Supreme Court E-Library
Information At Your Fingertips

  View printer friendly version

CALL TO ORDER

At 9:35 a.m., the President of the Constitutional Commission, the Honorable Cecilia Muñoz Palma, called the session to order.

NATIONAL ANTHEM AND PRAYER

The National Anthem was sung followed by a prayer led by Mr. Ambrosio B. Padilla, to wit:

Almighty God, Creator of the Universe, Master of Mankind, and Sovereign Lord, "Without Thee, we can do nothing. With Thee, nothing is impossible." Thou made possible the political miracle of February 22-25 through the peaceful revolution of our people, a unique event, unknown in the history of our ASEAN neighbors, and unprecedented in our own history. Our people succeeded without violence in terminating and topping down the dictatorship, which had been entrenched in absolute power during fourteen years of martial misrule. "More things are wrought by-prayers than this world dreams of".

Lord, many a Time in the past, Thou has shown deep affection for our country and abiding love for our people. 

God of Power and Light, come to our aid again; in this delicate responsibility of formulating a new permanent Constitution. We must solicit and beseech Thine Divine Providence for aid and guidance - to enlighten our minds, to instill understanding in our hearts, and to fortify our resolve to labor assiduously with devotion and dedication, so that we may submit to our sovereign people a fundamental charter that will not only embody our ideals and aspirations, but also assure a just society, an honest government, a responsive administration, with the blessings of truth, justice, freedom, peace and progress in a living and effective democracy.

Blessed Mother Mary, You have never abandoned, but have ever extended Your motherly affection and love to our people. During these days of our need for Your assistance, we pray that You be with us today and always-to bless our people with a better life and for all to enjoy a government not only of and by the people, but more importantly for the people.

Amen.

ROLL CALL

Upon direction of the Chair, the Secretary-General of the Commission called the Roll and the following Members responded:

Aquino, F. S.	Nolledo, J. N.
Azcuna, A. S.	Padilla, A. B.
Bacani, T. C.	Muñoz Palma, C.
Bengzon, J. F. S.	Quesada, M. L. M.
Rosario Braid, F.	Rama, N. G.
De Castro, C. M.	Regalado, F. D.
Colayco, J. C.	Rigos, C. A.
Concepcion, R. R.	Rodrigo, F. A.
Foz, V. B.	Romulo, R. J.
Guingona, S. V. C.	Rosales, D. R.
Jamir, A. M. K.	Sarmiento, R. V.
Lerum, E. R.	Suarez, J. E.
Nieva, M. T. F.	Treñas. E. B.

With 26 Members present, the Chair declared the presence of a quorum.

The following Members appeared after the Roll Call:

Abubakar, Y. R.	Laurel. J. B.
Alonto, A. D.	Maambong, R. E.
Bennagen, P. L.	Monsod, C. S.
Bernas, J. G.	Natividad, T. C.
Brocka, L. O.	Ople, B. F.
Calderon, J. D.	De Los Reyes, R. F.
Davide, H. G.	Sumulong, L. M.
Garcia, E. G.	Tadeo, J. S. L.
Gascon, J. L. M. C.	Villacorta, W. V.

Ms. Tan and Mr. Uka were absent.

Mr. Villegas was on official mission.

Mr. Tingson officially notified the Constitution Commission, through the Secretariat, of his absence

READING AND APPROVAL OF THE JOURNAL

On motion of Mr. Rama, there being no objection, the reading of the Journal of the previous session was dispensed with and the said Journal was approved by the Body.

REFERENCE OF BUSINESS

On motion of Mr. Rama, there being no objection, the Body proceeded to the Reference of Business. 

REFERRAL TO COMMITTEES OF RESOLUTIONS

Upon direction of the Chair, the Secretary General of the Commission read, on First Reading, the titles of the following proposed Resolutions which were, in turn, referred by the Chair to then Committees hereunder indicated:

Proposed Resolution No. 487, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE TRANSITORY PROVISIONS OF THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION MANDATING THE TRANSFER OF ALL RECORDS, EQUIPMENT, BUILDINGS, FACILITIES, AND OTHER PROPERTIES OF ANY OFFICE OR BODY ABOLISHED OR REORGANIZED UNDER THIS CONSTITUTION TO THE OFFICE OR BODY TO WHICH ITS POWERS, FUNCTIONS, AND RESPONSIBILITIES SUBSTANTIALLY PERTAIN

Introduced by Honorable Davide, Jr.

TO THE COMMITTEE ON AMENDMENTS AND  TRANSITORY PROVISIONS

Proposed Resolution No. 488, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION REQUIRING THE STATE TO UNDERTAKE THE TRANSLATION OF THE NEW CONSTITUTION INTO THE VARIOUS PHILIPPINE LANGUAGES AND TO PROVIDE A FREE COPY TO EVERY FAMILY OR HOUSEHOLD

Introduced by Honorable Bennagen and Sarmiento

TO THE COMMITTEE ON GENERAL PROVISIONS

Proposed Resolution No. 489, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION PROTECTING THE INDISSOLUBILITY OF MARRIAGE AND THE STABILITY OF THE FILIPINO FAMILY

Introduced by Honorable Bacani

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

Proposed Resolution No. 490, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE TRANSITORY PROVISIONS OF THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION RECOGNIZING THE AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION OF EXISTING COURTS, MANDATING THE DETERMINATION OF PENDING CASES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS THEN IN FORCE, UP- HOLDING THE PROVISIONS OF THE EXISTING RULES OF COURT, PROVIDING FOR THE CONTINUANCE OF INCUMBENT MEMBERS OF THE JUDICIARY AND THEIR REMOVAL ONLY FOR CAUSE, AND REQUIRING SPECIAL. COURTS AND QUASI-JUDICIAL BODIES TO SUBMIT THEIR RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR APPROVAL BY THE SUPREME COURT

Introduced by Honorable Davide, Jr.

TO THE COMMITTEE ON AMENDMENTS AND TRANSITORY PROVISIONS

Proposed Resolution No. 491, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE CONSTITUTION PROVISIONS FOR THE PROTECTION OF RIGHTS AND WELFARE OF FILIPINO OVERSEAS WORKERS (FOW'S)

Introduced by Honorable Quesada, Tadeo and Aquino

TO THE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL JUSTICE

Proposed Resolution No. 492, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE TRANSITORY PROVISIONS OF THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION AUTHORIZING THE PRESIDENT TO REVIEW CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO BY THE PREVIOUS GOVERNMENT OR ANY SUBDIVISION, AGENCY OR INSTRUMENTALITY THEREOF, IN- CLUDING GOVERNMENT-OWNED OR CONTROLLED CORPORATIONS AND TO REVOKE, MODIFY OR AMEND THE SAME WHEN THE NATIONAL INTEREST OR WELFARE SO REQUIRES

Introduced by Honorable Davide, Jr.

TO THE COMMITTEE ON AMENDMENTS AND TRANSITORY PROVISIONS

Proposed Resolution No. 493, entitled:

RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF AN INDEPENDENT CENTRAL MONETARY AUTHORITY

Introduced by Honorable Davide, Jr.

