly.
Third, because even the Malaysians themselves in the Manila Accord that I had the privilege to read in this hall accept our right to pursue our claim to Sabah.
Finally, may I invite attention to the fact that quite a number of those who voted in favor of the amendment of Commissioner Bernas, in effect, voted conditionally because they were relying on assurance which, in my opinion, would have no binding effect.
My vote is no.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, may I be allowed to explain my vote?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong has three minutes.
COMMISSIONER MAAMBONG EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, my concern at the beginning of the deliberation on this provision, as can be gleaned from the gist of my interpellations, is that I was afraid that the wording of the provision might create uncertainty as to what is really our territory. But after hearing the distinguished sponsor, Commissioner Nolledo, answer the interpellations, I began to realize that the limits are really set forth right there in the provision on the National Territory. As a matter of fact, Commissioner Nolledo said that there are other laws which can be referred to in the determination of the real boundaries of our territory; namely, Republic Act No. 3046, on the computation of the straight base line; the Treaty of Paris; Presidential Decree No. 1599, on the exclusive economic zone; and Presidential Decree No. 1596, on our Kalayaan claim.
In view of the definiteness of the answer of the distinguished sponsor, I am convinced that we indeed have a provision which specifies our territory in definite terms. As a matter of fact, the honorable Secretary-General was kind enough to give us a map on the development of the archipelagic doctrine, a recognized principle of international law.
And so, Madam President, with the addition of the phrase "over which the government exercises sovereign jurisdiction," I am convinced that we have specified in actual terms our territory and its boundaries. For that, I vote yes to the Article.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
COMMISSIONER NOLLEDO EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, taking into account; the well-taken observations of Commissioners Bacani and Concepcion, but considering my being the sponsor of the definition of our national territory and, at the same time, my being courteous to Commissioner Bernas, I deeply regret that I have to abstain.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Ople
MR. OPLE: Madam President, may I explain my vote.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople has three minutes to explain his vote.
COMMISSIONER OPLE EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. OPLE: Madam President, I vote yes and thank the Chair for the opportunity to recapitulate the reasons for doing so.
I opposed the first Bernas amendment by deletion of the whole Article on National Territory on a plea, at that time, that this was in the nature of a municipal law, and that, therefore, no matter what we said here would have no effect whatsoever on the perceptions of the international community concerning our national territory. I said then, and I would like to repeat it, it is good to have this National Territory provision in the Constitution. It is a sort of inventory of all that we hold in common, including the air space, the land, the waters, the seabed and the insular shelves, .and I thought that I could support and I did support the Bernas amendment the second amendment which, in my opinion, improved upon the original formulation. It did not waive any just claim of the Philippines. It could have removed certain mirages and preconceptions, which I considered germs of potential conflict.
We are trying to write a Constitution of peace; a reconciliation with our brothers in Mindanao is, right now, almost on the top of our national agenda. I put a lot of weight on the opinions expressed by our three brother Muslims from Mindanao — Ambassador Abubakar, Commissioners Domocao Alonto and Lugum Uka — all of whom thought that this reformulation by the Bernas amendment of the National Territory would help accelerate the return of peace and enduring unity between Muslims and Filipinos in Mindanao. I regret some of the unkind tendencies of earlier remarks that attributed motives other than or less patriotic to those who voted for the Bernas amendment — I think that is foul. I think we are not accommodating any other nation. I think that the interest of Malaysia does not appeal to anyone here and to insinuate that this could have affected some of the thinking of those who voted is certainly unkind and unparliamentary. I think that, as it stands, this is a good definition of our national territory. It responds to our best conceptions of the territory which is indulged with sanctity for every Filipino — that territory is certainly under our sovereign jurisdiction. We may have claims to other parts of the world but these are in the nature of claims which are not foreclosed under international law and which cannot partake of the same sanctity for us Filipinos of that territory over which the Republic of the Philippines now exercises sovereign jurisdiction and which can claim from everyone of us a supreme sacrifice in the future.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Padilla
MR. PADILLA: May I explain my vote, Madam President?
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner has three minutes.
COMMISSIONER PADILLA EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. PADILLA: I voted against the deletion of the Article on National Territory because I believe that the Constitution should have a provision on National Territory.
Madam President, the Article on National Territory in the 1973 Constitution included the phrase "historic right or legal title." This was changed to the phrase "over which the government exercises sovereign jurisdiction." As a consequence of that amendment, the provision in the 1973 Constitution which reads: "over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction" was eliminated. In other words, Madam President, the phrase or the clause "over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction" has practically been eliminated to give way to the phrase "over which the government exercises sovereign jurisdiction." I cannot accept this amendment.
First, the word "Philippines" has been changed to "government." Second, the words "the Philippines has" have been changed to "the government exercises" and the phrase "sovereignty or jurisdiction" to "sovereign jurisdiction." "Sovereignty" and "jurisdiction" are not identical but the word "sovereignty" has been transformed into an adjective to qualify "jurisdiction" Moreover, it would require under the present text that not only the Philippines has jurisdiction or sovereignty but it was changed to the actual exercise of sovereign jurisdiction by the government.
Madam President, I like the phrase introduced by Commissioner Azcuna regarding terrestrial, fluvial and aerial domains, but because of this change from "the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction" to the clause "government exercises sovereign jurisdiction," I regret I have to vote no.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
MR. RAMA: Madam President, may I explain my vote?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rama has three minutes.
COMMISSIONER RAMA EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. RAMA: I vote no. I believe in the validity of our claim to Sabah. I should know because I made a research on this matter in the 1960's, and I would like to believe that the articles that I wrote in the Free Press led to the formal filing of the Philippine claim on Sabah.
One item that I did not mention the last time I stood here to document the validity of our claim was the fact that the British government invoked the document of the annexation order as basis for its claim of sovereignty over Sabah. I would like to inform the body that this annexation order was dated July 10, 1946, only six days after we declare our independence on July 4, 1946. Ironically, it was former Governor-General Francis Burton Harrison, as foreign affairs adviser to President Quirino, who called the attention of the Philippine government, stating that the annexation order passed by the Parliament of Britain was a surreptitious and a unilateral act, "a' political aggression" taking advantage of the prostrate situation of the Philippines which has just emerged from the rubble of a war. Therefore, former Governor-General Harrison urged the Philippine government to present to the United Nations a claim on Sabah because he repudiated and was scandalized by the acts of the British. But there is no perfect crime because when one examines the annexation order whereby the British government claimed sovereignty over Sabah, it was full of defects and the major defect was this: According to that annexation order, the British government claimed sovereignty over Sabah by virtue of the fact that it has assumed the rights of the British North Borneo Company. Our records will show that the British North Borneo Company never exercised public power nor sovereign rights since it was a private corporation. In other words, it could not have given to the British government what it did not have — Nemo dat quod non habet.
As to the argument that this may give rise to violence, I would also advert to the body the fact that the Philippine government insisted on a peaceful settlement and even invited Malaysia to take this question to the International Court of Justice. Precisely, we wanted a peaceful settlement, a civilized settlement among nations, but it was Malaysia who refused to go to that peaceful settlement and, therefore, courted trouble.
Therefore, Madam President, I am more concerned about the rights of the Filipinos than the rights of Malaysians.
I vote no.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
REV. RIGOS: May I explain my vote, Madam President?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rigos has three minutes.
COMMISSIONER RIGOS EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
REV. RIGOS: I vote no for the same reason given by Commissioner Concepcion.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Rodrigo
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, may I explain my vote?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo has three minutes.
COMMISSIONER RODRIGO EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, I vote yes because this Article defined very clearly what is rightly our territory and at the same time it saves me from violating the mandate: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's territory.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I explain my vote?
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner has three minutes.
COMMISSIONER SARMIENTO EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, in the spirit of Asian solidarity and the fact that this provision on National Territory will not preclude this government and the future Governments from pursuing its claim over any territory, I vote yes.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Suarez
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, may I explain my vote?
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner has three minutes.
COMMISSIONER SUAREZ EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. SUAREZ: I vote no because I certainly have no wish to waive and renounce our nation's historic rights and legal title. Secondly, I would not feel comfortable relying upon assurances that are not integrated in our Constitution. Ambiguities have no place in the supreme law of the land.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
MR. TADEO: Madam President, may I explain my vote?
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner has three minutes.
COMMISSIONER TADEO EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. TADEO: I vote no, naniniwala kasi ako na makabuluhan at mahalaga na manatili ang "historic right" at "legal title."
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
COMMISSIONER UKA EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. UKA: May I explain my vote, Madam President?
I vote yes because my understanding of the meaning of the Article on National Territory does not in any way preclude us from claiming any area or territory in the future, including the moon. This Article describes very clearly our present territory over which we have sovereignty. For if we include future territories, we will really have a very large territory. Let us cross the bridge when we come to it.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Villacorta
MR. VILLACORTA: May I explain my vote, Madam President?
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner has three minutes.
COMMISSIONER VILLACORTA EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. VILLACORTA: Madam President, I vote yes after having consulted specialists in international law and diplomacy who assured me that the term "sovereign jurisdiction" is not an auto-limitation that precludes the Philippines from asserting her sovereignty over territories which she may either lose or claim in the future. Moreover, these experts informed me that the term "sovereign" shall always remind the users of the Constitution that where a claimed territory is not an empty piece of land but is inhabited by living persons, these persons' will must be taken into account. Sovereignty resides only in the people and the people's self-determination reigns supreme over historic right, legal title and other requirements of territorial claims. This principle is consistent with the evolving theme of our 1986 Constitution; namely, people's rights and interest.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Villegas
SECOND ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will conduct a second call for those who have not registered their votes.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
THE PRESIDENT: The results show 22 votes in favor, 11 against and 1 abstention.
Proposed Resolution No. 263 is lost on Third Reading for failure to meet the required majority vote of all the Members.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: There are some of us who are not present and it would be fair if these proceedings on Third Reading continue until tomorrow in order that the votes of those absent may be obtained on nominal voting.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, I object to the motion because that would be against the Rules.
THE PRESIDENT: The motion is out of order. We already had a voting; therefore, the only remedy open would be for a motion for reconsideration which we could consider at some future time.
MR. BENGZON: May I beg your pardon, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: I said we already had a voting on the resolution. The resolution was lost and so, the only remedy open is for a motion for reconsideration which we can consider tomorrow.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, may I say something.
THE PRESIDENT: Please proceed.
MR. BENGZON: Under the circumstances, I would like to move for the suspension of the Rules in order to obviate the filing of a motion for reconsideration tomorrow. So, may I move for a suspension of the Rules today, so that we could continue with the nominal voting tomorrow.
MR. GUINGONA: I object, Madam President.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, I object.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Guingona is recognized.
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President, I object because I am afraid this will create a bad precedent that everytime a vote is taken and it is lost, we will ask for a suspension of the Rules.
MR. BENGZON: In that case, as suggested by the Chair, the motion for reconsideration will be presented tomorrow.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, parliamentary inquiry.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: Before any motion for reconsideration is presented at the appropriate time, would the results of the voting today mean that the new Constitution will be without an Article on National Territory, unless the Committee will propose another?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, as it is now, there is no provision for the National Territory in the Constitution.
MR. DAVIDE: Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there a motion for adjournment?
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President, may I move that the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of Principles take it up again for presentation to the body?
THE PRESIDENT: Then, we will take that up when the motion for reconsideration is submitted.
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Just a minor point of parliamentary inquiry.
THE PRESIDENT: Please proceed.
MR. MAAMBONG: We just want to find out exactly how many Members participated in the voting — just for the record, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The result of the voting is: 22 affirmative; 11 negative; I abstention; so, that is 34.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you, Madam President.
ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I move that we adjourn the session until tomorrow at two-thirty in the afternoon
THE PRESIDENT: The session is adjourned until tomorrow at two-thirty in the afternoon
It was 7:14 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 Jose N. Nolledo.
Everybody remained standing for the Prayer.
MR. NOLLEDO: O Dakilang Diyos, hinihingi po namin ang Inyong awa, pagmamahal at pagkalinga sa aming makasaysayang pagbalangkas at pagbuo ng isang Saligang Batas na tunay na maka-Pilipino at maka-tao, isang Saligang Batas na tumatangkilik sa mga karapatang pambayan at hahango sa kahirapan ng marami naming mamamayan, isang Saligang Batas na magbibigay ng tunay na pag-asa sa aming mga kababayan at magpapatibay ng kanilang loob sa kanilang pagtahak sa daang puno ng tinik at kapighatian tungo sa masagana at maligayang kinabukasan at nawa'y makintal sa isipan ng buong sambayanang Pilipino sa lalong madaling panahon ang paniniwalang may langit din pala sa daigdig. Hinihingi po namin ang mga ito sa ngalan ng Inyong Bugtong na Anak na si Hesus na naghahari kasama po Ninyo at ng banal na Espiritu Santo, iisang Diyos, magpakailan man. Siya nawa.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will please call the roll.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
| Abubakar | Present | Azcuna | Present |
| Alonto | Present | Bacani | Present |
| Aquino | Present | Bengzon | Present |
| Bennagen | Present | Ople | Present * |
Bernas | Present | Padilla | Present |
| Rosario Braid | Present | Quesada | Present |
| Brocka | Present | Rama | Present |
| Calderon | Present | Regalado | Present |
| Castro de | Present | Reyes de los | Present |
| Colayco | Present | Rigos | Present |
| Concepcion | Present | Rodrigo | Present |
| Davide | Present | Romulo | Present |
| Foz | Present | Rosales | Present |
| Garcia | Present | Sarmiento | Present |
| Gascon | Present | Suarez | Present |
| Guingona | Present | Sumulong | Present |
| Jamir | Present | Tadeo | Present |
| Laurel | Present * | Tan | Present |
Lerum | Present | Tingson | Present |
| Maambong | Present | Treñas | Present |
| Monsod | Present | Uka | Present |
| Natividad | Present | Villacorta | Present |
| Nieva | Present | Villegas | Present |
| Nolledo | Present |
The President is present.
The roll call shows 42 Members responded to the call.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair declares the presence of a quorum.
MR. CALDERON: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the Assistant Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. CALDERON: I move that we dispense with the reading of the Journal of the previous session and that we approve the same. THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
MR. CALDERON: Madam President, I move that we proceed to the Reference of Business.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
The Secretary-General will read the Reference of Business.
The Secretary-General read the following Proposed , Resolutions on First Reading, Communications and Committee Reports, the President making the corresponding references:
Proposed Resolution No. 446, entitled:
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A MULTIPARTY POLITICAL SYSTEM.Introduced by Hon. Ople, Natividad, Maambong and de los Reyes, Jr.
To the Committee on Constitutional Commissions and Agencies.
Proposed Resolution No. 447, entitled:
RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO INCLUDE IN THE CONSTITUTION A PROVISION PROHIBITING HAMLETTING, ZONING, FOOD BLOCKADE, AND SIMILAR CRUEL AND INHUMAN MILITARY MEASURES AGAINST CIVILIAN COMMUNITIES.Introduced by Hon. Tan, Tadeo, Colayco, Sarmiento, Bennagen, Aquino, Suarez and Bacani.
To the Committee on Citizenship, Bill of Rights, Political Rights and Obligations and Human Rights.
Proposed Resolution No. 448, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION PROHIBITING THE USE OF TORTURE FOR ANY PURPOSE.Introduced by Hon. Garcia.
To the Committee on Citizenship, Bill of Rights, Political Rights and Obligations and Human Rights.
Proposed Resolution No. 449, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION PROVISIONS FOR THE CREATION OF THE PEOPLE'S POLICE COUNCIL COMPOSED OF THE MAJOR SECTORS IN THE LOCALITY THAT WILL MONITOR AND PROVIDE SANCTIONS AGAINST ANY SYSTEMATIC POLICE ABUSES.Introduced by Hon. Bennagen.
To the Committee on General Provisions.
Proposed Resolution No. 450, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION FOR THE USE OF THE INDIGENOUS WRITTEN LANGUAGE AND ALPHABET OF THE ETHNIC MINORITIES WHEN VOTING IN ANY NATIONAL OR LOCAL ELECTIONS, PLEBISCITE OR REFERENDUM.Introduced by Hon. Bennagen.
To the Committee on General Provisions.
Proposed Resolution No. 451, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION PROVISIONS RELATIVE TO THE PROBLEM OF ENGLISH, SPANISH, AND FILIPINO, OUR MOTHER TONGUES, NATIVE LANGUAGES AND DIALECTS, AND OTHER RELATED SUBJECTS.Introduced by Hon. Davide, Jr., Maambong, Jamir, Uka, Abubakar and Rama.
To the Committee on Human Resources.
Proposed Resolution No. 452, entitled:
RESOLUTION FOR THE ENCOURAGEMENT AND PROMOTION OF PEOPLE'S ORGANIZATIONS.Introduced by Hon. Gascon.
To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of Principles.
Proposed Resolution No. 453, entitled:
RESOLUTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF OUR ENVIRONMENT AND THE PRESERVATION OF OUR NATURAL RESOURCES.Introduced by Hon. Gascon.
To the Committee on the National Economy and Patrimony.
Proposed Resolution No. 454, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE THE RIGHT TO EDUCATION OF EVERY CITIZEN IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS OF THE NEW CONSTITUTION.Introduced by Hon. Gascon, Villacorta, Guingona, Treñas and Rosario Braid.
To the Committee on Citizenship, Bill of Rights, Political Rights and Obligations and Human Rights.
Proposed Resolution No. 457, entitled:
RESOLUTION DECLARING THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ELIMINATE TYRANNY AND TO REPLACE IT WITH A DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT.Introduced by Hon. Ople, Maambong, de los Reyes, Jr. and Natividad.
To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of Principles.
Communication from Mr. Manuel A. Argel of Vigan, Ilocos Sur, proposing, among others, a parliamentary form of government patterned after that of France, the synchronization of elections, a bicameral legislature, and abandonment of the Sabah claim.
(Communication No. 146 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Steering Committee.
Unnumbered resolution of the Association of Disabled , Persons of Rinconada and Iriga City (ADPRIC) requesting the inclusion of provisions which would grant disabled, Filipinos priority of employment in government and private entities.
(Communication No. 147 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Social Justice.
Letter from Mr. Rolando R. Abad of San Isidro, Pili, Camarines Sur, requesting the inclusion of provisions on land reform, education and languages.
(Communication No. 148 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Social Justice.
Letter from Lakas ng Manggagawa signed by Mr. Daniel Edralin, submitting general proposals on basic constitutional issues and a particular resolution affording more protection to labor and guaranteeing human and trade union rights.
(Communication No. 149 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Social Justice.
Telegram from Ms. Maria Luisa Lorenzo of Manila, expressing opposition to any provision imposing a national language.
(Communication No. 150 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Human Resources.
Letter from Mr. Romulo P. Sandejas III of Legaspi City, proposing free education and health service, among others.
(Communication No. 151 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Social Justice.
Letter from GABRIELA signed by Sr. Mary John Mananzan, OSB, enclosing its manifesto calling for the full emancipation of women, and for justice, freedom, democracy and prosperity for the people.
(Communication No. 152 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Citizenship, Bill of Rights, Political Rights and Obligations and Human Rights.
Letter from the Philippine Institute of Environmental Planners signed by Mr. Cesar H. Concio, enclosing a position paper prepared by Mr. Rene S. Santiago and endorsing particularly the proposals on autonomous regional governments.
(Communication No. 153 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Local Governments.
Letter from Mr. Pedro M. Espina of the Knights of Columbus, Virgen Sa Barangay Council No. 8362, City of Tagbilaran, suggesting, among others, a bill of duties and obligations of citizens enumerated explicitly to counterbalance the Bill of Rights.
(Communication No. 154 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Citizenship, Bill of Rights, Political Rights and Obligations and Human Rights.
Letter from Mr. Prisco P. Orcullo, Jr. of Salvacion, San Agustin, Surigao del Sur, proposing the translation of the Constitution into different Philippine dialects and requiring every head of the family to secure a copy free or in exchange for sales receipts.
(Communication No. 155 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on General Provisions.
Letter from Mr. Fidel R. Milan and eleven others of Sta. Catalina, Zamboanga City, requesting provisions on urban land reform, free hospitalization, creation of Urban Poor Ministry, and handicraft skills training.
(Communication No. 156 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Social Justice.
Letter from Mr. Edward M. Kelly of Assumption Sapang Palay College, Inc., submitting proposals on the equality of man and woman, protection of the environment, housing and education, among others.
(Communication No. 157 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of Principles.
Letter from Mr. Orlando F. Caliolio of Southern City Colleges, Zamboanga City, requesting inclusion in the Bill of Rights of a provision granting the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.
(Communication No. 158 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Citizenship, Bill of Rights, Political Rights and Obligations and Human Rights.
Communication from Anchor Foundation, Inc. and Anchor Broadcast Council, Sta. Mesa, Manila, requesting inclusion of a provision that will promote and protect the people's right to the use of the airwaves for broadcast media.
(Communication No. 159 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on the National Economy and Patrimony.
Letter from the People's Secretariat for the Constitutional Commission signed by Mr. Rizal Ruiz Amon, forwarding the position paper of the Filipino Inventors Society proposing provisions for invention, science and technology.
(Communication No. 160 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Human Resources.
Committee Report No. 16 on Proposed Resolution No. 455, prepared by the Committee on Accountability of Public Officers, entitled:
RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO INCORPORATE IN THE TRANSITORY PROVISIONS OF THE 1986 CONSTITUTION CERTAIN SECTIONS TO IMPLEMENT THE PROPOSED ARTICLE ON ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS,recommending its approval.
Sponsored by Hon. Monsod, Colayco and members of the Committee on Accountability of Public Officers.
To the Steering Committee.
Committee Report No. 17 on Proposed Resolution No. 456, prepared by the Committee on Accountability of Public Officers, entitled:
RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO INCORPORATE IN THE 1986 CONSTITUTION AN ARTICLE ON ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS,recommending its approval in substitution of Proposed Resolution Nos. 61, 66, 74, 76, 121, 125, 218, 223, 229, 280, 344, 353 and 354.
Sponsored by Hon. Monsod, Colayco and members of the Committee on Accountability of Public Officers.
To the Steering Committee.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I would like to inform the body of some changes on the referral of certain resolutions.
Proposed Resolution No. 277, proposing for a national health policy, has been referred to the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of Principles from the Committee on Justice; and Proposed Resolution Nos. 265, 266, 270, 96, 164 and 347 which were previously referred to the Committee on General Provisions, to the Committee on Human Resources.
THE PRESIDENT. Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; 10t the corresponding matters be recorded.
RESOLUTION NO. 322
(Article on Amendment or Revision )
Continuation
PERIOD OF SPONSORSHIP AND DEBATE
MR. RAMA: I move that we continue the consideration of Committee Report No. 7 on Proposed Resolution No. 322 on Second Reading. We are still in the period of sponsorship and debate.
I ask that the sponsor be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
The sponsor, Commissioner Suarez, is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Madam President.
May we respectfully call the attention of the Members of the Commission that pursuant to the mandate given to us last night, we submitted this afternoon a complete Committee Report No. 7 which embodies the proposed provision governing the matter of initiative. This is now covered by Section 2 of the complete committee report. With the permission of the Members, may I quote Section 2:
The people may, after five years from the date of the last plebiscite held, directly propose amendments to this Constitution thru initiative upon petition of at least ten percent of the registered voters.
This completes the blanks appearing in the original Committee Report No. 7. This proposal was suggested on the theory that this matter of initiative, which came about because of the extraordinary developments this year, has to be separated from the traditional modes of amending the Constitution as embodied in Section 1. The committee members felt that this system of initiative should be limited to amendments to the Constitution and should not extend to the revision of the entire Constitution, so we removed it from the operation of Section I of the proposed Article on Amendment or Revision. Also this power could be susceptible to abuse to such an extent that it could very well happen that the initiative method of amendment could be exercised, say, twice or thrice in a matter of one year; thus, a necessity for putting limitations to its exercise. The committee members also felt that putting a limitation within a five-year period after the date of the last plebiscite held is reasonable, as well as the percentage arrived at — meaning, ten percent of the registered voters. On the basis of the information given, we have about 26 or 27 million registered voters, which would necessitate getting the affirmative vote of at least 2.5, 2.6 or 2.7 million thereof. This, of course, is not an impossible task although it would pose some difficulties. The general idea as agreed upon is for us to try to make the process of amendment a little more difficult in order that we can have an enduring and lasting Constitution. After all, there are two other methods of amendment, the traditional ones, which we have provided under subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1. So, our Committee decided to propose this particular Section 2 as it is now embodied in the complete committee report.
We would like to clear up one other point, lest we be misunderstood in the interpretation of the provisions which now appear as Section 3 of the complete Committee Report No. 7. When we were asked by Commissioner Maambong last night about the applicability of Section 3 in connection with the employment of the words "election or plebiscite," we did not get the full significance of his questioning and we came up with an affirmative answer. We ventured the observation that in the application of Section 3, the calling of a constitutional convention could not be submitted to the people in a special plebiscite on the theory that this Section 3, formerly Section 2 operates only simultaneously with the calling of an election. The members of the Committee — and this was borne out by the proposal of Commissioner de Castro — agreed to delete after the word "electorate" the phrase appearing in the 1973 Constitution. In other words, the idea is clear that this Section 3 could operate with or without an election and a plebiscite for the purpose could be called independently of the election. So this is for the purpose of clearing up any possible misunderstanding of the provision which is now Section 3 of the completed Committee Report No. 7.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair would just like to clarify this point from the honorable sponsor.
We adjourned yesterday while we were in the process of closing the debate on the original resolution submitted by the Committee. Does the Chair understand that we will debate on this substitute resolution again, or is this one of the amendments?
MR. SUAREZ: We are not yet in the period of amendments, Madam President. I think we can accommodate interpellations regarding this proposed Section 2 of the completed Committee Report No. 7.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair would like to know whether or not we will close the debate on Committee Report No. 7.
MR. RAMA: Not yet, Madam President, because some Members would like to debate on certain portions of the Article on Amendment. As a matter of fact, Commissioner Rodrigo has reserved his turn to speak on the matter.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair would like to know whether we are now in the period of amendments.
MR. RAMA: We are still in the period of sponsorship and debate.
Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Rodrigo be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: Thank you, Madam President.
Madam President, last night I said the Committee on the Legislative drafted a provision for initiative or referendum on ordinary legislation, and I said that in that Article, the Committee on the Legislative provides that initiative or referendum shall be initiated by at least ten percent of the registered voters in the immediately preceding election. I am now reading from the final draft which will be considered this evening for final approval by the Committee. In the committee report, the committee also suggests 10 percent of the electorate to propose a constitutional amendment, so that the proportion of the people who can initiate an ordinary legislation is the same as that who can propose a constitutional amendment. In the resolution itself it is very evident that the intention of the Constitution is to make the process of proposing a constitutional amendment more difficult than that of an ordinary legislation. Section I states:
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.
A constitutional convention may be called by the National Assembly by a vote of two-thirds of all its Members. So, the norm is to have a bigger vote for proposals for constitutional amendments than for ordinary legislations. So, does not the sponsor think that instead of the same proportion of 10 percent of the electorate to propose constitutional amendments and to initiate ordinary legislations, the percentage to propose constitutional amendments should be much bigger?
MR. SUAREZ: The Committee will be glad to entertain proposals to amend this particular subject matter at the proper time.
MR. RODRIGO: Section 2 of the complete committee report provides: "upon petition of at least 10 percent of the registered voters." How will we determine that 10 percent has been achieved? How will the voters manifest their desire, is it by signature?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, by signatures.
MR. RODRIGO: Let us look at the mechanics. Let us say some voters want to propose a constitutional amendment. Is the draft of the proposed constitutional amendment ready to be shown to the people when they are asked to sign?
MR. SUAREZ: That can be reasonably assumed, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: What does the sponsor mean? The draft is ready and shown to them before they sign. Now, who prepares the draft?
MR. SUAREZ: The people themselves, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: No, because before they sign there is already a draft shown to them and they are asked whether or not, they want to propose this constitutional amendment.
MR. SUAREZ: As it is envisioned, any Filipino can prepare that proposal and pass it around for signature.
MR. RODRIGO: Pass it around?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: So it is possible it be by one man.
MR. SUAREZ: One man or a group of men.
MR. RODRIGO: A group of men or ordinary citizens can prepare the draft and pass it around for signature.
MR. SUAREZ: That is right, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: And once they sign the draft, it is final. They cannot amend it anymore.
MR. SUAREZ: Probably, they could.
MR. RODRIGO: It is our experience right in this hall that in proposing amendments we are very careful about every word, even the comma. So, how can these 2.5 million signatories participate in the drafting of the amendment?
MR. SUAREZ: The mechanical details could be ironed out later, but substantially the democratic process will have to be followed; meaning, if a person has a proposal for amendment, he has to market its acceptability among ten percent of the electorate.
That is the general idea behind the introduction of this particular section.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, this proposed amendment will be distributed throughout the Philippines, in Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao.
MR. SUAREZ: Yes.
MR. RODRIGO: This may be prepared by one man or a group of men who will gather signatures. The sponsor said that amendments may be proposed. How can these be proposed? By 10 percent or 20 percent of the electorate. Suppose somebody wants to change a word before signing the proposal, say, "obnoxious" to "inconsistent," who will decide whether or not change it?
MR. SUAREZ: What probably would be the ultimate test of any particular proposal for the amendment of the Constitution under this system is its final presentation to the Commission on Elections for submission in the plebiscite called for the purpose, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: Yes, but who will draft that proposal?
Will the 2.5 million signatories have a hand in the drafting of that proposal?
MR. SUAREZ: Not necessarily, because this contemplates a situation where the proposal will be accepted by the required percentage. It does not require that the signatories would be coauthors of that proposal. They only signify their conformity to it and this ultimately will have to be submitted to the people for ratification in a plebiscite called for the purpose, Madam President.
The process of submitting the proposal for acceptance by the required percentage of voters is different from submitting the accepted proposal for ratification by the people in a plebiscite.
MR. RODRIGO: That is correct. But if the National Assembly (by a vote of three-fourths of its Members) or a constitutional convention or constitutional commission like ours makes the proposal, all the members participate. In other words, the ones who propose would study, debate, participate and vote on this.
What if the ten percent of the electorate will propose the amendment? Does the sponsor mean it is possible that only one man or a group of men will draft the proposal and have it signed by the people without their right to amend, revise or change it or participate in drafting it?
MR. SUAREZ: If 10 percent of the electorate signifies its acceptance and conformity to the proposal submitted by one man, that is just beautiful, Madam President. That means that the proposal of that single individual has been marketed for acceptability to the required percentage of the electorate.
MR. RODRIGO: So in the final analysis, we can say that this is a proposal not studied, neither drafted nor participated in by the people through initiative because initiative means the people act directly.
MR. SUAREZ: One might accept that situation, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: Now, Section 4 states:
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.
In the case of a proposal made by the National Assembly or by a convention, we know the date of its approval. How about that of the 10 percent of the electorate? When is the date of approval?