TO THE COMMITTEE ON GENERAL PROVISIONS

Proposed Resolution No. 494, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE TRANSITORY PROVISIONS OF THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION MANDATING THE GRANT OF SEPARATION PAY AND OTHER BENEFITS TO CIVIL SERVICE ELIGIBLES WHO WERE SEPARATED FROM THE SERVICE FROM FEBRUARY TWENTY-SIX 1986

Introduced by Honorable Davide, Jr.

TO THE COMMITTEE ON AMENDMENTS AND TRANSITORY PROVISIONS

Proposed Resolution No. 495, entitled:

RESOLUTION PRESCRIBING THE ORDER OF SUCCESSION TO THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT IN CASE OF PERMANENT VACANCY OR TEMPORARY DISABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR THE MECHANISM FOR THE DECLARATION OF INCAPACITY OF THE PRESIDENT

Introduced by Honorable Maambong, Ople, Natividad and De los Reyes, Jr.

TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE EXECUTIVE

COMMUNICATIONS
Communication No. 175-Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Mr. Ceferino P. Padua, former Constitutional Convention delegate, submitting the article "Right to Education-Somewhere in the Bill of Rights" 

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

Communication No. 176 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Ms. Cristina M. Liamzon, of the Philippine Partnership for the Development of Human Resources in Rural Areas, forwarding a resolution proposing the inclusion of provisions on agrarian reform and rural development

TO THE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL JUSTICE

Communication No. 177 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from the Personal Officers Association of the Philippines, Inc. signed by Mr. Bacani A. Aquino, recommending certain provisions on the Civil Service rendered ten or more years active service

TO THE COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS  AND AGENCIES

Communication No. 178 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Resolution No. 217 of Sangguniang Panlungsod of Davao City, proposing to abolish the integration of the local police and the Philippine Constabulary and to return the Administrative supervision and control of local police to the mayors

TO THE COMMITTEE ON GENERAL PROVISIONS

Communication No. 179 — Constitutional Commission

Telegram from Mr. Enrique Soriano of Iloilo City proposing the adoption of the jury system

TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Communication No. 180 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Mr. Rey Iyog of Sugbongcogon, Misamis Oriental, requesting the inclusion of a provision that would expedite the resolution of cases in the courts

TO THE COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

Communication No. 181 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Resolution of the Federation of Senior Citizens of the province of Albay suggesting the inclusion of a provision giving due recognition to Senior citizens

TO THE COMMITTEE ON GENERAL PROVISIONS

Communication No. 182 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Major Amador R. Tanael, Jr., of the Regional Special Action Force Batallion, PC/INP Regional Command 4, requesting the inclusion of a provision integrating into the regular force of the AFP reserve officers who have rendered ten or more years active service

Communication No. 183 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Ms. Judith N. Relato of 21 Baesa Road, Quezon City, proposing the retention of US bases, disenfranchisement of illiterate voters, synchronization of elections and a year-no-reelection term for all elective official

TO THE COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS AND AGENCIES

Communication No. 184 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Communication from the Promotion of Church People’s Rights-Mindanao, requesting provisions for the regulation of activities of transnational corporations for the preservation of natural resources and the dismantling of para-military forces

TO THE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL ECONOMY PATRIMONY

Communication No. 185 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Communication from the Honorable Neptali Gonzales, Minister of Justice, forwarding a Communication from members of the Veterans Federation of the Philippines and other veterans’ associations, proposing a presidential form of government with a bicameral legislature

TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE EXECUTIVE

Communication No. 186 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Mr. Robert V. Dulay, Officer-in-Charge, Province of La Union, transmitting proposals on the declaration of principles and state policies local governments, autonomous regions and transitory provisions

TO THE STEERING COMMITTEE

Communication No. 187 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from the Honorable Commissioner Regalado E. Maambong, enclosing a copy of the Magna Carta of Social Justice and Economic Freedom by commissioner (Speaker)J.B. Laurel, Jr., and saying that the basic policies enunciated therein are still valid today

Communication No. 188 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Mr. Tomas L. Joaquin of Mendiola St., Alabang, Muntinlupa, Metro Manila, proposing provisions that will require religious organizations to pay real estate and income taxes; election of justices of the Supreme Court and the members of the Commission on Elections by the legislature and the election of fiscals by the electorate, among others

TO THE STEERING COMMITTEE

Communication No. 189 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Mr. Orlando G. Rogelio of Victoria, Oriental Mindoro, proposing that the six-year term of President Corazon C. Aquino and Vice- President Salvador H. Laurel shall commence upon the ratification of the new Constitution; recommending severance of diplomatic relations with communist countries and the retention of United States military bases, and opposing regional autonomy

TO THE STEERING COMMITTEE

Communication No. 190 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from the United Church of Christ in the Philippines, signed by Bishop Erme R. Camba and Dr. Emilio C. Capulong, Jr., urging the retention of the present provisions calling for and implementing the principle of separation of church and state

TO THE COMMITTEE ON GENERAL PROVISIONS

Communication No. 191 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Resolution of the Philippine Medical Women's Association, Inc., proposing the principle that it shall be the duty of the state to give free primary health care to its underprivileged citizens

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

COMMITTEE REPORT
Committee Report No. 24 on Proposed Resolution No. 496, prepared by the Committee on National Economy and Patrimony, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION AN ARTICLE ON NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY,

recommending its approval in substitution of Pro- posed Resolutions Nos. 10, 12, 16, 22, 46, 47, 63, 89, 122, 211, 213, 219, 288, 309, 317, 368, 369, 374, 375, 378, 388, 389, 401 and 412.

Sponsors: Hon. Villegas, Tadeo, Bacani, Bengzon, Jr., Bennagen, Foz, Gascon, Monsod, Natividad, Ople, Romulo, Sarmiento, Suarez, Uka and Villacorta. 

TO THE STEERING COMMITTEE

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

At this juncture, the Chair suspended the session.

It was 9:52 a.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 10:29 a.m., the session was resumed with the Honorable Jose F. S. Bengzon, Jr. presiding.

Thereupon, on motion of Mr. Rama, there being no objection, the Body proceeded to the continuation of the consideration (Period of Amendments) of Committee Report No. 18 on the draft Article on the Judiciary.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MS. AQUINO

On Section 1, line 6, Ms. Aquino proposed to insert the phrase THE REDRESS OF WRONGS FOR VIOLATIONS OF SUCH RIGHTS between "and" and 'to" in the definition of judicial power.

Ms. Aquino stated that her proposal would explicitate the responsibility of the courts as the bulwark of justice in the country.

Mr. Concepcion did not accept the proposal because it would be a duplication of Section 7(5) and, therefore, unnecessary. Mr. Concepcion maintained that the Constitution must be brief and concise but all-embracing.

Additionally, Mr. Romulo explained that the amendment is unnecessary because the definition of "judicial power" in the second paragraph of Section 1, precisely took into consideration Section 7(5).