MR. SUAREZ: That is a very relevant question which was taken up during the committee meeting this morning. The idea, Madam President, although we did not include it in the draft proposal, is that in the case of proposals submitted through initiative, the operative period would be after the Commission on Elections has certified that the required number of registered voters has been obtained. This was the suggestion, but we thought it was wiser to throw this matter to the body at the appropriate time.
MR. RODRIGO: I have another question. A constitution is supposed to be the act of the sovereign people of the Philippines. The only requirement in this committee report is at least 10 percent of the electorate must petition. Let us say 10 percent of the electorate of the whole Philippines petitioned but this 10 percent came only from Metro Manila, would that be sufficient?
MR. SUAREZ: As it is envisioned, yes, Madam President, although again in the committee meeting this morning, that situation was precisely explored and ideas were given to the effect that at least a certain percentage of the electorate from the provinces should sign the proposal. There were suggestions that this percentage could amount to something like five percent from each province. Again, we leave this to the body to determine later on.
MR. RODRIGO: Which body?
MR. SUAREZ: The Commission, Madam President, by way of amendment.
MR. RODRIGO: During the period of amendments.
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: So, there will be a provision to that effect in Section 2 of the proposed resolution?
MR. SUAREZ: If that is the sense of the Commission, yes, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: But if nobody presents that amendment, does not the Committee think that that amendment should be incorporated in this section?
MR. SUAREZ: The Committee could very well submit that as a committee amendment for consideration by the Commission.:
MR. RODRIGO: Let me go back to a previous question. The Committee is not happy with, let us say, 10 percent of the votes coming from only one region like Metro Manila.
MR. SUAREZ: Yes.
MR. RODRIGO: But the way Section 2 is worded now, that is possible and admissible.
MR. SUAREZ: That situation is theoretically possible — that all of the 2.6 or 2.7 million registered voters would come from one area, say, from Luzon or from Metro Manila.
MR. RODRIGO: Yes. If it is the National Assembly that proposes the amendment, the whole Philippines is represented, is it not?
MR. SUAREZ: That is correct.
MR. RODRIGO: And if it is a constitutional convention which proposes the amendment, the whole Philippines is also presented.
MR. SUAREZ: That is correct, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: Whereas, if the people want to act directly, Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao might not be represented at all in the 10 percent electorate who proposes to amend the Constitution, is that correct?
MR. SUAREZ: That is correct.
MR. RODRIGO: Thank you very much.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Sarmiento be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, I am happy that the Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions decided to retain the system of initiative as a mode of amending the Constitution. I made a survey of American constitutions and I discovered that 13 states provide for a system of initiative as a mode of amending the Constitution — Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma and Oregon. The initiative for ordinary laws only is used in Idaho, Maine, Montana and South Dakota. So, I am happy that this was accepted or retained by the Committee.
About the matter of drafting, questions were raised as to who will draft the proposals of the people. I hope this information will be of help to the Committee and to the Commission.
In Alaska, the initiative petition is prepared by the lieutenant governor through a ballot title and proposition which summarizes the proposed law and he shall place this on the ballot for their first statewide election held more than 120 days after adjournment of the legislative session following the filing of the proposal. If before the election substantially the same measure has been enacted, the petition is void.
In the State of Colorado, the original draft or text of the proposed initiated constitutional amendments and initiated laws is submitted to the legislative research and drafting offices of the general assembly for review and comment. Not, later than two weeks after submission of the original draft unless withdrawn by the proponents, the legislative research and drafting offices of the general assembly shall render their comments to the proponents of the proposed measure at a meeting open to the public, which shall be held only after full and timely notice to the public.
Madam President, a book entitled: The American Federal Government's Suffrage, Nominations and Elections has this paragraph on initiative and on the matter of drafting a proposal:
The initiative is an electoral device through which an individual or a group may propose statutory legislation or constitutional amendments by securing the signatures of the requisite number of voters and may place the measure before the electorate for adoption or rejection. The drafting of such measures normally is done by interested groups or their attorneys. The number or proportion of signatures required is set by law or constitution.
I hope these points will be considered by the Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions.
Two more points, Madam President. Regarding the percentage of registered voters that will propose amendments to the Constitution through initiative, I think I agree with the first interpellator that this system of initiative should be made more difficult.
In the State of Arizona, the number of electorate that can propose a legislative measure is 10 percent, but it is higher for those who will propose any amendment to the Constitution. Maybe, since the Constitution is a fundamental law, it is more serious than a legislative measure. So, we can increase the percentage to 15 percent as in the case of Arizona.
Madam President, Section 2 provides:
The people may, after the years from the date of the last plebiscite held, directly propose amendments to this Constitution. . .
What if the people feel that there should be an amendment to meet a situation, does not the sponsor think this provision is quite stringent or strict? I ask this question because Section 4 of the State Constitution of Alaska provides that an initiative petition to proposed amendments to the Constitution may be filed any time.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Bacani be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: Will the honorable sponsor yield to two questions?
MR. SUAREZ: With pleasure, Madam President.
BISHOP BACANI: The first question is: Does the sponsor think that proposing amendments to the Constitution is necessary?
MR. SUAREZ: In view of recent developments and in order to give meaning and significance to the concept of people's power, I would answer in the affirmative, Madam President.
BISHOP BACANI: In other words, one cannot look forward to an effective way of proposing constitutional amendments anymore if Section 2 is not adopted?
MR. SUAREZ: Not necessarily, because we still have the two traditional methods of proposing amendments to the Constitution under Section 1, paragraphs (a) and (b) of the resolution, Madam President.
BISHOP BACANI: Therefore, it is not necessary; it is perhaps opportune at some time.
MR. SUAREZ: It could be necessary in a situation where the methods outlined under paragraphs (a) and (b) could not be utilized.
BISHOP BACANI: Thank you.
MR. SUAREZ: An example of this would be if, say, the National Assembly cannot muster the necessary three-fourths vote in order to constitute itself as a constituent assembly or that the two-thirds vote required for the calling of a constitutional convention could not be obtained, in which event this extraordinary situation develops and a single individual can take it upon himself or herself to resort to the exercise of this method of initiating an amendment to the Constitution. And I recall at one time — I think it was Honorable Ople who mentioned this — a gentleman, one single individual, in the State of California who came up with a proposition, and succeeded in amending or heading Proposition No. 13, which was accepted by the entire state. We are thinking along those lines.
BISHOP BACANI: Thank you.
The second major question is: Does this section allow for two or more groups concurrently getting signatures like, let us say, at. a certain period, five groups may be trying to get signatures from 2,700,000 people on different, maybe contradictory, proposals for amendments?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, Madam President. It could even contemplate that the two different groups would be submitting two different proposals which finally would have to be submitted to the people for ratification in a plebiscite.
BISHOP BACANI: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Bernas be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bernas is recognized.
FR. BERNAS; Madam President, just two simple submit the question of calling such a convention to the clarificatory questions.
First, on Section 1 on the matter of initiative upon referendum can be held quite independently of an petition of at least 10 percent, there are no details in election the provision on how to carry this out. Do we understand, therefore, that we are leaving this matter to the legislature?
MR. SUAREZ: That is right, Madam President.
FR. BERNAS: And do we also understand, therefore, that for as long as the legislature does not pass the necessary implementing law on this, this will not operate?
MR. SUAREZ: That matter was also taken up during the committee hearing, especially with respect to the budget appropriations which would have to be legislated so that the plebiscite could be called. We deemed it best that this matter be left to the legislature. The Gentleman is right. In any event, as envisioned, no amendment through the power of initiative can be called until after five years from the date of the ratification of this Constitution. Therefore, the first amendment that could be proposed through the exercise of this initiative power would be after five years. It is reasonably expected that within that five-year period, the National Assembly can come up with the appropriate rules governing the exercise of this power.
FR. BERNAS: Since the matter is left to the legislature — the details on how this is to be carried out — is it possible that, in effect, what will be presented to the people for ratification is the work of the legislature rather than of the people? Does this provision exclude that possibility?
MR. SUAREZ: No, it does not exclude that possibility because even the legislature itself as a body could propose that amendment, maybe individually or collectively, if it fails to muster the three-fourths vote in order to constitute itself as a constituent assembly and submit that proposal to the people for ratification through the process of an initiative.
FR. BERNAS: What I mean is: Does this procedure allow the legislature to amend the formula which may have been presented?
MR. SUAREZ: No, Madam President.
FR. BERNAS: It does not.
MR. SUAREZ: It does not contemplate that situation, definitely not.
FR. BERNAS: Thank you, Madam President. On another point, on Section 3, the last phrase says electorate." I notice that the word "electorate" is used. Earlier, the sponsor was saying that a plebiscite or a referendum can be held quite independently of an election.
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, Madam President.
FR. BERNAS: And when the word "electorate" was used here, would the sponsor not contradict his previous statement?
MR. SUAREZ: No, Madam President, because when we speak of electorate, these are the voters who would participate either in a plebiscite or an election.
FR. BERNAS: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Aquino be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: Will the honorable sponsor yield to a few questions?
MR. SUAREZ: With pleasure, Madam President.
MS. AQUINO: Do I understand from the sponsor that the intention in the proposal is to vest constituent power in the people to amend the Constitution?
MR. SUAREZ: That is absolutely correct, Madam President.
MS. AQUINO: I fully concur with the underlying precept of the proposal in terms of institutionalizing popular participation in the drafting of the Constitution or in the amendment thereof, but I would have a lot of difficulties in terms of accepting the draft of Section 2, as written. would the sponsor agree with me that in hierarchy of legal mandate, constituent power has primacy over legal mandates?
MR. SUAREZ: The Commissioner is right, Madam President.
MS. AQUINO: And would the sponsor agree with me that in the hierarchy of legal values, the Constitution is source of all legal mandates and that therefore we require a great deal of circumspection in the drafting and in the amendments of the Constitution?
MR. SUAREZ: That proposition is nondebatable.
MS. AQUINO: Such that in order to underscore the primacy of constituent power we have a separate article in the constitution that would specifically cover the process and the modes of amending the Constitution?
MR. SUAREZ: That is right, Madam President.
MS. AQUINO: Therefore, is the sponsor inclined, as the provisions are drafted now, to again concede to the legislature the process or the requirement of determining the mechanics of amending the Constitution by people's initiative?
MR. SUAREZ; The matter of implementing this could very well be placed in the hands of the National Assembly, not unless we can incorporate into this provision the mechanics that would adequately cover all the conceivable situations.
MS. AQUINO: In other words, the sponsor would be amenable at the proper time to accommodate amendments that would define or modify or amplify these provisions in Section 2 of this Article?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, Madam President. The Committee would be delighted to accept reasonable propositions at the appropriate time.
MS. AQUINO: On another point, do I understand it correctly that the provisions in Section 2 are not self-executing in the sense that it would further require the procedure enunciated in Section 4; that is, notwithstanding the source of the proposed amendment, it would have to be ratified by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes.
MS. AQUINO: We understood that.
MR. SUAREZ: Section 2 must be interpreted together with the provisions of Section 4, except that in Section 4, as it is presently drafted, there is no take-off date for the 60-day and 90-day periods.
MS. AQUINO: Yes. In other words, Section 2 is another alternative mode of proposing amendments to the Constitution which would further require the process of submitting it in a plebiscite, in which case it is not self-executing.
MR. SUAREZ: No, not unless we settle and determine the take-off period.
MS. AQUINO: But as stated now, it is the process.
MR. SUAREZ: It is.
MS. AQUINO: In which case, I am seriously bothered by providing this process of initiative as a separate section in the Article on Amendment. Would the sponsor file amenable to accepting an amendment in terms of realigning Section 2 as another subparagraph (c) of Section 1, instead of setting it up as another separate section as if it were a self-executing provision?
MR. SUAREZ: We would be amenable except that, as we clarified a while ago, this process of initiative is limited to the matter of amendment and should not expand into a revision which contemplates a total overhaul of the Constitution. That was the sense that was conveyed by the Committee.
MS. AQUINO: In other words, the Committee was attempting to distinguish the coverage of modes (a) and (b) in Section 1 to include the process of revision; whereas, the process of initiation to amend, which is given to the public, would only apply to amendments?
MR. SUAREZ: That is right. Those were the terms envisioned in the Committee.
MS. AQUINO: I thank the sponsor; and thank you, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Guingona be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Guingona is recognized.
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you, Madam President.
Will the distinguished proponent yield to a few questions?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, Madam President.
MR. GUINGONA: Before I ask my questions, I would like to say that I concur with the view of Commissioner Sarmiento that the 10 percent might, perhaps, be increased to 15 percent for the reasons advanced by him. In answer to the question of Commissioner Rodrigo, the sponsor spoke of the 10 percent as referring to signatures obtained for this purpose. Am I correct?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, Madam President.
MR. GUINGONA; I know there is a dispute going on in one of the committees of this Commission as to whether or not illiterates should be allowed to vote. Does this mean that this Committee has already made a decision that, as far as this particular process is concerned, illiterates would be excluded?
MR. SUAREZ: They would not be excluded because they could signify their conformity to the proposal in the manner outlined by law.
MR. GUINGONA: So, it is not necessary to require signatures only?
MR. SUAREZ: No, Madam President.
MR. GUINGONA: I see. Thank you.
Speaking of initiative, the Committee on the Legislative headed by Commissioner Davide of which I am a member, has come up with a proposed provision which I thought might be more appropriate in view of the sponsor's answer to the question of Commissioner Bernas that the details of this matter concerning initiative will be left to the legislature; such matters, for example, as determining safeguards against any attempts to violate the sanctity of the expression of the people's will like bribery, questions on appropriation and so forth. The Legislative Committee has come up with a proposal that the National Assembly shall provide for a system of initiative whereby the people may, after five years from the date of the last plebiscite held, directly propose amendments to this Constitution through initiative. I am not just using the words of the provision, but I am applying them to the proposed provision on initiative. In other words, one distinction is that there is a specific reference to the National Assembly or the legislature.
MR. SUAREZ: Yes.
MR. GUINGONA: In the Committee's proposed provision, there is no such reference.
Second, I was going to add the words UP TO REGISTERED VOTERS in the immediately preceding election to clarify which registered voters this provision refers to.
MR. SUAREZ: We took that into account when we came up with this wording. In the contemplation that there could be a continuing process of registration, the take-off period should be counted from the date of submission of the proposed amendment. The list of registered voters that should prevail is the one existing at the time of the submission of the proposal, not from the date of the last voting or plebiscite as the case may be.
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you.
The last question may be a reversal to the supposition advanced by Commissioner Bacani that this proposal about initiative might not be approved. I would say, I am assuming that it will be approved. I was thinking that if this is to be approved, would it not be better that the last portion of Section 3, lines 17 to 18, which I will read: "or by a majority vote of all its Members, submit the question of calling such a convention to the electorate " be deleted if there is already the provision on initiative because this is rather a cumbersome process as pointed out by Dean Irene Cortez of the U.P.? We will call a convention and there will be, of course, the expenses resulting from such a convention, and then we will follow it with another exercise, which is the ratification after the proposal. I thought, maybe, if initiative were to be accepted by the honorable Members of this Commission, then perhaps this portion might be removed.
I thank the sponsor; thank you, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Natividad be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Natividad is recognized.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Will the Gentleman yield?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, Madam President.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Thank you.
Paragraph (a), Section 1, reads:
. . . 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.
Will this be automatic or will the legislature enact the enabling legislation to be presented to the people?
MR. SUAREZ: I am sorry I did not get the full meaning of the question.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Suppose the National Assembly, by a vote of three-fourths of all its Members, proposes an amendment to the Constitution, will this need legislation before a plebiscite can be held?
MR. SUAREZ: As I understand it, based on historical precedence, the National Assembly will come up with a proposition and then submit this to the people for ratification in a plebiscite called for the purpose.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Has there been any instance in this historical precedence that this has been delayed because of lack of legislation?
MR. SUAREZ: I am not aware of any such situation in the past, Madam President, What I was only aware of is the fact that time and again there were plebiscites called and the people were screaming that they had not been given the full opportunity to thoroughly discuss, analyze and review the proposals submitted.
MR. NATIVIDAD: How about the previous Con-Con? Was there any problem about enabling legislation?
MR. SUAREZ: No, we did not have any problem.
MR. NATIVIDAD: I see. In Section 2, there is a phrase which reads: "after five years from the date of the last plebiscite held." Is this designed to prevent frequent amendments to the Constitution?
MR. SUAREZ: That is right, Madam President. It is a measure to prevent too frequent amendments to the Constitution which might result in the impoverishment of the government.
MR. NATIVIDAD: But Section 2 refers to a mode of amendment by initiative only. Am I correct?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, Madam President.
MR. NATIVIDAD: But suppose we apply this to all modes of amendments so that we prevent frequent amendments to the Constitution that the powers-that-be would like to undertake. What we have witnessed is that the frequency of amendments to the Constitution is becoming a national sport.
MR. SUAREZ: Is the Gentleman suggesting that the five-year limitation period be applied equally to sub-sections (a) and (b) of Section 1 ?
MR. NATIVIDAD: It should apply to all modes and ways of amending the Constitution. Suppose we limit it to, say, once in every six years in order to prevent the frequent amendments to the Constitution to suit the powers-that-be.
MR. SUAREZ: That proposal or suggestion could be taken up at the appropriate time during the period of amendments.
MR. NATIVIDAD: This is just to preserve the Constitution because I think we are beginning to develop a reputation of changing the Constitution too often.
How about Section 3? Where is this amendment?
MR. SUAREZ: It is in Section 2.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Is this in Section 2?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, Madam President.
MR. NATIVIDAD: In the case of recall, it has been said that if the percentage is 10 or 20 percent, it would be inadvisable not to designate from what area it comes because in the realities of politics in this country, most politicians have bailiwicks to rely upon — the north, the south, the central part of the country. And a politician with a bailiwick can easily influence the mode of recall or initiative or referendum. The big families, the dynasties, can easily sway and martial big blocks of votes. So that in the case of recall, especially in small towns, the requirement of 20 percent, if not equitably distributed, would easily be collected and raised by a politician who has a bailiwick.
My question is: Does the Committee find no objection if a certain area of our country would raise this 10 percent and initiate any amendment to the Constitution, or would it rather propose that this be equitably distributed or spread out to make it more responsive? I was just thinking of our debates in the old Congress and the Batasan where the proposal of recall was met with resistance precisely because if we follow the trend, it will exacerbate a situation where there is too much politicking involving the law and the statutes in the Constitution of our country. So, is it the sponsor's view to let this pass without any equitable distribution? Is it acceptable to him as it is written now?
MR. SUAREZ: We pointed out a while ago that the Committee would be amenable to propositions spreading out, as the Gentleman has defined it, the matter of the people's participation even on the provincial level. And we were thinking in terms of five percent from each province as an example.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Yes. I am putting up this view, Madam President, because of the realities of politics and it might not achieve what the authors would like to achieve. At the proper time, we will present some volunteered information, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Maambong, the last speaker, be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, will the distinguished sponsor yield to a few questions?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, Madam President.
MR. MAAMBONG: First of all, I would like to thank the sponsor for clarifying his answer to my query last night. As it stands now, it is very clear to our mind that the matter of calling a constitutional convention can now be done not only by election but also by a plebiscite. This was also ,clarified in a clarificatory question of Commissioner Bernas. I would also like to indicate that it is now very clear in the Constitution that we have such words as "revision" or "amendment," which were not found in the 1935 Constitution. Previously, if I recall correctly, in the case of Occena vs. COMELEC (G.R. 56350, April 12, 1981), the Supreme Court interpreted the word "amendment" to cover a thorough revision of the Constitution, but that was also clarified by Commissioner Padilla.
As premise to my question, I would like to associate myself with the concern of Commissioner Rodrigo about the process we are now talking about because, as one authority puts it, the amending process of the Constitution could actually avert a revolution by providing a safety valve in bringing about changes in the Constitution through pacific means. This, in effect, operationalizes what political law authors call the "prescription of sovereignty." There is one point which is nagging my mind and, with the sponsor's indulgence, I would like to have this clarified. This is the term "constitutional convention." I understand that this was interpreted in the framing of the 1935 Constitution as it was also interpreted in the framing of the 1973 Constitution by the 1971 Constitutional Convention. But I am afraid that all these interpretations may not be acceptable in the present exercise that we are doing. So my first question is: When the decision to call a constitutional convention has been resolved by the people or the National Assembly, is it not a fact that there should be an election of delegates to the constitutional convention?
MR. SUAREZ: That is what is envisioned under this constitutional provision, Madam President.
MR. MAAMBONG: And when we say, there should be an election of delegates to the constitutional convention, there should also be an enabling law not only for that purpose but also for the purpose of providing funds therefor.
MR. SUAREZ: The Gentleman is right, although not only in connection with the budgetary situation but also in the number of the delegates to the constitutional convention.
MR. MAAMBONG. Thank you, Madam President.
With that reply, the next question would be: Instead of causing the election of delegates, has the legislature the power to just name the delegates to the constitutional convention?
MR. SUAREZ: Under what provision would the Gentleman relate that?
MR. MAAMBONG: I am following up the sponsor's answer that when we talk of constitutional convention, we are talking of elective delegates to the constitutional convention. In other words, it negates the authority of the legislature to just name delegates to the constitutional convention without calling an election.
MR. SUAREZ: That is very obvious, Madam President.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you, Madam President.
Since the legislature could not name delegates without calling an election, it also goes without saying that the legislature cannot delegate the power to somebody for that authority to name delegates to the constitutional convention?
MR. SUAREZ: The Gentleman is right.
MR. MAAMBONG: I thank the sponsor.
Can the legislature determine the number of delegates to be elected to the constitutional convention?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, as they did in 1971. In the 1970 enabling law, they specifically stated the number to be 320 delegates from all over the country.
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes, Madam President. And no other body can determine the number of elective delegates to the constitutional convention?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, Madam President.
MR. MAAMBONG: This will be my last question. Regarding the process of election of delegates, does the sponsor agree with the opinion of the Supreme Court and I am actually quoting this opinion of the Supreme Court of Maine, U.S.A., in the opinion of Justices 167 APL. 176 — that it is not valid to elect delegates to the constitutional convention at large? And the Supreme Court said and I quote:
Although a convention is summoned by the legislature, it derives its power from the sovereign people. It has accordingly been the practice to have as delegates those fairly representing the political subdivisions of the State. It is evident therefore that in every constitutional convention of which we have knowledge, delegates have been chosen not at large but from various localities within the State.
Would the sponsor agree with that?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes. And that is exactly what happened in connection with the 1971 Constitutional Convention, by districts and provinces.
MR. MAAMBONG: Forgive me, but I have one last question: Will the sponsor agree that once the constitutional convention is convened, the legislature has no more control over it?
MR. SUAREZ: That is absolutely correct, Madam President.
MR. MAAMBONG: I thank the sponsor; thank you, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, for the last clarificatory question, I ask that Commissioner Lerum be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Lerum is recognized.
MR. LERUM: I just have one question.
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, Madam President.
MR. LERUM: Referring to Section 2 which provides for at least 10 percent of registered voters, who will determine this 10 percent?
MR. SUAREZ: The Commission on Elections, Madam President; that is why we were thinking in terms of using as a take-off date the issuance of a certification by the Commission on Elections that the required number of registered voters have indeed been obtained.
MR. LERUM: Does it mean that the petition itself should also be addressed to the Commission on Elections?
MR. SUAREZ: I did not get the question.
MR. LERUM: What I mean is that after the 10 percent requirement has been obtained, will this have to be submitted to the Commission on Elections also?
MR. SUAREZ: That is what is envisioned, Madam President.
MR. LERUM: Thank you.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, since there are no more interpellators and there are no registered speakers pro or en contra, I move that we close the period of sponsorship and debate.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
PERIOD OF AMENDMENTS
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I move that we proceed to the period of amendments.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
The floor is open for amendments.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: I propose the following amendment: delete the whole Section 2.
Madam President, this new provision is not necessary. There is no need for it. The present provisions of the Constitution on the proposal for amendments to the Constitution are most satisfactory, very democratic. This is done by either the National Assembly composed of representatives elected by the people all over the Philippines by a vote of three-fourths or by a constitutional convention, again, composed of delegates elected by all from all parts of the Philippines. And, usually, these delegates are elected on the basis of their stand on certain constitutional issues.
Madam President, ours is a republican government which means a representative government. This satisfies the essence of democracy. I do not know why all of a sudden we now insist on this reserved "people power." If we base it on the EDSA peaceful revolution that is called "people power," that is one event in our history which, I think, can hardly be repeated — bloodless revolution that toppled the dictator. Now, we want to use people power even in enacting laws and in proposing amendments to the Constitution. Non sequitur, Madam President. It does not follow. There is no popular clamor for this. I do not know that our people, because of the EDSA peaceful revolution, are now clamoring to initiate constitutional amendments directly. There is no such clamor from the people. And so, why clutter our Constitution with a provision that is untried and impractical?
We are told that there are some states in the United States that follow this. But those are states in the United States with less population than the Philippines. And remember that the Philippines is an archipelago. It is so difficult to go around and obtain 2,700,000 signatures based on the 10-percent requirement; so, at 15 percent, more than 4,000,000 signatures. After all, these 4,000,000 people who will sign that, if one can get them, are not the ones who prepared the proposed amendment. They do not even participate in the drafting of the proposed amendment. Maybe, only one man, as the sponsor said, or a group of men would prepare this. And this would go around for signatures, and those whose signatures are affixed cannot even modify or amend the proposed amendment.
It is so impractical, Madam President, to have this go around the 7,000 islands in the country with so many different dialects. Maybe, this proposed amendment has to be translated in all the dialects. It is impractical. I think it is an exercise in futility. We will just clutter up our Constitution with a provision that will not, in any way, be used.
Madam President. we are here as a Constitutional Commission. We have a time constraint. Our aim is to go back to normal constitutional democracy as soon as possible. Let us not go into controversial matters like this which can hardly be understood by our people who, after all, are the ones who are going to either ratify or reject this Constitution. Let us go to the basics. Let us not depart radically from what we have found to be satisfactory in our country for the last half-century or more than half-century, and that is the republican form of government — a government run by duly-elected representatives of the people. This is practical. It is not perfect, but it is the best kind of government that we know.
Thank you very much.
MR. RAMA.: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is the amendment accepted by the sponsor?
MR. SUAREZ: The Committee regrets that it cannot accept the amendment by deletion submitted by the Honorable Rodrigo. First, we want to provide a mechanism that is very responsive to the sentiments of the people. Second, the fact that it is supposed to be impractical is fallacious in the sense that, if a situation develops where the mechanisms provided under Section 1 (a) and (b) could not be fully implemented in this wise, a time may come when in spite of the clamor of the people for proposing amendments to the Constitution, the National Assembly may not be able to muster enough votes in order to constitute itself as a constituent assembly or to call a constitutional convention. So, in that sense, it is a very practical avenue or safety valve which is available to the people. And with respect to the third ground we should go back to the basics of the Constitution. This is basic; this is fundamental because it emanates from the people. It is a direct representation made in behalf of the people. And so, it is a fundamental right that finds expression in this system of initiative. So, we regret that we cannot accept the proposed amendment. We would rather that this be submitted to the floor for consideration.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other speaker for the amendment?
MR. RAMA: Madam President, there are two speakers en contra.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it on the amendment of Commissioner Rodrigo?
MR. RAMA: Yes, Madam President, on the amendment of Commissioner Rodrigo, two members have registered to speak against and I have requested that we divide the five-minute limit between the two of them. So, I ask that Commissioner Tadeo be recognized for two minutes.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tadeo is recognized.
MR. TADEO: Madam President, alam naman natin na ang nagsampa sa Cory government ay ang people power. At kaya naririto ngayon ang Con-Com ay dahil sa people power. Noong pumunta tayo rito, punung-puno ang ating damdamin kung paano natin i-institutionalize ang people power. Paano natin ito ilalagay sa Saligang Batas? Dalawa ang kinakailangang magawa natin para magkaroon ng laman at dugo ang people power, para ito ay hindi papel lamang. Sa paanong paraan? Kinakailangang bigyan natin ang mamamayan ng political power; kinakailangang bigyan natin ang people power ng economic power. Ano ang isang nakita natin para magkaroon siya ng political power? Sa pamamagitan ng multi-party system na pinirmahan noong 17, kung saan sinasabi natin, yung 250, ang limampu ay para doon sa multisectoral. Alam natin na maliit pa iyan; 20 percent lang iyan. Maaaring maging isang dekorasyon iyan. Ano pa ang nakikita natin na pwedeng magbigay sa mga tao ng political power? Ang sabi natin, ang isang magandang nakita namin sa UP draft ay ang system of recall and system of initiative. Ngayon, anong ibig sabihin na ito ay impractical ayon sa sinabi ng aking kababayan na si Commissioner Rodrigo?
Kamukha ng Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas (KMP), kami ay isang pambansang organization. Ang system of initiative ay lalong iiral sa magsasaka at manggagawa na siyang pinakamalaking sector para magkaroon siya ng tinatawag na political power. Sapagkat kami ay pambansa, mayroon kaming tinatawag na makinarya. Hindi po yung sinasabi niyang individual o ilang grupo lang ng tao, kundi ang tinatawag na tunay na militanteng Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas. Mayroon kaming pang-regional na organization; mayroon kami sa Central Luzon, Northeastern Luzon, Bicol, Visayas at Mindanao. At ang nakikita lamang natin talaga na magdadagdag sa aming political power ay ang tinatawag na system of initiative. Hindi ito impractical kundi practical. Tinututulan ko ang tinatawag na "division." Kinakailangang manatili ang system of initiative.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Gascon be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT. Commissioner Gascon is recognized.
MR. GASCON: Thank you, Madam President.
I would also like to express my objection to the amendment of Commissioner Rodrigo on the following grounds: First, we are trying to create a republican state which is supposed to be a representative government. Second, according to Commissioner Rodrigo this proposal of initiative is impractical. First and foremost, I would like to remind him that what we are doing here is also a basic affirmation of the fundamental will — that power emanates from the people. We are now expressing our will to put initiative in the Constitution because of the people power's revolution at EDSA.
I would like again to remind this body that even the basic issue of establishing a government is people power; we are trying to establish a government for the people, of the people and by the people. So it must be responsive to them. I feel that through this process of initiative, we assert that the power of the government emanates from the people and that the people's will must prevail. Because of such, I would like to support the basic principle that initiative must be enshrined in the Constitution. It is not an exercise in futility because I have faith in our people. In our long history of struggle for national independence and social change the people have shown their decision and definitiveness to fight for what is right. The people themselves can decide whenever they wish to, especially on matters pertaining to the Republic or the State which they claim to represent.
In reality there have been many cases where the representatives have only been the target and have only expressed the interest of their particular class. As such I would like to express my objection.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I move that we vote on the amendment of Commissioner Rodrigo.
THE PRESIDENT: We will now vote on the amendment of Commissioner Rodrigo which is to delete Section 2 in the revised resolution submitted by the honorable sponsor this afternoon.
Those in favor of the amendment of Commissioner Rodrigo will please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
Those against, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
The results show 8 votes in favor and 27 against; the amendment is lost. (Applause)
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Davide be recognized for another amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: Thank you, Madam President.