Thereupon, Ms. Aquino withdrew her proposal on the understanding that Section 1(2) implicitly includes the duty of the courts to positively provide for the redress of wrongs for violation of such rights.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. MAAMBONG

On the second paragraph of Section 1, Mr. Maambong proposed to delete the word "actual" between the words "settle" and "controversies", pointing out that the cases may not involve contending party litigants as in a case of a petition for declaratory relief or quieting of title. Mr. Concepcion, however, invited attention to the fact that the Supreme Court has no judicial power to grant declaratory judgment and that judicial power per se is merely the power to settle controversies. He alluded to the difficulty of passing judgment on hypothetical cases.

On the Committee's view whether or not a declaratory relief involves an actual controversy, Mr. Concepcion stated that an actual controversy arises based on a conflict as to what the law is or whether there is any law involved, in which case, there is a need to determine what is the law to be applied. He affirmed that a petition for the quieting of title is an actual controversy. 

Thereupon, Mr. Maambong desisted from pursuing his amendment.

AMENDMENT OF MS. AQUINO

On Section 3(2), line 23, MB. Aquino proposed to delete the phrase "plus one" or, in the alternative, to delete the phrase "of the members who actually participated when the case was submitted for decision" on lines 24 and 25.

With respect to the first amendment, Mr. Regalado, on behalf of the Committee, stated the Committee's view that the vote requirement of a majority plus one should be retained on the ground that the approval of laws involves the two branches of government and, therefore, it should require a higher number of votes to declare 8 law unconstitutional. However, with respect to the alternative amendment, Mr. Regalado manifested the Committee's agreement to the amendment.

He then confirmed that in the former case six votes would be required and in the latter case seven votes would be needed. Mr. Regalado confirmed the Committee's decision to make the vote requirement "majority plus one" regardless of the eventual total membership of the Court.

Thereafter, Mr. Regalado confirmed that with the acceptance of Ms. Aquino's alternative proposal, Section 1(2) would read:

ALL CASES INVOLVING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A TREATY, INTERNATIONAL OR EXECUTIVE AGREEMENT, OR LAW SHALL BE HEARD AND DECIDED BY THE SUPREME COURT EN BANC AND NO TREATY, INTERNATIONAL OR EXECUTIVE AGREEMENT, OR LAW MAY BE DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL WITHOUT THE CONCURRENCE OF A MAJORITY PLUS ONE OF THE MEMBERS.

Submitted to a vote, there being no objection, the amendment was approved by the Body.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. RODRIGO

Mr. Rodrigo proposed on lines 31 and 32 of Section 3(3) and lines 2 and 3 of Section 3(4) the deletion of the phrase "who actually participated", which amendment was not accepted by the Committee.

Mr. Padilla, however, pointed out that there may not always be a full complement of Justices of the Supreme Court present on account of legal disqualification, voluntary inhibition or leave of absence. He stressed the impropriety of having the minority prevail over the majority and adverted to cases in the past where the "tyranny of a minority" had prevailed for lack of the required number of votes. But he agreed that a majority or majority plus one of the Members would be required in determining the validity of a treaty or the constitutionality of a law while a majority of the members participating would be needed in other, less complex cases.

Mr. Concepcion also made the clarification with the word "participated" it means that the justice must be physically present in the deliberations and cast his vote, which can be an abstention, before the case is assigned to one of the members o Court for the writing of the Court's opinion.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. LERUM

On Section 3(1), Mr. Lerum proposed the 61 substitution of the word "ten" with FOURTEEN, which amendment was not accepted by the Committee.

Mr. Romulo, on behalf of the Committee explained that: 1) the fifteen slots were never filled up; (2) the backlog of cases resulted although there were already 13 to 14 justices, and 3) a bigger collegial body would require more inputs and lengthier deliberations before a decision can be made.

On the first point, Mr. Lerum stated that it can be remedied through an amendment to the effect vacancy should be filled within two months from date the vacancy occurs. As to the backlog of cases Mr. Lerum maintained that the appointment of more justices would lessen the work load of each Justice resulting in more decisions rendered.

Mr. Concepcion pointed out that the observation was well taken had the backlog occurred during normal times. He stated, however, that the backlog took place under a climate of uncertainty in the administration. He then stated that a member of Committee consulted the Chief Justice who gave assurance that the judiciary could carry the load 1 only 11 members.

Mr. Lerum maintained that this provision is important because it affects the labor sector immensely. He opined that with the continuing increase of labor cases filed the previous day, the appoint of only 11 justices would not create a favorable impression upon the workers whose main consider is speedy disposition of their cases. 

MR. RODRIGO'S AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT

At this juncture, on line 18, Mr. Rodrigo sought to amend Mr. Lerum's amendment by changing word "two" to THREE.

Mr. Lerum accepted the amendment to his amendment.

Submitted to a vote, and with 10 Members v, in favor and 20 against, the amendment was lost.

AMENDMENT OF MR. LERUM

Mr. Lerum proposed on page 1, line 18, after sentence, to add the phrase IN CASE OF ANY VACANCY, THE SAME SHALL BE FILLED WITHIN THREE MONTHS FROM THE OCCURRENCE THEREOF.

At this juncture, Mr. Rodrigo observed should the Commission on Appointments be restored the three-month period might prove too short because it will involve not only an appointment by the President but also confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.

The Chair stated that Section 5 of the Committee Report provides that the appointments of the Justices of the Supreme Court and the judges of the lower courts are not subject to confirmation, to which Mr. Rodrigo replied that he was going to file an amendment at the proper time to delete said portion to restore the power to the Commission on Appointments.

The Chair then requested Mr. Lerum to defer his amendment until after the Body shall have decided whether or not the appointment of justices will have to be confirmed by the Commission on Appointments.

Mr. Lerum, however, maintained that his amendment would be a mandate on both the President and the proposed Commission on Appointments. He suggested that an ad interim appointments body could be created so that any vacancy could be filled, the purpose being to help the justices in the performance of their functions.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

At this juncture, on motion of Mr. Romulo, the session was suspended.

It was 11:14 a.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 11:29 a.m., the session was resumed.

APPROVAL OF MR. LERUM'S AMENDMENT

Upon resumption of session, as proposed by Mr. Lerum and accepted by the Sponsor, the Body approved an amendment to add after line 18 the sentence IN CASE OF ANY VACANCY, THE SAME SHALL BE FILLED WITHIN THREE MONTHS FROM THE OCCURRENCE THEREOF.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. MAAMBONG

On Section 3(3), line 28, Mr. Maambong proposed the deletion of the words "presidential decrees".

Mr. Maambong argued that "presidential decrees" have the same meaning as "law" found in Section 3(2) of the Committee Report. He further stated that presidential decrees refer to laws which affect not only the operation of the government but vested rights, contracts and international commitments, as against proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances and other regulations which are lower in category.

Responding thereto, Mr. Regalado stated that the Committee took said observations into account. He pointed out, however, that while it is true that all presidential decrees are considered part of the laws of the land, under the Transitory Provisions of the 1973 Constitution, many people do not agree that it should be given that elevated level. He stated that the Committee wanted to make it specific to avoid any question regarding the coverage of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

Mr. Maambong further inquired whether presidential decrees have the status of a statutory law or statute properly so-called.