I propose to substitute the entire Section 2 with the following: SECTION 2. — ANY AMENDMENT TO THIS CONSTITUTION MAY LIKEWISE BE DIRECTLY PROPOSED BY THE PEOPLE THROUGH INITIATIVE UPON A PETITION, DULY VERIFIED BEFORE THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS OR ANY OF ITS REGISTRARS, OF AT LEAST TEN PERCENT OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF REGISTERED VOTERS AS OF THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING NATIONAL ELECTION, OF WHICH EVERY LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT MUST BE REPRESENTED BY NOT LESS THAN TWO PERCENT THEREOF. THE PETITION SHALL BE FILED WITH THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS WHICH SHALL FORTHWITH TRANSMIT THE PETITION TO THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY. THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY SHALL, NOT LATER THAN THIRTY DAYS FROM RECEIPT THEREOF, ENACT A LAW SUBMITTING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR A PLEBISCITE.
NO AMENDMENT UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL BE AUTHORIZED WITHIN FIVE YEARS FROM THE APPROVAL OF THIS CONSTITUTION NOR OFTENER THAN ONCE EVERY FIVE YEARS THEREAFTER.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended for a few minutes in order to give the sponsor time to go over the proposed amendment.
MR. SUAREZ: We appreciate that, Madam President.
It was 4:33 p.m.
At 4:59 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Davide be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, I have modified the proposed amendment after taking into account the modifications submitted by the sponsor himself and the honorable Commissioners Guingona, Monsod, Rama, Ople, de los Reyes and Romulo. The modified amendment in substitution of the proposed Section 2 will now read as follows: "SECTION 2. — AMENDMENTS TO THIS CONSTITUTION MAY LIKEWISE BE DIRECTLY PROPOSED BY THE PEOPLE THROUGH INITIATIVE UPON A PETITION OF AT LEAST TWELVE PERCENT OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF REGISTERED VOTERS, OF WHICH EVERY LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT MUST BE REPRESENTED BY AT LEAST THREE PERCENT OF THE REGISTERED VOTERS THEREOF. NO AMENDMENT UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL BE AUTHORIZED WITHIN FIVE YEARS FOLLOWING THE RATIFICATION OF THIS CONSTITUTION NOR OFTENER THAN ONCE EVERY FIVE YEARS THEREAFTER.
THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY SHALL BY LAW PROVIDE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EXERCISE OF THIS RIGHT."
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, considering that the proposed amendment is reflective of the sense contained in Section 2 of our completed Committee Report No. 7, we accept the proposed amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Are we ready to vote on this proposed amendment?
MS. AQUINO: Excuse me, Madam President. May we request written copies of Commissioner Davide's amendment so that we can adequately decide on it?
MR. DAVIDE: We will request the Secretariat to prepare typewritten copies.
THE PRESIDENT: The sponsor will please furnish a copy to the Secretariat. In the meantime, can we proceed with other amendments, if there are any?
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Romulo be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Romulo is recognized.
MR. ROMULO: Will Commissioner Davide yield to a few questions regarding his amendment?
MR. DAVIDE: Gladly, Madam President.
MR. ROMULO: Under Commissioner Davide's amendment, is it possible for the legislature to set forth certain procedures to carry out the initiative, as in some American states where the proposition is normally submitted to the state attorney-general who puts it in proper form before it is submitted to the people for voting? Under the Commissioner's amendment, would the legislature be allowed to set forth such a procedure?
MR. DAVIDE: It can.
MR. ROMULO: Under those systems, if the proposition as stated by the attorney-general is not accepted by the proponents, they are allowed to go to court to challenge his submission of their proposition.
MR. DAVIDE: The proponents can, if the legislative body will really leave that particular matter to another body.
MR. ROMULO: In this case it is the COMELEC who will put it in proper form.
MR. DAVIDE: No, it is already silent.
MR. ROMULO: No, but it says "shall be submitted to the COMELEC."
MR. DAVIDE: That was the original proposal; it was already deleted.
MR. ROMULO: But the Commissioner's amendment does not prevent the legislature from asking another body to set the proposition in proper form.
MR. DAVIDE: The Commissioner is correct. In other words, the implementation of this particular right would be subject to legislation, provided the legislature cannot determine anymore the percentage of the requirement.
MR. ROMULO: But the procedures, including the determination of the proper form for submission to the people, may be subject to legislation.
MR. DAVIDE: As long as it will not destroy the substantive right to initiate. In other words, none of the procedures to be proposed by the legislative body must diminish or impair the right conceded here.
MR. ROMULO: In that provision of the Constitution can the procedures which I have discussed be legislated?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Natividad be given the floor.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Natividad is recognized.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Madam President, will Commissioner Davide yield?
MR. DAVIDE: Willingly, Madam President.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Is Commissioner Davide willing to consider a possible amendment to his amendment? This amendment is brought about by comments I read from a book from PHILCONSA on constitutional and policy issues and it is based on the comments of a certain Fortunato de Leon who recommends that the Constitution, in order that it will not fall into the hands of the powers that be, should only be amended no oftener than once in six years.
I would also premise my question by reading the comments of our own colleague here, Chief Justice Concepcion. His article entitled, "The Constitution and The Proposed Amendments Thereto" states and I quote:
A Constitution is not only a legal document, not merely a covenant between the people of a democratic society like ours. It is a symbol of the unity of the people; it is a rallying point for them as a nation. If the Constitution is to retain this role as the rallying point for the people, it should not be touched except when absolutely necessary or when there is no other possible choice.
A Constitution that does not suffer many changes accumulated in the course of time, a mass of customs, traditions and practices tending to impart to the people the feeling that their nation has a solid foundation; that it is strong enough to withstand the buffetings of the ages. A Constitution should not be amended, unless the people feel that their welfare would otherwise be in imminent danger of serious impairment.
My proposal is that instead of five years could it be six years as proposed by the eminent authors hereof?
MR. DAVIDE: The Committee has already accepted the individual amendment. Personally, I do not think that one year would make a lot of a difference. What is one year among friends? As a matter of fact, since the National Assembly is also authorized to propose amendments by a vote of three-fourths of its members or to submit the question of calling a constitutional convention by a majority vote, amendments may actually be more frequent than once every five years. We are limiting the right of the people, by initiative, to submit a proposal for amendment only, not for revision, only once every five years. But we cannot prevent the legislature from proposing amendments as often as it would want to under its authority by a vote of three-fourths and also its authority to submit the question of calling a convention to the people.
MR. NATIVIDAD: If it is the sense of the Constitutional Commission, I think we may, if we have been given a frame of reference to the power of initiative.
MR. DAVIDE: If at all we should limit the period for the submission of an amendment, it should also be made applicable to amendments proposed by the legislature.
MR. NATIVIDAD: That is my proposal. If the Commissioner is willing to make the initiative pegged to five or six years, I feel that there would be no basis for us not to make this applicable to the legislature also. But, as the distinguished sponsor said, the idea here is not to embark into frequent amendments of the Constitution
MR. DAVIDE: By initiative.
MR. NATIVIDAD: By initiative, yes, but not by any other means as what the sponsor said, if it is accepted that the Constitution is not supposed to be changed as often as a law. So, if we accept that postulate, then, perhaps we should consider that if we limit the exercise of initiative we can also limit the exercise of the other modes of amending the Constitution. If our purpose now is to indicate through these amendments that our Constitution should not be tampered with very often as had been done, then this is the time to do it. The problems confronting the nation are easily addressed by law. It is not necessary that at any given time we may tamper with the Constitution.
So, I propose to change "5" to 6 years so that if the final decision of the Commission would be a six-year term for the President, then this will dovetail the six-year term of the President and it will work as guideline that the Constitution will not be amended more than once during the term of the President.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, I have no objection to that proposal, provided we preserve the proposal that a similar prohibition shall be imposed upon the National Assembly in calling a constitutional convention or proposing an amendment. So probably the Commissioner may introduce an amendment to that effect.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Madam President, in that case, may I address this amendment to the distinguished sponsor?
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner may proceed.
MR. NATIVIDAD: If it is seasonably proper, may I then propose an amendment to Section 1. On line 7, after the word "proposed," delete the colon (:) and in lieu thereof, put a comma (,) and add the following words: BUT NOT MORE OFTEN THAN EVERY SIX (6) YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE LAST PLEBISCITE.
The whole section will read: "Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed, BUT NOT MORE OFTEN THAN EVERY SIX (6) YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE LAST PLEBISCITE."
MR. SUAREZ: The Committee suggests that the amendment be submitted to the floor for consideration.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Thank you.
My amendment is to change "5" to 6 years to dove-tail the six-year term of the President.
THE PRESIDENT: The idea is also to limit the authority of the National Assembly to propose amendments to the Constitution.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Yes, Madam President, in line with the suggestion of the distinguished proponent of the amendment.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Padilla is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, before we take up the proposed amendment of having 6 years instead of "5" years, I intend to ask the sponsor of the amendment some questions. Thereafter, the proposed amendment of Commissioner Natividad to the amendment of Commissioner Davide may then be considered.
THE PRESIDENT: Actually, the amendment of Commissioner Natividad is on Section 1, while that of Commissioner Davide is on Section 2. Is that correct?
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, but we are talking of Section 2.
MR. SUAREZ: That was deferred.
THE PRESIDENT: So, it is now Section I where Commissioner Natividad is proposing an amendment.
MR. PADILLA: I did not know that it was deferred. I wanted to ask some questions regarding the amendment by substitution.
THE PRESIDENT: We will have that later on.
Is the proposed amendment of Commissioner Natividad acceptable to the honorable sponsor?
MR. SUAREZ: As we suggested a while ago, we would rather that the matter be decided by the Commission.
THE PRESIDENT: Does Commissioner Natividad insist on his amendment? Then, let us put it to a vote.
Will Commissioner Natividad kindly repeat his proposed amendment on Section 1 ?
MR. NATIVIDAD: My amendment is to delete the colon (:) after the word "proposed" on line 7, and in lieu thereof, put a comma (,) and add the following: BUT NOT MORE OFTEN THAN EVERY SIX (6) YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE LAST PLEBISCITE."
The section will now read: "Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be pro (6) YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE LAST PLEBISCITE."
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: Those in favor of the proposed amendment of Commissioner Natividad will please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
Those against, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
The results show 6 votes in favor and 25 against; the amendment is lost.
Is there any other proposed amendment?
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Padilla be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Padilla is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: Thank you, Madam President.
Will the distinguished sponsor, Commissioner Davide, yield to a few questions?
THE PRESIDENT: He may, if he so desires.
MR. DAVIDE: Very gladly, Madam President.
MR. PADILLA: The Committee has submitted its original report which made reference to Section 1, paragraph (c) which states: "directly by the people themselves thru initiative as provided for in Article VIII, Section 27 of the Constitution." But since it was explained that the initiative refers to ordinary legislation of the National Assembly, the Committee on Amendments had to introduce Section 2 which is now sought to be amended by substitution.
I notice that we have 10 percent, and it is now sought to be increased to 12 percent. With regard to ordinary legislation, the Committee on the Legislative proposed a 10-percent requirement for initiative by the people. Does not the Commissioner believe that we should reduce the 10-percent requirement for purposes of initiating legislation rather than increasing the requirement for constitutional amendments to 12 percent? In other words, since the Committee on the Legislative has 10 percent, the proposed amendment now is for a higher percentage, which is 12 percent for a constitutional amendment.
MR. DAVIDE: A distinction has to be made for the reason that under this proposal, what is involved is an amendment to the Constitution. To amend a Constitution would ordinarily require a proposal by the National Assembly by a vote of three-fourths; and to call a constitutional convention would require a higher number. Moreover, just to submit the issue of calling a constitutional convention, a majority of the National Assembly is required, the import being that the process of amendment must be made more rigorous and difficult than probably initiating an ordinary legislation or putting an end to a law proposed by the National Assembly by way of a referendum. I cannot agree to reducing the requirement approved by the Committee on the Legislative because it would require another voting by the Committee, and the voting was precisely based on a requirement of 10 percent. Perhaps, I might present such a proposal, by way of an amendment, when the Commission shall take up the Article on the Legislative or on the National Assembly on plenary sessions.
MR. PADILLA: Thank you.
We agree that there must be a greater percentage for an amendment to the Constitution, and a lower percentage for an amendment to ordinary legislation. The Article on the National Assembly or the Legislative will be an anterior article, Article VIII, I suppose, whereas the Article on Amendment will be subsequent, Article VI. I notice that the committee report on the legislature mentions a petition signed by at least 10 percent of the registered voters in the immediately preceding elections. However, I do not see in this report on the legislature any particulars as to whether the signatures will be verified by the COMELEC and then referred to the National Assembly for action, and then for providing appropriations, et cetera. Does not the Commissioner believe that if such procedural details are necessary for a proposed amendment allowing the people, through initiative, to amend or even repeal an ordinary legislation, which will appear at the earlier part of the Constitution, such details should be included in the Article on National Assembly? Hence, if all those details are necessary even for the proposed amendment of the Constitution by initiative of the people, then we can just make reference to Article VIII, Section 27 of the report on the National Assembly. In other words, what I wish to say is that if all those details are necessary, why do we not insert them in an anterior article, so that if those details can be referred to by reference, they do not have to be repeated in a subsequent article?
MR. DAVIDE: We appreciate the proposal. However, we feel that in the matter of authorizing the people to initiate an amendment to the Constitution, the proper situs for that would really be the Article on Amendment. We will clearly distinguish between the right of the people in proposing an ordinary legislation and that in proposing amendments to the Constitution which would become a constituent function, not just an ordinary legislative function. The mere fact that this may come later in the Constitution does not mean that this will repeal a previous provision under the National Assembly because the two concepts are entirely distinct and separate from one another.
MR. PADILLA: We recognize that an amendment to ordinary legislation is different from an amendment to the Constitution. But what I am wondering about is, if in the provision on the National Assembly there is already the phrase "a petition signed by at least 10 percent of the registered voters in the immediately preceding elections" and there are no further specifics or details for its implementation, why should not the same percentage of registered voters with regard to an amendment to the Constitution be followed without all these specifics or details?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President and Mr. Vice-President, actually, the proposal on initiative and referendum in the proposed Article on the National Assembly would also lead to ordinary legislation, the mechanics, the manner and even the exceptions thereto. The only requirement that is mandatory upon the legislature is on the number of signatures in a petition for initiative or a petition for referendum. So, we have parity already. Here, we leave it to the National Assembly to implement the exercise of the right, and in the Article on the National Assembly, a legislation is also necessary to implement the concept of initiative and referendum.
MR. PADILLA: Do I understand that under Section 27 of the committee report on the National Assembly, this phrase "at least 10 percent of the registered voters in the immediately preceding elections" will be determined by the National Assembly regardless of any action to be taken by the COMELEC?
MR. DAVIDE: That requirement will be mandatory in the law to be enacted by the legislature to implement the right of initiative and referendum. It was also the sense of the Committee that the matter of requiring a certain percentage of the total number of votes in any given areas within the 10-percent requirement should be provided by law.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Maambong be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, will the distinguished proponent of the amendment yield to a few questions?
MR. DAVIDE: With pleasure, Madam President.
MR. MAAMBONG: My first question: Commissioner Davide's proposed amendment on line I refers to "amendments." Does it not cover the word "revision" as defined by Commissioner Padilla when he made the distinction between the words "amendments" and "revision"?
MR. DAVIDE: No, it does not, because "amendments" and "revision" should be covered by Section 1. So insofar as initiative is concerned, it can only relate to "amendments" not "revision."
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you.
The second point is, there is a time frame on line 5 to line 8. Is it the intention of the proponent that this time frame will only apply to amendments by initiative and not to the other forms of amendments found in the other parts of the section?
MR. DAVIDE: The Commissioner is absolutely correct.
MR. MAAMBONG: As far as I am concerned, this last point is a very worrisome problem. It is indicated on lines 2 and 3 that:
. . . upon petition of at least 12 percent of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three percent of registered voters thereof.
I contemplate a scenario of this nature on the assumption that the 12 percent is not nationwide, such that when we say we have 200 legislative districts, that is only an assumption. In one district for example, the 7th District of Cebu from where I come, less than three percent of the votes cast is in favor of this amendment. Would it mean that even though we get more than 12 percent and that one district votes less than three percent, the amendment through initiative is lost?
MR. DAVIDE: That is correct. The entire proposed amendment will be lost, but I doubt very much if in the 7th District of Cebu where the Commissioner might be the Assemblyman by then, he will not be able to obtain more than three percent because that would be a very critical issue. He has to support it; otherwise, he will lose the support of his people.
MR. MAAMBONG: The point here is really academic. By way of academic discussion it is, therefore, possible for an amendment to be acceptable even by 50 percent of the whole nation, but it can be lost just because the leader in a certain legislative district strongly opposes it. Is that the intention of the proponent?
MR. DAVIDE: That would really be the effect because we would like that the 10 percent be truly representative of all districts and that is why we require a certain percentage of the registered voters in any given district or in all districts. So, anyone campaigning for an amendment through initiative must see to it that he will have more than three percent in all the representative districts, and I do not fear that this proposal can easily be supported by at least three percent because we have the contending political parties thereat.
MR. MAAMBONG: Without presenting any specific amendment, I suggest that the proponent and the distinguished sponsor who accepted this amendment should perhaps think this over considering that one district could defeat the intention of the whole country.
Thank you very much, Madam President.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, actually, the original proposal of this Member was only two percent, but by way of amendment, there were modificiations made by other Commissioners. So, I yielded to the collective wisdom of those who wanted to make a modification on the requirement.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Monsod be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: Thank you.
Will the proponent yield to some questions?
MR. DAVIDE: Willingly, Madam President.
MR. MONSOD: I have just two clarificatory questions.
The first is on the interpretation that the first petition can be filed after five years. Am I right?
MR. DAVIDE: The first limitation is five years from the ratification of this Constitution.
MR. MONSOD: That is right; since the sentence says "every five years thereafter" not oftener than once, can there be another one on the sixth year?
MR. DAVIDE: There can be; but between the sixth and the tenth year, we can only have one.
MR. MONSOD: That is right. So, we can have one on the sixth and one on the eleventh.
MR. DAVIDE: It can be done; the second may be on the eleventh year.
MR. MONSOD: My second question is: Is the Commission on Elections envisaged to be the body that will pass on the authenticity of the signatures?
MR. DAVIDE: That may be provided for in a law by the National Assembly for the implementation of the exercise of this right.
MR. MONSOD: Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Rigos be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rigos is recognized.
REV. RIGOS: Madam President, I would like to file a motion to amend the proposed amendment of Commissioner Davide: namely, that we eliminate or delete the last sentence of the first paragraph which reads: "NO AMENDMENT UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL BE AUTHORIZED WITHIN FIVE YEARS FOLLOWING THE RATIFICATION OF THIS CONSTITUTION NOR OFTENER THAN ONCE EVERY FIVE YEARS THEREAFTER." If we are not willing to limit the National Assembly in making the necessary amendments, the more reason we should not limit the people in making the necessary amendments any time they think amendments are needed.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, the only amendment of this Member on this matter is the initiative calling for amendment after the first five years. Insofar as the first five years is concerned, that was an original proposal of the Committee. Insofar as that portion of the proposal covered by my original amendment is concerned, it is with deep regret that I cannot accept the proposal. That might even be divisive because every year people might be campaigning for a proposed amendment. It will really destroy the sense of stability of a constitution. It is enough that we recognize that right to be exercised by them at least once every five years.
REV. RIGOS: Madam President, I do not see the logic in giving full freedom to the National Assembly in making the necessary amendments, and yet limiting the people to every five years. It seems to me that I will ask the House to vote on this proposal.
MR. SUAREZ: Since the amendment to the amendment has not been accepted by the proponent, may we request a vote on the matter, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: For clarification, the amendment of Commissioner Rigos is to delete the second sentence of the first paragraph of Section 2.
As many as are in favor of the proposed amendment of Commissioner Rigos, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
The results show 13 votes in favor of the amendment and 18 against; the amendment to the amendment is lost.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Rodrigo be recognized for one question.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: I move to delete the portion limiting my question to one.
Will the Gentleman yield?
THE PRESIDENT: The Gentleman may yield, if he so desires.
MR. RODRIGO: The proposed amendment says that a petition of at least 12 percent of the total number of registered voters is required. Is it possible that two national groups, let us say, two national political groups or two nationwide labor organizations, campaign for two inconsistent amendments and both of them get more than 12 percent and both amendments also get at least 3 percent in every legislative district.
MR. DAVIDE: It should be done simultaneously because if it would be one after the other within a period of five years following the first five years after the ratification, then it cannot be done.
MR. RODRIGO: Yes, simultaneously, one organization senses or knows.
MR. DAVIDE: Two or three or four amendments can be proposed simultaneously but it can only be submitted to a plebiscite once every five years.
MR. RODRIGO: What happens if four inconsistent amendments get more than 12 percent?
MR. DAVIDE: In other words, both amendments qualify with the requirements and numbers.
MR. RODRIGO: I was starting with only two amendments but the Gentleman said it is even possible to have four. What will be done with those four amendments, all of which qualify under this section?
MR. DAVIDE: Even if these amendments are inconsistent with one another, the people will have the final say in the plebiscite.
MR. RODRIGO: How will they be presented to the people in a plebiscite?
MR. DAVIDE: The National Assembly shall, by law, provide for the implementation of the exercise of this right. So, the law may provide that in such instances where there are separate and inconsistent proposals for amendments, then whichever of the amendments may be approved by a majority of the people will be deemed valid amendments. We leave it to the people, if they agree to inconsistent provisions.
MR. RODRIGO: So, in a plebiscite it is possible for the people to approve by a majority vote two inconsistent amendments to the Constitution.
MR. DAVIDE: That is the will of the people in a plebiscite — to opt for a proposal for amendments submitted.
MR. RODRIGO: That is why I say this is impractical because in the case of an amendment proposed by the legislature or by a constitutional convention, no such situation would arise. But precisely it is not the mechanics of this that I object to. I like the idea but I will be in favor of the idea only if I see it is practical.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, that may be remote. But in the event it happens, there is still the power of the legislature to propose an amendment by a vote of three-fourths to cure the inconsistency.
MR. RODRIGO: There is an initiative by the people by means of the required number of votes. The last sentence says that the National Assembly shall, by law, provide for the implementation and exercise thereof, which means to say that the National Assembly must appropriate the money and submit the amendments to the people in a plebiscite.
MR. DAVIDE: That would depend now on the provision of the particular enabling statute. For instance, if the legislature can foresee such a situation where inconsistent amendments are presented by initiative in a given year, it might agree to defer the consideration of an inconsistent amendment, say, after five years, provided the two amendments are so inconsistent that the danger of them being approved might result in an absurdity.
MR. RODRIGO: Then what happens to the required 10 percent vote?
MR. DAVIDE: That is why if, indeed, two or more simultaneous amendatory proposals would be clearly and substantially inconsistent with one another, we leave it to the sound discretion of the legislature.
MR. RODRIGO: Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Jamir be recognized to present an amendment to the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Jamir is recognized.
MR. JAMIR: My amendment is with respect to the second line of the proposed amendment. Delete the words "THROUGH INITIATIVE" after the word "PEOPLE" because the proposal is made by the people so that the phrase "THROUGH INITIATIVE" is already redundant. That is the reason for the suggested deletion.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that acceptable, Commissioner Davide?
MR. DAVIDE: May I refer to the Committee?
MR. SUAREZ: The Committee finds merit in the proposed amendment to the amendment but would rather leave this to the body.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the pleasure of Commissioner Ople?
MR. OPLE: Madam President, on this subject at hand, may I just say that there is not necessarily incongruity or superfluity in saying that the people may act directly through initiative because then that puts the stamp of a great democratic institution or tradition on this formulation, which means the Gentleman connects to the great traditions of democracy, such as the thousand-year old tradition of the initiative and referendum in the cantons of Switzerland. We are not really reinventing the will in installing initiative as additional mode of proposing an amendment to the Constitution, and as a reserve power, of the sovereign people, when they are dissatisfied with the National Assembly in responding to a critical situation requiring a constitutional amendment, this initiative vests the power of direct action in the people themselves. It is largely, I think, reserve power, precisely a fallback position of the people in the event that they are dissatisfied. When we include the word "initiative," then we introduce into the formulation the great body of democratic conditions based on initiative especially in the countries where this has been most successful.
So, I would like to request Commissioner Jamir — If it does not detract too much from his own sense of being important — to kindly leave the word "initiative" there. It also matches to some extent or correlates the initiative, referendum and recall that are actually used in the Legislative Committee.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the pleasure of Commissioner Jamir?
MR. JAMIR: Considering the eloquent request of the Gentleman from Bulacan, I agree to withdraw my amendment.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Sarmiento be recognized to make an amendment to the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I address a few questions to the distinguished proponent of the amendment?
MR. DAVIDE: Willingly, Madam President.
MR. SARMIENTO: The U.P. draft and the state constitutions refer to initiative as a reserved power, together with recall and referendum. The last line of the amendment mentions exercise of this right. Will the Gentleman agree to use the word "exercise" instead of "right"?
MR. DAVIDE: So, it will read: "THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY SHALL BY LAW PROVIDE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS POWER."
MR. SARMIENTO: Yes.
MR. DAVIDE: No objection.
MR. SARMIENTO: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Committee accept the amendment?
MR. SUAREZ: We have no objection.
MR. SARMIENTO: Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: We will first put this proposed amendment to a vote.
As many as are in favor of the proposed amendment of Commissioner Sarmiento, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
The results show 26 votes in favor and 2 against; the amendment is approved.
MR. SARMIENTO: For the last two questions, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Gentleman may proceed.
MR. SARMIENTO: Line 3 reads: "AT LEAST TWELVE PERCENT OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF REGISTERED VOTERS." Nothing is specified whether these are registered voters of the preceding general election. The state constitutions I read make mention of registered voters of the preceding general election. Will the honorable proponent agree with me to include the words: REGISTERED VOTERS OF THE PRECEDING GENERAL ELECTION.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, the original proposal of this Member made reference to the total number of registered voters in the immediately preceding national election but there were amendments there to and the original draft of the Committee made reference to a registered number of voters only, the idea being that the total number of registered voters as of the presentation of the proposed amendment to the Constitution must be the basis. I yielded to the wisdom of that proposal because we limit now the amendment by initiative after the first five years following the ratification of this Constitution and not oftener than once every five years thereafter. So, if we have to make as a reference the total number of registered voters in the immediately preceding general election, the total number of signatories required would be very much less, and, therefore, it might not adequately represent the sentiments of those who may have registered after the immediately preceding election.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, with that manifestation I withdraw my proposed amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: The proposed amendment is withdrawn.
MR. SARMIENTO: Last question, Madam President.
May I invite the attention of the honorable proponent to line 2 which states: "PROPOSED BY THE PEOPLE THROUGH INITIATIVE UPON A PETITION OF." Commissioner Jamir gladly accommodated the eloquent manifestation of Commissioner Ople and he agreed that the words "THROUGH INITIATIVE" be maintained. I was looking at state constitutions, Madam President, and the words they used were these: "proposed by the people upon an initiative petition." I am not for the deletion of the words "THROUGH INITIATIVE" but a reformulation, so that line 2 would read: "PROPOSED BY THE PEOPLE UPON AN INITIATIVE PETITION OF AT LEAST TWELVE PERCENT."
MR. DAVIDE: The wording, as proposed and as appearing in the original committee report; that is, "THROUGH INITIATIVE UPON A PETITION," may be much better than the language as proposed which would appear to be foreign. Let us have our own phraseology in the proposal.
MR. SARMIENTO: If the intent is pro-Filipino, pro-people, then I withdraw my proposed amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, there are no more registered speakers to propose amendments on Section 2. However, there is still somebody who would like to amend or present an amendment to the amendment.
I ask that Commissioner Gascon be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Gascon is recognized.
MR. GASCON: I would like to ask a question first with regard to line 4. May I know why the line states "LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT"?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, the Committee on the Legislative voted on a scheme of representation for Members of the National Assembly by district.
So, that is the reason we speak here of "LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT."
MR. GASCON: The proposal to include "LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT" is mainly to advert to the problem that may arise from too much concentration in a particular region of a particular initiative petition, is that correct?
MR. DAVIDE: That is correct, Madam President.
MR. GASCON: However, a legislative district is much smaller than a province or a region; is that correct?
MR. DAVIDE: A legislative district may be the same as the province if the population of the province is less than the number of the ratio provided for, or it could be several districts in a given province, depending on the number of inhabitants in the province.
MR. GASCON: Actually, I would like to support the spirit behind the inclusion of the term "LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT" but upon considering it further, it might make the principle of initiative very difficult for the people.
So, I would like to propose an amendment. Instead of using the term "LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT," let us use REGION.
MR. DAVIDE: We have to define the word. Right now, for political administration, we have 13 regions, including the National Capital Region. If the Gentleman refers to the traditional geographical regions, we have only three.
MR. GASCON: As far as the definition of region is concerned, I would allow the legislature to define such because there are proposals for autonomous regions and I believe that this should be included.
So, when I speak of region, I am thinking of the 13 existing regions, plus whatever may be created as autonomous regions.
MR. DAVIDE: I would rather throw it to the body, Madam President, because of the difficulty, first, of defining what a region is since there are several regions, and, second, it might dilute the sanctity of the original proposal.
MR. GASCON: If that is the case, I withdraw my proposal for the word REGION and instead change "LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT" to PROVINCE.
THE PRESIDENT: "PROVINCE OR CITY."
MR. GASCON: Yes, PROVINCE OR CITY.
MR. DAVIDE: I would like to ask the Committee.
THE PRESIDENT: What does the Committee say?
MR. SUAREZ: How about the cities?
MR. GASCON: My issue is basically to make it much easier for the people to initiate.
MR. DAVIDE: What about the cities?
MR. GASCON: EVERY PROVINCE OR CITY.
MR. SUAREZ: As far as the Committee is concerned, that is an acceptable proposal.
MR. DAVIDE: It is also acceptable to this Member, Madam President, provided it would be: "OF WHICH EVERY PROVINCE OR CITY MUST BE REPRESENTED BY AT LEAST THREE PERCENT OF THE REGISTERED VOTERS THEREOF."
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Committee accept the amendment?
MR. SUAREZ: The Committee accepts, Madam President.
MR. DAVIDE: It is also acceptable to this Member, Madam President.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: By city, does the Gentleman mean chartered city? There are 16 chartered cities but there are about 50 cities. What are we referring to here — chartered cities or all cities?
MR. GASCON: All cities.
MR. MONSOD: All right; thank you.
MR. DAVIDE: All cities, whether component or highly urbanized.
MR. BENGZON: Before we take a vote, Madam President, may I just have one minute to speak against that proposed amendment?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bengzon may proceed.
MR. BENGZON: I am afraid that if we do pass that amendment, it is going to be used as a political tool by the politicians because there are certain big provinces that have so many districts. If certain politicians band together and do away with some of the districts, they can generate the necessary three percent by just getting the necessary three percent from the various districts and disregard completely the other districts in that province. So, it is a very tempting situation to be used as a political tool. That is why I am opposed to it.