Mr. Padilla explained that "statutes" usually refer to Republic Acts, Commonwealth Acts or even previous acts of the Philippine Commission, as well as Batas Pambansa which had been passed by the National Assembly and approved by the President. He stated that although under the Transitory Provisions of the 1973 Constitution, presidential proclamations have the force and effect of law, there is a clear distinction between a statute or law and a presidential decree which is deemed to form part of the law of the land.

Thereupon, Mr. Maambong reiterated his motion to delete the words "presidential decrees" on Section 3(3), line 28.

The Committee did not accept the proposed amendment.

Submitted to a vote, and with 5 Members voting in favor and 23 against, the proposed amendment was lost.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. DE CASTRO

Mr. de Castro observed that in many instances, Justices of the Supreme Court were either abroad or were absent, causing delay in the resolution of cases.

In new thereof, he proposed, on Section 3(1), line 18, to add a sentence to read as follows: IN NO CASE SHALL THE NUMBER OF MEMBERS PRESENT BE LESS THAN EIGHT.

The Committee did not accept the proposed amendment on the ground that it may complicate the quorum requirement and cause further delays in deciding cases.

Submitted to a vote, and with 4 Members voting in favor and 18 against, the amendment was lost. 

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. BACANI

On Section 4(1) and (2), Mr. Bacani proposed the deletion of the term "natural-born" on lines 9 and 15.

Mr. Bacani explained that his proposed amendment would be an expression of trust in those who are not natural-born citizens but who are professionally and ethically qualified to be members of the judiciary. He also maintained that the proposal would be consistent with the principle of giving equal rights to all citizens of the Republic.

Mr. Concepcion pointed out, however, that there are other provisions in the Constitution, like the one on the Office of the President, which require, as one of the qualifications, natural-born citizenship. He also stated that the proposed amendment would involve a matter of policy which is beyond the competence of the Committee. In view thereof, he asked that it be submitted to the Body.

Submitted to a vote, and with 3 Members voting in favor and 21 against, the amendment was lost.

AMENDMENT OF MR. NOLLEDO

On Section 4, Mr. Nolledo proposed the addition of a new Subsection (3) to read:

(3) A MEMBER OF THE JUDICIARY MUST BE A PERSON OF PROVEN COMPETENCE, INTEGRITY, PROBITY AND INDEPENDENCE.

Explaining his proposed amendment, Mr. Nolledo stated that it is a moral provision lifted, with modifications, from the Canons of Judicial Ethics with the end in view of strengthening the moral fiber of the Judiciary which, at present, has an unsavory reputation. He stressed that the Constitution should not be merely a legal or political document but a moral document as well.

The Committee accepted the proposed amendment and, there being no objection, was approved by the Body.

Thereupon, Mr. Nolledo manifested for the record that Messrs. Rama and de Castro were co- authors of the amendment.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

Thereafter, on request of Mr. Rama, the Chair suspended the session until two-thirty in the afternoon.

It was 11:57 a.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 2:37 p.m., the session was resumed with Mr. Bengzon presiding.

INQUIRY OF MR. SARMIENTO

Upon resumption of session, Mr. Sarmiento inquired whether the Judicial and Bar Council has the power to receive complaints, administrative and criminal, against the members of the bench, and upon a finding of the prima facie case, to prosecute the same before the Supreme Court or Sandiganbayan. He stated that this question had arisen from the suggestion contained in a letter of a lawyer responsible for prosecuting two Regional Trial Court Judges, and which letter, upon direction of the Chair, was entered into the records of the Commission.

In reply, Mr. Romulo pointed out that although it was not explicitly provided in the Section, such activity may fall under the proviso which states “It may exercise such other functions and duties the Supreme Court may assign to it.”

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. RODRIGO

Thereafter, on page 2, line 18, after the v "President", Mr. Rodrigo proposed to insert phrase WITH THE CONSENT OF THE COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS., and to delete the words starting from "from a" on line 18 up to page 3, line 15 inclusive. 

Mr. Rodrigo explained that his proposal consisted in the deletion of the provision on the creation of Judicial and Bar Council so that Section 5 would be exactly the same as that of Section 5, Article VII the 1935 Constitution.

He pointed out the satisfactory appointment the Judiciary by the President with the confirmation of the Commission on Appointments from the time of President Quezon until before the declaration of martial law by President Marcos. He stated that during martial law, the trust and respect of the people in the Judiciary deteriorated because the Commission on Appointments was abolished and all appointment were made by only one dictator, and that even after the approval of the 1973 Constitution, the security of tenure of judges and justices was disregarded by the President. He added that with such political situation, graft and corruption had permeated the Judiciary.

Additionally, he stated that 1) the creation of Judicial and Bar Council would diminish the appointing power of the President; 2) there would be no uniformity in the constitutional provisions regarding appointments since it would be a deviation from practice observed with respect to other agencies of government; 3) the Council would be ineffective cause almost all its members are to be appointed the President, and thus, may-be influenced by President; 4) such Council of seven would be powerful than the Commission on Appointment composed of legislators elected by the people; 5) Chief Justice would be additionally burdened with recommendations which may eventually drag into politics; and 6) financially, it would cost Judiciary more than the savings from the prop reduction of the number of members of the Supreme Court.

In reply, Mr. Concepcion stressed that creation of the Judicial and Bar Council was an innovation in response to the public clamor in favor eliminating politics in the appointment of judges.

He disclosed that 2,200 positions of judges w have to be filled up, and the Committee felt neither the President nor the Commission on appointments would have the time to carefully study the qualifications of every candidate, especially respect to their probity and sense of morality.

On the alleged diminution of the appointing power of the President, he explained that the members of the Council would be appointed by the President and, therefore, simply be the President's alter ego.

As member of the Committee, Mr. Colayco also explained that the creation of the Judicial and Bar Council was intended to establish the independence of the Judiciary. He pointed out the appointments of judges out of political favors from the President; the control of the budget of the Judiciary by the legislature; and the occasional insincerity of the Commission on Appointments in censoring the qualifications of some appointees. Thus, the creation of the Council would ensure the appointment of judges and justices chosen for their competence and moral qualifications and not because of political favors.

Likewise, Mr. Romulo stated that the independence of the Judiciary should be based on 1) the appointment of competent and honest men; 2) the security of tenure; and 3) the fiscal independence of the Supreme Court. He further stated that with the past experiences of political interference, a compromise was arrived at by creating the Judicial and Bar Council which is composed of representatives from the three branches of government and the private sector. He said it would also solve the problem of filling up a vacancy within three months especially when the legislature is in recess.

Finally, he underscored that it is safe to have an independent Judiciary in whatever form of government.

At this juncture, the Chair granted Mr. Sarmiento an extension of time to make his reply as member of the Committee. 

Mr. Sarmiento stressed that the creation of the Council is a step towards achieving judicial independence. He pointed out that in the 1971 Constitutional Convention, certain criticisms on the Commission on Appointments were raised, among others, the Commission being an "instrument of blackmail".

Additionally, he stated that other countries like Thailand, Portugal, Spain and Italy have provided in their constitutions the creation of a judicial and bar council.

REJOINDER OF MR. RODRIGO

As a rejoinder, Mr. Rodrigo stated that he was a member of the Commission on Appointments for ten years during which time it had an excellent record although there were also black sheep.

Thereafter, Mr. Rodrigo's proposal was submitted to a vote, and with 8 Members voting in favor and 26 voting against, the same was lost.

AMENDMENT OF MR. DAVIDE

As proposed by Mr. Davide, and modified by Mr. Romulo, the Body approved the addition of a paragraph under Section 5 on page 2, between lines 21 and 22, to read as follows:

WITH RESPECT TO THE LOWER COURTS, THE PRESIDENT SHALL ISSUE THE APPOINTMENTS WITHIN NINETY (90) DAYS FROM THE SUBMISSION OF THE LIST.

AMENDMENT OF MR. DE CASTRO

As proposed by Mr. de Castro, and accepted by the Sponsor, the Body approved the amendment on page 3, lines 8 and 9, deleting the clause "and the ex-officio members shall receive such allowances".

AMENDMENT OF MR. BERNAS

As proposed by Mr. Bernas and accepted by the Sponsor, the Body approved the addition after "years" on page 2, line 30, of the phrase WITH THE CONSENT OF THE COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS.

Mr. Bernas explained that the purpose of his proposal is to insulate the Judicial and Bar Council from the political influence of the President.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MS. AQUINO

On page 4, line 17, Ms. Aquino proposed-to change the period (.) after "privileged" to a comma (,) and to substitute the sentence "The National Assembly may repeal, alter, or supplement the said rules with the advice and concurrence of the Supreme Court" and WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY.

Explaining her proposal, Ms. Aquino stated that although the power to promulgate rules of procedure in court practice was conferred in the Supreme Court, the National Assembly was given the power to repeal or revoke them thereby giving the latter a mantle of superiority over the other. She suggested that the National Assembly be simply given the power to confirm or concur instead of the power to repeal or revoke.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

Upon request of Mr. Romulo, the Chair suspended the session.

It was 3:26 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 3:37 p.m., the session was resumed.

AMENDMENT OF MS. AQUINO

Thereafter, Ms. Aquino manifested that in view of the compromise agreement with the Committee to delete on page 4, lines 17 to 19, the sentence "The National Assembly may repeal, alter or supplement the said rules with the advice and concurrence of the Supreme Court", she had agreed to withdraw her proposal to insert after the word "privileged" the phrase WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY.

Mr. Romulo explained that the acceptance of Ms. Aquino's proposal was on the understanding that both the Supreme Court and the Legislature have inherent powers.

Submitted to a vote, and there being no objection, the amendment was approved by the Body.

AMENDMENT OF MR. MAAMBONG

On Section' 7(5), Mr. Maambong proposed to delete the phrase "and quasi-judicial bodies" after the word "courts" as such bodies are not inferior courts and probably would belong more to the Executive Department and as such the Supreme Court has no power to approve their rules of procedure.

MR. DE LOS REYES' PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT

At this juncture, Mr. de los Reyes proposed to rephrase the whole sentence to wit:

RULES OF PROCEDURES OF SPECIAL COURTS SHALL BE VALID UNLESS DISAPPROVED BY THE SUPREME COURT,

which amendment was accepted by Mr. Maambong.

MR. DE CASTRO'S PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT

Mr. de Castro proposed the retention of the phrase "quasi-judicial bodies".

Mr. Maambong, thereafter, asked the Chair's permission for him and Messrs. de los Reyes and de Castro to approach the Committee to formulate the proposed amendment and thereby save time, to which suggestion the Committee agreed.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

The Chair suspended the session.

It was 3:43 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 3:47 p.m., the session was resumed.

AMENDMENT TO SECTION 7

Thereafter, Mr. de los Reyes, on his own and on behalf of Messrs. Maambong and de Castro, read the proposed amendment, incorporating all the amendments, to wit:

RULES OF PROCEDURES OF SPECIAL COURTS AND QUASI-JUDICIAL BODIES SHALL REMAIN VALID AND EFFECTIVE UNLESS DISAPPROVE BY THE SUPREME COURT.

Mr. Maambong stated that the reason for retention of the phrase "quasi-judicial bodies" which he had objected, is that most of the decision of such bodies are appealed to the Supreme Court.

The amendment was accepted by the Committee and there being no objection, the same was approve by the Body. 

INQUIRY OF MR. FOZ

On whether the quasi-judicial bodies would include the Constitutional Commissions, Mr. Romulo explained that they are covered as long as exercise adjudicatory functions under the rules related thereto.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. GUINGONA

Mr. Guingona proposed to amend Section read as follows:

THE ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION OVER LOWER COURTS SHALL BE PRESCRIBED BY LAW PROVIDED THAT UNLESS SO PROVIDED SUCH ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION REMAIN VESTED IN THE SUPREME COURT.

In support of his proposal, Mr. Guingona adverted to Resolution No. 363 and the reasons stated therein He argued that the provision proposed by the Committee would work against the interest of justice, that the Supreme Court, burdened as it is in supervising hundreds of lower courts and some 22,000 personnel, would sacrifice its adjudicatory function order to attend to administrative supervision which could have been passed on to a court administrator He opined that under prevailing circumstances as the thousands of backlog cases awaiting decision the additional authorities or powers granted to Supreme Court under the proposal and the reduction in the number of justices from 15 to 11 do justify the grant of administrative supervision to Supreme Court at this time. He called for a law determine where the duty of administrative supervision should lie at a given time and circumstance.

Mr. Romulo stated that the Committee could accept the amendment on the following grounds:1) administrative supervision is an inherent power the Judiciary; 2) administrative supervision has caused any overloading as there is a Court Administrator who takes charge of it; and, 3) the 1935 Constitution vested this power in the Secretary of Justice because the power to remove judges under Section 67 and 97 of the Judiciary Act of 1948 was vested the President but the 1973 Constitution vested such administrative supervision function in the Judiciary. Mr. Romulo maintained that this is the fourth leg he was referring to uphold respect for the separate of powers.

Thereafter, Mr. Guingona, in view of the manifestation of Mr. Romulo, withdrew his amendment.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. DE CASTRO

On Section 10, page 5, line 5, Mr. de Castro proposed to put a comma (,) after the word "incapacitated" and to insert the phrase AS DETERMINED BY A GOVERNMENT PHYSICIAN, which amendment was not accepted by the Committee. Mr. Concepcion explained that the practice had been for the Supreme Court to designate or create a committee of doctors to study the case and make the recommendation.

Mr, de Castro's proposal to use the phrase "as determined by a government physician chosen by the Supreme Court" was likewise rejected by the Committee. Mr. Concepcion stated that the heads of clinics in most cases are general practitioners whereas the incapacity may require the attention of specialists along the particular line of incapacity involved. Submitted to a vote, and with 2 Members voting in favor and 31 against, the amendment was lost.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. MAAMBONG

On page 5, line 5, Mr. Maambong proposed to change the word "seventy" to SIXTY-FIVE.

Mr. Maambong stated that since his proposal involves a very emotional issue, he would just request the Committee to discuss the pros and cons of it to enable the Body to take a vote thereon.