MR.: GASCON: May I speak then, Madam President?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Gascon may proceed.
MR. GASCON: But the basic issue is the initiative process. I think we should make it as easy as possible for the people to initiate. In recognition of the problem that it might be too concentrated in one particular region, let us say, Metro Manila, I am supporting the issue to have a specified political region, whether it be legislative district, province or region. I would also like to emphasize that the initiative process does not end there. After it goes through the initiative process, it will be presented to the people for approval or disapproval. So, that problem which the Gentleman raised can easily be responded to by the process of ratification of the amendment.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I move that we take a vote on the amendment to the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: We will proceed to take a vote.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, may I ask a question for clarification?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo may proceed.
MR. RODRIGO: Does the amendment say "EVERY PROVINCE OR CITY"?
THE PRESIDENT: Both.
MR. DAVIDE: Province and city.
MR. RODRIGO: How about Metro Manila? The City of Manila, City of Pasay, City of Caloocan?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. RODRIGO: Usually, Metro Manila is treated differently, and it is so stated in the law because Metro Manila is composed of four cities.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide requests that he answer the question; he may proceed.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, Madam President. Metropolitan Manila was evolved because of the creation of the Metropolitan Manila Commission. It is composed of provinces from Rizal and from Bulacan and the cities within the area. So, under the proposal, we have to consider every city in Metro Manila and the municipalities in relation to the provinces to which they belong, Rizal and Bulacan.
MR. RODRIGO: Valenzuela no longer belongs to Bulacan.
MR. DAVIDE: Under the Metropolitan Manila Commission, but I do not think the Commission is recognized as a separate political subdivision under the Committee on Local Governments — I really do not know — because there is even a move to abolish this metropolitan concept of government.
MR. RODRIGO: Let us have this clarified because this is a very important provision. So, in case of Metro Manila, if it is by city, then at least three percent is needed in the City of Manila, Pasay City, Quezon City and Caloocan City. How about San Juan and Mandaluyong?
MR. DAVIDE: San Juan will be considered part of Rizal.
MR. RODRIGO: But who will decide that? I did not know that. I always thought of San Juan and Mandaluyong as part of Metro Manila. This is a very important provision; we must specify; we must make it clear.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, this matter may be reviewed later depending on what is the report of the Committee on Local Governments. The municipalities in the metropolitan area will be returned to each respective province. So, now in computing the percentage for purposes of initiative, the vote in that particular municipality must be taken into account with the votes of the rest of the province to where that municipality actually belongs.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended for a few minutes.
MR. DAVIDE: May I answer that, Madam President?
It was 6:05 p.m.
At 6:09 p.m., the Session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Gascon be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Gascon is recognized.
MR. GASCON: Thank you, Madam President. After assessing the whole thing and with the assurance that retaining "LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT" may make it easier for the people to assert their sovereign will in as far as initiative is concerned, I withdraw my proposed amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: The proposed amendment is then withdrawn.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I move that we take a vote on the entire Section 2.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Aquino is recognized.
MS. AQUINO: I may be out of order but I would seek the kind indulgence and liberality of the Chair to allow me to seek reconsideration of the voting that amended the last sentence of Section 2 by changing the word "Right" to POWER.
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner may proceed.
MS. AQUINO: This is significant for me because POWER represents a concept; it is not just a matter of words or lexicon. I believe that the word "right" is even more potent and even more determinative as against POWER. Power, in the nature of its connotation, is a political concept which requires as a condition the presence of strength before one could even invoke it; while right, when enshrined in a law, is a right, regardless of whether one has the strength or the power to assert it. Thus, I believe the word "right" is even more potent than the word POWER.
It was because the Chair immediately called for a division of the House that I was not able to timely interpose my objection to the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the motion for reconsideration of the amendment to change the word "Right" to POWER?
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, I object to the motion for reconsideration. Firstly, the proposition or the motion is out of order. Secondly, I believe that POWER is stronger than the word "right." It is people's power. All along we have been speaking of people's power-participatory democracy, blessings of people's power. I have already mentioned the reasons why POWER is more appropriate than "right." I respectfully submit, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I reiterate my motion that we take a vote on the whole Section 2.
MS. AQUINO: Madam President, I submit to the ruling of the Chair on my motion for reconsideration.
VOTING
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the Chair will first make its ruling.
Commissioner Aquino has appealed to the liberality of the Chair, and I believe I choose to be liberal this afternoon. Therefore, I will just submit the motion to the body for reconsideration.
As many as are in favor of the motion of Commissioner Aquino to reconsider the amendment, that is, to retain the word "Right" in the last sentence of Section 2, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
The results show 22 votes in favor of the reconsideration and 6 against; the motion for reconsideration is approved and the word "Right" in the last sentence of Section 2 is retained.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I reiterate my motion that we take a vote on the whole Section 2.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection that we take a vote on the whole Section 2?
Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, may I request a reading of the section so that we will understand. There have been so many amendments.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the sponsor please read Section 2, as amended?
MR. DAVIDE: Thank you, Madam President.
Section 2, as amended, reads as follows: "AMENDMENTS TO THIS CONSTITUTION MAY LIKEWISE BE DIRECTLY PROPOSED BY THE PEOPLE THROUGH INITIATIVE UPON A PETITION OF AT LEAST TWELVE PERCENT OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF REGISTERED VOTERS, OF WHICH EVERY LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT MUST BE REPRESENTED BY AT LEAST THREE PERCENT OF THE REGISTERED VOTERS THEREOF, NO AMENDMENT UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL BE AUTHORIZED WITHIN FIVE YEARS FOLLOWING THE RATIFICATION OF THIS CONSTITUTION NOR OFTENER THAN ONCE EVERY FIVE YEARS THEREAFTER.
THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY SHALL BY LAW PROVIDE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EXERCISE OF THIS RIGHT."
THE PRESIDENT: As many as are in favor of Section 2, as amended, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
The results show 31 votes in favor and 3 against: Section 2, as amended, is approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Monsod be recognized to present the last amendment to the last section.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: I would like to propose an amendment to Section 4 in order to reflect the necessity of a plebiscite in the exercise of the right under Section 2. As it reads now, the phrase "after the approval of such amendment or revision" refers only to amendments under Section 1.
So, I would like to propose the addition of the following lines after the phrase "approval of such amendment or revision": UNDER SECTION 1 OR THE DECLARATION BY THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS OF THE COMPLETION OF THE PETITION FOR AMENDMENT UNDER SECTION 2 OF THIS ARTICLE.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Madam President, will the proponent of the amendment accept an amendment to the amendment.
MR. MONSOD: The Gentleman will please state his amendment.
MR. DE LOS REYES: I propose that on line 20, between the words "Constitution" and "shall," we insert the phrase UNDER SECTION 1, SUBPARAGRAPHS (A) AND (B). Is that all right?
MR. MONSOD: That is all right, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: What line, please?
MR. DE LOS REYES: Line 20, Madam President. Between the words "Constitution" and "shall," insert the phrase UNDER SECTION 1, SUBPARAGRAPHS (A) AND (B) to indicate the fact that Section 4 refers to the amendment under Section 1 (a) and (b) — by the National Assembly or by the constitutional convention.
MR. MONSOD: I accept the amendment to the amendment.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Then, I propose to include another paragraph after line 23, which will read: AMENDMENT UNDER SECTION 2 SHALL BE VALID WHEN RATIFIED BY A MAJORITY OF THE VOTES CAST IN A PLEBISCITE WHICH SHALL BE HELD . . . The continuation will be the Gentleman's amendment.
MR. MONSOD: Yes. It reads: NOT EARLIER THAN SIXTY DAYS AND NOT LATER THAN NINETY DAYS AFTER THE DECLARATION BY THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS OF THE COMPLETION OF THE PETITION.
MR. DE LOS REYES: That is my amendment.
MR. MONSOD: I accept the amendment to the amendment.
MR. SUAREZ: What is the complete wording, Madam President?
MR. DE LOS REYES: I move for a suspension of the session so that we can consolidate our amendments.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.
It was 6:19 p.m.
At 6:23 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Monsod be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: May I read the proposed amendment which is a consolidation of the proposals of Commissioners de los Reyes, Aquino and myself. Section 4 will now read: :ANY AMENDMENT TO, OR REVISION OF THIS CONSTITUTION UNDER SECTION ONE (1) SUBPARAGRAPHS (A) AND (B) SHALL BE VALID AND 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.
AMENDMENT UNDER SECTION TWO (2) 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 CERTIFICATION BY THE COMELEC OF THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE PETITION."
THE PRESIDENT: Is the proposed amendment accepted by the honorable sponsor?
MR. SUAREZ: It is accepted, Madam President, except that the word "COMELEC" should read: COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS.
MR. MONSOD: Yes, "COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS," Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any other comments? Are we ready to vote on the proposed amendment, as amended, of Commissioner Monsod?
As many as are in favor of the proposed amendment, as amended, of Commissioner Monsod, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand )
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (No Member raised his hand.)
The results show 30 votes in favor and none against; the proposed amendment, as amended, is approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Davide be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized .
MR. DAVIDE: Thank you, Madam President.
This is the last amendment intended to give more teeth to Section 3. On line 18., after the word "electorate," add the phrase IN A REFERENDUM and after that, add a new sentence to read as follows: IF THE QUESTION IS AFFIRMATIVELY VOTED UPON, THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY SHALL, WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM THE DAY OF THE REFERENDUM, ENACT THE LAW CALLING THE CONVENTION.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, the Committee would rather submit the proposal to the floor for consideration.
MR. DAVIDE: May I be allowed to explain.
THE PRESIDENT: Please do so.
MR. DAVIDE: In the original provision of both the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, the submission to the electorate of the question calling such a convention is in an election. That was eliminated by the proposal, the idea being probably, that since it would be tied up with an election, the issue on the call may not be meritoriously considered by the people. So it is necessary that we should put here that the submission must be in a referendum which can never be simultaneous with an election.
Secondly, if we do not add the new sentence; IF THE QUESTION IS AFFIRMATIVELY VOTED UPON, THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY SHALL, WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM THE DAY OF THE REFERENDUM, ENACT THE LAW CALLING THE CONVENTION, the will of the people in approving the matter of submitting the revision or amendment to a constitutional convention might easily be frustrated by Congress by not acting at all after the question has been submitted and affirmatively voted upon by the people. So I submit that the proposed amendment is necessary to give teeth to Section 3.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
MR. MAAMBONG: I thought that this matter on Section 3 has already been properly explained by the sponsor to the extent that this could actually be done either in an election or a plebiscite. At any rate, the proposed amendment is too involved.
May I ask for a suspension of the session, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.
It was 6:28 p.m.
At 6:30 p.m., the session was resumed
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that the sponsor be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, we would like to call the attention ,of the movant to the fact that under Section 3, it is the National Assembly that is ordained by a two-thirds vote of all its Members to call a constitutional convention, and it is incumbent upon the National Assembly to come up with the enabling act providing the necessary mechanism for the constitutional convention to submit the proposed amendment to the people in a plebiscite called for the purpose. This is already built-in in whatever enabling act the National Assembly may promulgate, and that is the reason the Committee feels that it is no longer necessary to provide the statement suggested by the Gentleman.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, on the understanding that the call is in itself the enabling statute for the constitutional convention, if the question is affirmatively voted upon by the people, then I am willing to withdraw the proposed amendment.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
The proposed amendment is hereby withdrawn.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the Floor Leader is recognized.
ON SECOND READING
(Article on Amendment or Revision)
MR. RAMA: I move that we now vote on Proposed Resolution No. 322, as amended, the whole Article on Amendment or Revision.
THE PRESIDENT: We will now proceed to the voting. As many as are in favor of Proposed Resolution No. 322, the Article on Amendment or Revision of the Constitution, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (No Member raised his hand.)
The results show 29 votes in favor and none against.
Proposed Resolution No. 322, as amended, is approved on Second Reading. (Applause)
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, in behalf of the members of the Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions, may we extend our deepest gratitude to each and everyone of the Members of the Commission for bearing with us in this marathon session.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The message of the Gentleman is duly noted.
Is there any other business?
MR. RAMA. Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
RESOLUTION NO. 263 ON THIRD READING
(Article on National Territory)
MR. RAMA: I move that we vote on Third Reading on Proposed Resolution No. 263.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
Printed copies of Proposed Resolution No. 263 were distributed on July 8, 1986, pursuant to Section 28, Rule VI of the Rules of the Constitutional Commission.
Voting on the proposed resolution on Third Reading is, therefore, in order.
The Secretary-General will read the title of the proposed resolution.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL. Proposed Resolution No. 263, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION AN ARTICLE ON NATIONAL TERRITORY.
THE PRESIDENT: The body will now vote on this resolution, and the Secretary-General will call the roll.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
| Abubakar | Azcuna |
| Alonto | Bacani |
| Aquino |
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President, I would like to explain my vote.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bacani has three minutes to explain his vote.
COMMISSIONER BACANI EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
BISHOP BACANI: Fundamentally, the reason I vote no is because voting yes seems to me to be foreclosing the claim to Sabah. I have no objection to dropping the claim, but it seems that despite the protestations that the claim is not foreclosed in any way whatsoever, it is nevertheless actually foreclosed. I can foresee a possible scenario like this in the future — the Philippine government trying to renegotiate the claim and the people of Sabah saying, "Why do you claim Sabah? Is this your territory?" And we would answer: "Well, we are not sure whether it is our territory or not, but it may be." Then they can just say, "It certainly is not your territory." Why?
According to the Committee's definition of "territory," it is "all the ,other territories over which the government exercises sovereign jurisdiction." However, we do not exercise sovereign jurisdiction over this now, and, therefore, this is in no way ours, and we cannot lay any claim to it. Therefore, for this reason, I vote no. But if it is approved, I would like to emphasize that this formulation, in no way, forecloses the claim to Sabah. Nevertheless, I cannot see that being realized because language is only flexible to a certain extent, and this formulation cannot bear the burden of the interpretation that is being given to it.
Thank you.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
| Bengzon | Bernas |
| Bennagen |
FR. BERNAS: Madam President, may I be allowed to explain my vote?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bernas has three minutes.
FR. BERNAS: I vote yes for three reasons: First, because the last sentence is a statement of one aspect of the archipelagic principle which we, together with many other nations, accept. Second, I vote yes because it is a good description of the territory we actually have today. That territory comprises two parts: The first part is the Philippine Archipelago; that is, all the territories ceded by Spain to the United States, and eventually transferred to the sovereignty of the Republic of the Philippines. The second part comprises all other territories — territories outside the Archipelago over which the government exercises jurisdiction. Third, I also vote yes because the Article does not make any uncertain claim of any territory, and, therefore, avoids creating useless or even harmful friction. At the same time, however, under the generally accepted principles of international law which we adopt, it does not prevent us from making use of any accepted modes of establishing a claim to a territory. For these reasons, I vote yes.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
| Rosario Braid | Calderon |
| Brocka | Castro de |
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President, may I explain my vote?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de Castro has three minutes.
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President, I vote no because with the proposed statement in our national territory, we are giving up our claim on Sabah. Through no amount of hard thinking can I convince myself that the phrase "and all other territories over which the government exercises sovereign jurisdiction" means we are still keeping our claim over Sabah; for, indeed, Madam President, everybody knows that at this time we do not exercise sovereignty nor jurisdiction over Sabah. Our claim is based on historic right, the right established by our forefathers. To give up that right by a play of words such as "over which the government exercises sovereign jurisdiction" and then say that we are still keeping our claim on Sabah is gravely misleading.