Mr. Concepcion stated that the Committee had received proposals to increase as well as proposals to decrease the age of retirement for justices and judges, He stated, however, that the Committee, after hearing the experiences of former justices, felt that 70 is a fair choice. He also stated that the retirement of a majority of those who left the court below 65 years was due to financial considerations.

Mr. Suarez recalled that the retirement age for justices in the 1935 Constitution was fixed at 70 years but the 1971 Constitutional Convention reduced it to 65 years on the theory that many of the judges opted to retire at that age and not necessarily on the assumption that age had reduced their efficiency level. He further recalled that in the January 30, 1980 elections, a plebiscite was called to increase the retirement age of justices and judges to 70 years because at that time, the Chief Justice and four Associate Justices of the Supreme Court who happened to be former classmates of Mr. Marcos, were approaching the age of 65. He stated that the Chief Executive at that time felt that the problem should be met squarely in order to allow for a continuity in the martial law administration insofar as it affected the membership in the Supreme Court.

Mr. Maambong, however, maintained that the general clamor among the members of the Judiciary especially in the lower courts is to change the retirement age to 65 years.

Submitted to a vote, and with 9 Members voting in favor and 24 against, the amendment was lost.

INQUIRY OF MS. AQUINO

In reply to Ms. Aquino's query on the intent of Section 10 in relation to the guarantee of security of tenure, Mr. Romulo stressed that justices could only be removed by impeachment and that they shall remain in office until 70 years unless incapacitated.

On whether the legislature could abolish their positions and thus declare said positions vacant, Mr. Romulo adverted to Section 2(2) which provides that "no law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it undermines security of tenure."

On the intent of Section 12(1), Mr. Concepcion stated that some routine court matters do not require a statement of reasons, like in the case of petitions for postponement or extension of time, and on which minute resolutions are allowed for the expeditious administration of justice. In this connection, Mr. Concepcion stated that non-observance of Section 12(1) would subject a judge to disciplinary action and a member of the Supreme Court to impeachment proceedings.

Ms. Aquino pointed out, however, that if it was not the intention of the Committee to prohibit minute resolutions, Section 12(1) would be a surplusage which could amount to an insidious assault on the integrity of the Supreme Court.

Responding thereto, Mr. Concepcion adverted to Section 12(2) which refers to a petition for review or a motion for reconsideration of a court decision, which could not be denied due course without stating the legal basis therefor. He agreed that violation of this provision would be a ground for impeachment.

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS OF MR. SUMULONG

On page 5, Mr. Sumulong proposed:

a) on line 11, between "court" and "in", to insert AND OF THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT;

b) on line 12, to change "it" to THEM; and

c) on line 15, after "Chief Justice", to insert OF THE SUPREME COURT OR BY THE PRESIDING JUSTICE OF THE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, AS THE CASE MAY BE.

Mr. Sumulong explained that since both the Supreme Court and the Intermediate Appellate Court are collegiate courts, it is logical that the decisions of these courts should be arrived at after all the justices shall have studied the case. However, he decried the practice of many divisions of the Intermediate Appellate He then maintained that Section 11 should be applied not only to the Supreme Court but also to the Intermediate Appellate Court.

Responding thereto, Mr. Regalado pointed out that, 1) the Intermediate Appellate Court is only a statutory court which, even if specifically mentioned in the Constitution, could still be abolished by statute; and 2) that under Section 11, the Supreme Court, the Intermediate Appellate Court and the Sandiganbayan should follow the same requirement that their decisions should be arrived at only after consultation before a case is assigned to a member for the writing of the opinion. 

In view thereof, Mr. Sumulong withdrew his proposed amendment.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. MAAMBONG

On page 5, lines 16 to 17, Mr. Maambong proposed to delete the words "of the case and served upon the parties". He explained that this might indicate to the party-litigants the member making the decision.

MR. SUMULONG'S AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT

On page 5, line 15, after the words "Chief Justice", Mr. Sumulong proposed to insert the words OF THE SUPREME COURT OR BY THE PRESIDING JUSTICE OF ANY OTHER COLLEGIATE COURT, AS THE CASE MAY BE.

Mr. Maambong did not accept the amendment to his amendment on the ground that the situation contemplated by Mr. Sumulong is covered by the last sentence "The same requirement shall be observed by all lower collegiate courts."

Mr. Concepcion stated that the implication of the phrase adverted to does not necessarily refer to the Chief Justice but to the Presiding Judge who would make the certification. He explained that the attachment of the certification to the record of the case and service of copies to the parties are required precisely to serve as a notice to the parties that the function has been performed. He also stated that this would ensure compliance with the provision because non-compliance therewith would be actionable.

Mr. Romulo also explained that the provision does not tend to identify the member who would write the opinion of the Court but only to certify to such assignment.

Mr. Maambong, however, pointed out that once the certification is served, the parties would know the identity of the member assigned to write the opinion and would thus be able to unduly exert influence on him.

In reply, Mr. Romulo stated that even if a copy is not given to the party, the lawyer has a right to look at the expediente. He then requested Mr. Maambong to suggest a better wording to avoid identifying the member of the court.

Mr. Maambong, however, replied that it is up the Committee to reword the provision as it sees and instead insisted on his proposed amendment delete the words "and sensed upon the parties".

In refusing to accept the amendment, Romulo explained that the certification would only serve as an advice to the parties of the period with which action may lie in the event of failure comply.

Thereupon, Mr. Maambong withdrew his p posed amendment on the understanding that name of the justice assigned to write the opinion the court would not be mentioned in the notice.

Mr. Sumulong, likewise, withdrew his propose amendment to the amendment.

AMENDMENT OF MR. MAAMBONG

On lines 17 to 19 which reads "Any Member dissenting or abstaining from a decision shall state the reason for dissent or abstention", in reply to Mr. Maambong's query whether this would be a mandatory requirement, Mr. Regalado explained that me notations which are properly initialed have been practice although the Committee would not object in making the provision mandatory by changing the word "shall" to MUST.

In view thereof, Mr. Maambong moved to change the word "shall" to MUST. However, he ask whether non-compliance with the provision would be considered nonfeasance in the performance of official duty, to which Mr. Regalado replied that it would be a culpable violation of the Constitution unless he indicates the reasons for not complying therewith.

Submitted to a vote, and there being no objection, the proposed amendment was approved by the Body.

Mr. Concepcion suggested that the sentence be reworded to read: NO MEMBER OF THE COURT MA DISSENT OR ABSTAIN UNLESS HE STATES THE REASONS FOR HIS DISSENT OR ABSTENTION. 

The Chair suggested that the matter should better left to the Committee on Style.

INQUIRY OF MR. SUMULONG

On Section 12 paragraph 2, in reply to Mr. Sumulong's query as to whether a note "Denied for lack of merit" would be enough to comply with the requirement provided for under said paragraph Mr. Concepcion stated that it would depend on the matter under resolution but that on motions for reconsideration or petitions for review, the reasons and the facts in support of the resolution must be indicated.

AMENDMENT OF MR. BERNAS

On page 5, Section 12, Mr. Bernas proposed the deletion of lines 27 to 32 on the following ground 1) that it would not be necessary because as worded it does not change the existing doctrine on double jeopardy; and 2) that the inclusion of said provision would be harmful because it would invite appeals from irresponsible prosecutors which could subject the accused to harassment. He pointed out that a judgment of acquittal by a court who exercised grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction is not an acquittal at all and that pursuing the case would not put a person in second, but the same, jeopardy.

In reply, Mr. Padilla stated that the legal reasons advanced by Mr. Bernas would justify the inclusion of said paragraph rather than its deletion. In the Veridiano case, he stressed that the petition by the State was not just a matter of right but as a discretion of the Supreme Court in accordance with the law protecting an accused from double jeopardy.

On the contention that the provision was not necessary, Mr. Padilla maintained that it is necessary in order to rectify the common erroneous impression that there can be no appeal or review when the judgment is. one of acquittal regardless of whether there is lack of jurisdiction or there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Mr. Padilla stressed that the provision does not contemplate any new proceeding on the ground that, as worded, it is very restrictive. He maintained that the provision is beneficial to a sound administration of justice because while the accused is protected against double jeopardy, it would not disregard the interest of the offended party.

Commenting on the reply, Mr. Bernas pointed out that the provision as worded, could be interpreted as a change in the rule on double jeopardy which could provoke serious danger of harassment. He maintained that the provision would as a matter of fact now make it more difficult for the State and for-the accused to reopen the case if there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

Submitted to a vote, and with 17 Members voting in favor and 12 against, the amendment was approved by the Body.

AMENDMENT OF MR. RIGOS

On page 6, line 4, Mr. Rigos proposed to change the word "diminished" to DECREASED and to delete the words "nor subjected to income tax" up to line 5.

In explaining his proposed amendment, Mr. Rigos pointed out that in order to give substance to equality among the three branches of the government, one branch should not be given more privilege than the other. He believed that the members of the judiciary should share the burden of generating income needed for the operation of the government.

Responding-thereto, Mr. Regalado stated that although the 1973 Constitution intended that the salaries of judges and justices should not be subjected to income tax, the word "diminished" was changed to "decreased", which change resulted in a different interpretation.

He pointed out, however, that explaining the provision of the 1935 Constitution, the Supreme Court stated in the case of Perfecto vs. Meer, that "the exemption of the judicial compensation from reduction is not in any true sense a gratuity, privilege or exemption."

At this juncture, Mr. Bernas proposed an amendment to Mr. Rigos' amendment by inserting the phrase BUT MAY BE SUBJECT TO GENERAL INCOME TAX, in lieu of the phrase "shall not be subject to income tax". He stated that his proposal is necessary because a mere deletion of the phrase "shall not be subjected to income tax" would make acceptable the decision in the cases of Perfecto vs. Meer and Dencia vs. David, in which the judges' salaries were exempted from income tax. He pointed out that salaries of all other government employees are also subject to income tax.

Mr. Rigos accepted the amendment to his amendment.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

At this juncture, on motion of Mr. de los Reyes, the Chair suspended the session.

It was 5:10 p.m.

At 5:23 p.m., the session was resumed.

RESTATEMENT OF MR. RIGOS' AMENDMENT

Upon resumption of session, Mr. Rigos restated his proposed amendment, on page 6, lines 4 and 5, by changing the word "diminished" to DECREASED, and deleting the phrase "nor subjected to income tax," so that lines 3 to 5 would read DURING THEIR CONTINUANCE IN OFFICE, THEIR SALARY SHALL NOT BE DECREASED.

Mr. Bernas stated that he was amenable to Mr. Rigos' amendment on the understanding that in the General Provisions, a provision similar to Section 6, Article XV of the 1973 Constitution would be provided, in effect subjecting the salary of justices and judges to income tax like all other government employees, to which Mr. Rigos agreed.

The Sponsor, likewise, accepted the proposed amendment, and there being no objection, the same was approved by the Body.

INQUIRY OF MS. AQUINO

Thereafter, in reply to Ms. Aquino's query on the effect of Section 14 which amended the provision on the reglementary period found in the 1973 Constitution, Mr. Romulo explained that Section 14 of the proposed Article is mandatory that should the Supreme Court or any other court not decide within the period prescribed, it would constitute a culpable violation of the Constitution, for which appropriate action would be taken. He affirmed that the Presiding Judge or Justice should issue the certification that he had not complied with the Constitution, which in effect would be giving evidence against himself.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. DE LOS REYES

On page 6, line 9, Mr. de los Reyes proposed to change the word "must" to SHALL in view of Mr. Concepcion's observation that the word "must" is too strong. He, however, pointed out that it is the collective sense of the Commission that the provisions of Section 14 is mandatory.

In reply, Mr. Romulo stated that the observation of Mr. Concepcion refers only to Section 11 and not to Section 14(1) which is mandatory.

In view thereof, Mr. de los Reyes did not insist on his proposal.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. SUMULONG

On page 6, line 15, Mr. Sumulong proposed to delete the comma (,) after "pleading", the word "brief" and the comma (,) after it, and on line 16, to delete the word "memorandum" and in lieu thereof, to insert the words AFTER ORAL ARGUMENT, so that the paragraph would read as follows: "A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading or AFTER ORAL ARGUMENT required by the Rules of Court or by the court itself."

Explaining his proposal, Mr. Sumulong maintained that the old rule requiring oral argument before the Supreme Court en banc would ensure the participation of all the Justices in deciding a case thereby enhancing the speedy disposition of cases. 

On Mr. Rodrigo's query whether oral argumentation before the submission of a case is required-in all courts since paragraphs 1 and 2 are interrelated, Mr. Sumulong stated that it would be applicable only in collegiate courts although such courts have the discretion, whether or not to require oral arguments in lieu of the written memorandum. Mr. Sumulong, however, added that a case would be deemed submitted for decision after the filing of the memorandum as a last pleading.

Mr. Concepcion reacted by stating that a memorandum is not a pleading.

On Mr. Natividad's observation that Section 11 already ensures the participation of all Justices in deciding a case, Mr. Sumulong pointed out that his proposal is complementary to it.

Thereafter, Mr. Sumulong's proposal was submitted to a vote, and with 6 Members voting in favor and 23 against, the same was lost.

AMENDMENT OF MR. MONSOD

As proposed by Mr. Monsod and accepted by Sponsor, the Body approved the substitution of entire Section 15 with the following:

SECTION 15. — THE JUDICIARY SHALL ENJOY FISCAL AUTONOMY. APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE JUDICIARY MAY NOT BE REDUCED BY THE LEGISLATURE BELOW THE AMOUNT APPROPRIATED FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND AFTER APPROVAL, SHALL BE AUTOMATICALLY AND REGULARLY RELEASED.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. MAAMBONG

Thereafter, Mr. Maambong proposed, on Section 16, to delete the last sentence which reads: "The Chief Justice shall address the National Assembly the opening of each regular session."

Mr. Maambong explained that in deliberative assemblies in other countries of the world, only the Chief Executive or Head of State is allowed address the National Assembly in its opening day.