The citation of areas over which the Philippines holds historic and legal rights as belonging to our national territory may be the only way of solidifying the Philippine position preparatory to negotiation. Any agreement later would not run counter to this provision, but would become a clarification.
Let history record, therefore, that today the Constitutional Commission of 1986, by a majority vote, is dropping the Philippine claim on Sabah without giving the Executive an opportunity to be heard on such a grave and important question.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
| Colayco | Concepcion |
MR. CONCEPCION: Madam President, may I explain my vote?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Concepcion has three minutes.
MR. CONCEPCION: I regret to say that I cannot vote affirmatively by reason of one word, that is, "exercises." If that word "exercises" were substituted with "HAS jurisdiction," there would be no problem. May I add a few more words. Actual exercise of sovereignty is essential to the acquisition of a territory but is not essential to the retention of the sovereignty over that territory. And that is why when the Philippines was occupied by the Japanese forces, we did not lose sovereignty. But to require that our claim to territories out-side the Archipelago be subject to the exercise of sovereignty not only weakens our claim. but defeats it.
My interpretation of the votes cast yesterday is that many of the Members of the Commission are not sure or are not prepared to render a judgment on whether or not we have a valid claim to Sabah, and that without passing upon the "mouth" of this issue, they would like to keep the door open to the assertion of our right to Sabah.
It is one thing to exercise sovereignty; another thing is to be sovereign. Once he acquires sovereign rights, he does not need actual exercise of those rights to retain sovereignty. To require the exercise of our sovereignty over territories not forming part of our archipelago, is to deal a deathblow upon our claim on Sabah.
My vote is no.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Davide
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, may I be allowed to explain my vote?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide has three minutes to explain his vote.
MR. DAVIDE: Although the committee report is based on my resolution, I am constrained to vote no to the final draft for the following reasons: First, it casts a serious cloud of doubt on the validity of our claim over Sabah. Secondly, it diminishes our right to pursue or enforce our historic and rightful claim over Sabah; and, finally, Madam President, a vote of yes on the proposal would be an act of liberality on our part to accommodate not the Filipinos but some other people.
So, I vote no.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
| Foz | Gascon |
| Garcia |
MR. GASCON: Madam President, I would like to explain my vote.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Gascon has three minutes.
MR. GASCON: Because I believe that as we continue the struggle for independence and self-determination, we must also recognize the will of other peoples of the world, particularly in Southeast Asia, for their own liberation, and for giving peace a chance, I vote yes in favor of the Article.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Guingona
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President, may I be allowed to explain my vote?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Guingona has three minutes.
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you.
I have stated before that the proposed provision on National Territory should be made as flexible as possible so as not to close the door to any claim which our government may wish to make in the future, claims that are foreseen such as the Sabah claim, as well as those that are unforeseen.
I have objected to the Bernas' amendment, first, because the provision, as amended, could be construed correctly or misconstrued to mean that we have abandoned our claim to Sabah even before a thorough, unbiased and searching evaluation has been made. There are many issues to be resolved, Madam President, and many questions remain unanswered, including the so-called self-determination by the Sabahans.
Second, we are presuming that our officials would be making, on our behalf, irresponsible and illegal claims which, I think, would contradict the statement made by the honorable proponent of the amendment that we should presume that our officials would perform their functions properly.
Third, because even the Malaysians themselves in the Manila Accord that I had the privilege to read in this hall accept our right to pursue our claim to Sabah.
Finally, may I invite attention to the fact that quite a number of those who voted in favor of the amendment of Commissioner Bernas, in effect, voted conditionally because they were relying on assurance which, in my opinion, would have no binding effect.
My vote is no.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
| Jamir | Lerum |
| Laurel | Maambong |
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, may I be allowed to explain my vote?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong has three minutes.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, my concern at the beginning of the deliberation on this provision, as can be gleaned from the gist of my interpellations, is that I was afraid that the wording of the provision might create uncertainty as to what is really our territory. But after hearing the distinguished sponsor, Commissioner Nolledo, answer the interpellations, I began to realize that the limits are really set forth right there in the provision on the National Territory. As a matter of fact, Commissioner Nolledo said that there are other laws which can be referred to in the determination of the real boundaries of our territory; namely, Republic Act No. 3046, on the computation of the straight base line; the Treaty of Paris; Presidential Decree No. 1599, on the exclusive economic zone; and Presidential Decree No. 1596, on our Kalayaan claim.
In view of the definiteness of the answer of the distinguished sponsor, I am convinced that we indeed have a provision which specifies our territory in definite terms. As a matter of fact, the honorable Secretary-General was kind enough to give us a map on the development of the archipelagic doctrine, a recognized principle of international law.
And so, Madam President, with the addition of the phrase "over which the government exercises sovereign jurisdiction," I am convinced that we have specified in actual terms our territory and its boundaries. For that, I vote yes to the Article.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
| Monsod | Nieva |
| Natividad | Nolledo |
MR. NOLLEDO: Madam President, taking into account; the well-taken observations of Commissioners Bacani and Concepcion, but considering my being the sponsor of the definition of our national territory and, at the same time, my being courteous to Commissioner Bernas, I deeply regret that I have to abstain.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Ople
MR. OPLE: Madam President, may I explain my vote.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople has three minutes to explain his vote.
MR. OPLE: Madam President, I vote yes and thank the Chair for the opportunity to recapitulate the reasons for doing so.
I opposed the first Bernas amendment by deletion of the whole Article on National Territory on a plea, at that time, that this was in the nature of a municipal law, and that, therefore, no matter what we said here would have no effect whatsoever on the perceptions of the international community concerning our national territory. I said then, and I would like to repeat it, it is good to have this National Territory provision in the Constitution. It is a sort of inventory of all that we hold in common, including the air space, the land, the waters, the seabed and the insular shelves, .and I thought that I could support and I did support the Bernas amendment the second amendment which, in my opinion, improved upon the original formulation. It did not waive any just claim of the Philippines. It could have removed certain mirages and preconceptions, which I considered germs of potential conflict.
We are trying to write a Constitution of peace; a reconciliation with our brothers in Mindanao is, right now, almost on the top of our national agenda. I put a lot of weight on the opinions expressed by our three brother Muslims from Mindanao — Ambassador Abubakar, Commissioners Domocao Alonto and Lugum Uka — all of whom thought that this reformulation by the Bernas amendment of the National Territory would help accelerate the return of peace and enduring unity between Muslims and Filipinos in Mindanao. I regret some of the unkind tendencies of earlier remarks that attributed motives other than or less patriotic to those who voted for the Bernas amendment — I think that is foul. I think we are not accommodating any other nation. I think that the interest of Malaysia does not appeal to anyone here and to insinuate that this could have affected some of the thinking of those who voted is certainly unkind and unparliamentary. I think that, as it stands, this is a good definition of our national territory. It responds to our best conceptions of the territory which is indulged with sanctity for every Filipino — that territory is certainly under our sovereign jurisdiction. We may have claims to other parts of the world but these are in the nature of claims which are not foreclosed under international law and which cannot partake of the same sanctity for us Filipinos of that territory over which the Republic of the Philippines now exercises sovereign jurisdiction and which can claim from everyone of us a supreme sacrifice in the future.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Padilla
MR. PADILLA: May I explain my vote, Madam President?
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner has three minutes.
MR. PADILLA: I voted against the deletion of the Article on National Territory because I believe that the Constitution should have a provision on National Territory.
Madam President, the Article on National Territory in the 1973 Constitution included the phrase "historic right or legal title." This was changed to the phrase "over which the government exercises sovereign jurisdiction." As a consequence of that amendment, the provision in the 1973 Constitution which reads: "over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction" was eliminated. In other words, Madam President, the phrase or the clause "over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction" has practically been eliminated to give way to the phrase "over which the government exercises sovereign jurisdiction." I cannot accept this amendment.
First, the word "Philippines" has been changed to "government." Second, the words "the Philippines has" have been changed to "the government exercises" and the phrase "sovereignty or jurisdiction" to "sovereign jurisdiction." "Sovereignty" and "jurisdiction" are not identical but the word "sovereignty" has been transformed into an adjective to qualify "jurisdiction" Moreover, it would require under the present text that not only the Philippines has jurisdiction or sovereignty but it was changed to the actual exercise of sovereign jurisdiction by the government.
Madam President, I like the phrase introduced by Commissioner Azcuna regarding terrestrial, fluvial and aerial domains, but because of this change from "the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction" to the clause "government exercises sovereign jurisdiction," I regret I have to vote no.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
| Quesada | Rama |
MR. RAMA: Madam President, may I explain my vote?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rama has three minutes.
MR. RAMA: I vote no. I believe in the validity of our claim to Sabah. I should know because I made a research on this matter in the 1960's, and I would like to believe that the articles that I wrote in the Free Press led to the formal filing of the Philippine claim on Sabah.
One item that I did not mention the last time I stood here to document the validity of our claim was the fact that the British government invoked the document of the annexation order as basis for its claim of sovereignty over Sabah. I would like to inform the body that this annexation order was dated July 10, 1946, only six days after we declare our independence on July 4, 1946. Ironically, it was former Governor-General Francis Burton Harrison, as foreign affairs adviser to President Quirino, who called the attention of the Philippine government, stating that the annexation order passed by the Parliament of Britain was a surreptitious and a unilateral act, "a' political aggression" taking advantage of the prostrate situation of the Philippines which has just emerged from the rubble of a war. Therefore, former Governor-General Harrison urged the Philippine government to present to the United Nations a claim on Sabah because he repudiated and was scandalized by the acts of the British. But there is no perfect crime because when one examines the annexation order whereby the British government claimed sovereignty over Sabah, it was full of defects and the major defect was this: According to that annexation order, the British government claimed sovereignty over Sabah by virtue of the fact that it has assumed the rights of the British North Borneo Company. Our records will show that the British North Borneo Company never exercised public power nor sovereign rights since it was a private corporation. In other words, it could not have given to the British government what it did not have — Nemo dat quod non habet.
As to the argument that this may give rise to violence, I would also advert to the body the fact that the Philippine government insisted on a peaceful settlement and even invited Malaysia to take this question to the International Court of Justice. Precisely, we wanted a peaceful settlement, a civilized settlement among nations, but it was Malaysia who refused to go to that peaceful settlement and, therefore, courted trouble.
Therefore, Madam President, I am more concerned about the rights of the Filipinos than the rights of Malaysians.
I vote no.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
| Regalado | Rigos |
| Reyes de los |
REV. RIGOS: May I explain my vote, Madam President?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rigos has three minutes.
REV. RIGOS: I vote no for the same reason given by Commissioner Concepcion.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Rodrigo
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, may I explain my vote?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo has three minutes.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, I vote yes because this Article defined very clearly what is rightly our territory and at the same time it saves me from violating the mandate: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's territory.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
| Romulo | Sarmiento |
| Rosales |
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, may I explain my vote?
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner has three minutes.
MR. SARMIENTO: Madam President, in the spirit of Asian solidarity and the fact that this provision on National Territory will not preclude this government and the future Governments from pursuing its claim over any territory, I vote yes.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Suarez
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, may I explain my vote?
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner has three minutes.
MR. SUAREZ: I vote no because I certainly have no wish to waive and renounce our nation's historic rights and legal title. Secondly, I would not feel comfortable relying upon assurances that are not integrated in our Constitution. Ambiguities have no place in the supreme law of the land.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
| Sumulong | Tadeo |
MR. TADEO: Madam President, may I explain my vote?
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner has three minutes.
MR. TADEO: I vote no, naniniwala kasi ako na makabuluhan at mahalaga na manatili ang "historic right" at "legal title."
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
| Tan | Treñas |
| Tingson | Uka |
MR. UKA: May I explain my vote, Madam President?
I vote yes because my understanding of the meaning of the Article on National Territory does not in any way preclude us from claiming any area or territory in the future, including the moon. This Article describes very clearly our present territory over which we have sovereignty. For if we include future territories, we will really have a very large territory. Let us cross the bridge when we come to it.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Villacorta
MR. VILLACORTA: May I explain my vote, Madam President?
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner has three minutes.
MR. VILLACORTA: Madam President, I vote yes after having consulted specialists in international law and diplomacy who assured me that the term "sovereign jurisdiction" is not an auto-limitation that precludes the Philippines from asserting her sovereignty over territories which she may either lose or claim in the future. Moreover, these experts informed me that the term "sovereign" shall always remind the users of the Constitution that where a claimed territory is not an empty piece of land but is inhabited by living persons, these persons' will must be taken into account. Sovereignty resides only in the people and the people's self-determination reigns supreme over historic right, legal title and other requirements of territorial claims. This principle is consistent with the evolving theme of our 1986 Constitution; namely, people's rights and interest.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Villegas
SECOND ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will conduct a second call for those who have not registered their votes.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
| Abubakar | Brocka | ||
| Alonto | Calderon | ||
| Aquino | Yes | Colayco | |
| Azcuna | Yes | Foz | Yes |
| Bengzon | Yes | Garcia | Yes |
| Bennagen | Yes | Jamir | |
| Rosario Braid | Yes | Laurel | |
| Lerum | Yes | Romulo | |
| Monsod | Rosales | ||
| Natividad | Yes | Sumulong | Yes |
| Nieva | Yes | Tan | |
| Quesada | Yes | Tingson | |
| Regalado | Yes | Treñas | |
| Reyes de los | Yes |
THE PRESIDENT: The results show 22 votes in favor, 11 against and 1 abstention.
Proposed Resolution No. 263 is lost on Third Reading for failure to meet the required majority vote of all the Members.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: There are some of us who are not present and it would be fair if these proceedings on Third Reading continue until tomorrow in order that the votes of those absent may be obtained on nominal voting.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, I object to the motion because that would be against the Rules.
THE PRESIDENT: The motion is out of order. We already had a voting; therefore, the only remedy open would be for a motion for reconsideration which we could consider at some future time.
MR. BENGZON: May I beg your pardon, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: I said we already had a voting on the resolution. The resolution was lost and so, the only remedy open is for a motion for reconsideration which we can consider tomorrow.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, may I say something.
THE PRESIDENT: Please proceed.
MR. BENGZON: Under the circumstances, I would like to move for the suspension of the Rules in order to obviate the filing of a motion for reconsideration tomorrow. So, may I move for a suspension of the Rules today, so that we could continue with the nominal voting tomorrow.
MR. GUINGONA: I object, Madam President.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, I object.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Guingona is recognized.
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President, I object because I am afraid this will create a bad precedent that everytime a vote is taken and it is lost, we will ask for a suspension of the Rules.
MR. BENGZON: In that case, as suggested by the Chair, the motion for reconsideration will be presented tomorrow.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, parliamentary inquiry.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: Before any motion for reconsideration is presented at the appropriate time, would the results of the voting today mean that the new Constitution will be without an Article on National Territory, unless the Committee will propose another?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, as it is now, there is no provision for the National Territory in the Constitution.
MR. DAVIDE: Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there a motion for adjournment?
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President, may I move that the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of Principles take it up again for presentation to the body?
THE PRESIDENT: Then, we will take that up when the motion for reconsideration is submitted.
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Just a minor point of parliamentary inquiry.
THE PRESIDENT: Please proceed.
MR. MAAMBONG: We just want to find out exactly how many Members participated in the voting — just for the record, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The result of the voting is: 22 affirmative; 11 negative; I abstention; so, that is 34.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I move that we adjourn the session until tomorrow at two-thirty in the afternoon
THE PRESIDENT: The session is adjourned until tomorrow at two-thirty in the afternoon
It was 7:14 p.m.
* Appeared after the roll call.