In reply, Mr. Romulo, explained that the provision does not call for the Chief Justice to address the National Assembly on the first day of the session but on any other subsequent day for the following reasons, to wit: 1) since people live by symbols, the is a need to dramatize the importance of justice through the personification of the Chief Justice addressing the National Assembly; 2) the Chief, Justice could explain to the Legislature the needs 4 the Judiciary in some dramatic way; and 3) there is need to impress upon the Members of the Judicial their responsibility to answer for their performance by appearing before the representatives of the people.

Thereupon, Mr. Maambong affirmed Mr. Natividad's observations that it is the tradition legislative bodies to invite the Chief Justice a] even the Cabinet Members to address the Legislature when it converts itself into a Committee of the Whole for the purpose of considering the budget of the various offices, but there is no precedent is both the Chief Justice and the President addressing the Legislature on the opening day ceremonies opined that it is not necessary to institutionalize the practice in the Constitution.

On Mr. Rodrigo's query whether the Committee intended to make it compulsory for the National Assembly to invite the Chief Justice and for the Chief Justice to address the National Assembly, Mr. Romulo answered in the affirmative. 

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

At this juncture, upon request of Mr. Maambong, the Chair suspended the session.

It was 6:01 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 6:08 p.m., the session was resumed.

Upon resumption of session, Mr. Maambong withdrew his principal amendment and proposed on Section 16, lines 28 to 30 to substitute, in lieu of the last sentence, the following: THE CHIEF JUSTICE MAY ADDRESS THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY ON A DAY SET FOR THE PURPOSE DURING ITS REGULAR SESSION, which amendment was accepted by the Committee.

Submitted to a vote, and with 14 Members voting in favor and 15 against, the amendment was lost.

AMENDMENT OF MR. RODRIGO

Mr. Rodrigo proposed the deletion of the same last sentence of Section 16 on lines 28 to 30.

Submitted to a vote, and with 24 Members voting in favor and 10 against, the amendment by deletion was approved by the Body.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. MAAMBONG

On Section 2, line 14, Mr. Maambong inquired whether there is at all any form of reorganization of the Judiciary which will not in some way undermine the security of tenure. He adverted to the fact that in the several reorganizations of the Judiciary from the Judiciary Act of 1948 to the Judiciary Reorganization Law of 1980 there was always some abridgment of security of tenure.

Mr. Romulo stated that the provision does not prevent a reorganization or revamp of the Judiciary but prohibits it if the sole purpose is to kick out judges. He maintained that a reorganization in good faith, as in the dela Llana case would be acceptable. He explained that the intention is not to prevent the National Assembly from passing a reorganization law but to allow interested parties such as judges or citizens the chance to question it.

Mr. Maambong recalled that in the last judicial reorganization, changes were made in matters of jurisdiction, nomenclature and structural arrangement. He suggested the deletion of the provision as it is self-limiting.

Mr. Bernas supported Mr. Maambong's amendment maintaining that a reorganization act is a law, the constitutionality of which can be passed upon or reviewed by the Supreme Court in accordance with the provision of Section 3(2).

Thereafter, Mr. Maambong moved to delete the second paragraph of Section 2, lines 14 and 15 which reads:

"No law shall be passed reorganizing the Judiciary when it undermines security of tenure "

Submitted to a vote, and with 16 voting in favor and 19 against, the amendment was lost.

AMENDMENT OF MR. OPLE

Mr. Ople, on his own and on behalf of Mr. Bacani, proposed on Section 4(2) to delete the phrase "natural-born" between the article "a" and the word "citizen" which would bar from the lower courts any naturalized Filipino citizen. He stated that this discrimination against naturalized citizens should not be a salient feature of the Constitution except where there are compelling traditions which reserve to natural-born citizens the highest and most exalted offices such as those of President, Vice-President, Members of Congress and Justices of the Supreme Court. He stated that in the interest of fairness and equity for those naturalized citizens, who had passed tests established by Philippine laws in order -to become citizens, the requirement of natural-born citizenship as a qualification of judges of the lower courts, should be deleted.

Thereafter, Mr. Ople moved for reconsideration of Section 4(2) which motion, there being no objection, was approved by the Body.

Mr. Romulo pointed out that the proposed amendment would not only affect the Regional Trial Courts but also the Intermediate Appellate Court, the Court of Tax Appeals and the Sandiganbayan.

INQUIRY OF MR. BERNAS

At this juncture, in reply to Mr. Bernas' inquiry whether with the deletion of the modifier "natural- born", the National Assembly would be empowered to require that Justices of the Intermediate Appellate Court be natural-born citizens, Mr. Ople stressed that the provision does not prohibit in advance the enactment of a law which would reserve the Intermediate Appellate Court to natural-born Filipino citizens.

Mr. Romulo, moreover, confirmed that there was the understanding of the Committee that the Legislature can impose such a condition on the Intermediate Appellate Court which is created by statute.

On Mr. Bernas' observation that under the principle that unless the Constitution makes a distinction between natural-born and naturalized citizens, the law should not make a distinction, Mr. Romulo confirmed that this is a valid rule of interpretation. As to whether under such circumstance, the Legislature then would be prevented from imposing the condition that justices of the Intermediate Appellate Court should be natural-born citizens, Mr. Romulo maintained that the Legislature can do so if it agrees with the Committee's statutory construction.

On whether the Body would be putting it on record that for purposes of legislation, the provision would not prevent the Legislature from requiring that a justice of the Intermediate Appellate Court must be a natural-born Filipino citizen, Mr. Ople stated that this was the intent of the Committee.

Submitted to a vote, and with 21 Members voting in favor and 12 against, the amendment was approved by the Body.

AMENDMENT OF MR. DAVIDE

On Section 4, line 9, Mr. Davide proposed to insert between the words "Court" and "unless" the phrase OR ANY LOWER COLLEGIATE COURT which Mr. Romulo pointed out, would partially dilute the amendment of Messrs. Ople and Bacani.

In reply, Mr. Davide invited attention to the fact that there would be more qualified natural-born Filipino citizens with the expansion of the interpretation of "natural-born Filipino citizens" to include those who elected Philippine citizenship under the 1935 Constitution. He also stated that the Members of the Intermediate Appellate Court occupy a very delicate position and that one could just imagine if a naturalized Filipino attends to cases involving the interests of naturalized Filipinos. He then urged the approval of his proposal. 

In reply to the query of Mr. Bernas, Mr. Davide affirmed that the proposal would mean that any justice or judge of a collegiate court must not only be a natural-born citizen but also 40 years of age, and has for fifteen years or more been a judge of a lower court or engaged in the practice of law, and that "lower collegiate court" would refer to the Sandiganbayan, the Court of Tax Appeals and the Intermediate Appellate Court or any other collegiate courts which may be created later.

The Committee accepted the amendment with the observation that in many cases the decision of the Intermediate Appellate Court is final.

INQUIRY OF MS. AQUINO

In reply to the query of Ms. Aquino, Mr. Davide stated that his proposal would cover not only the question of citizenship but the other qualifications as well.

On the observation that the proposal would put the justices of the Appellate Collegiate Court in the same rank as those of the Supreme Court, with all their qualifications enumerated in Section 4, Mr. Davide stated that that would be the effect of his proposal.

MODIFIED AMENDMENT OF MR. DAVIDE

Upon resumption of session, Mr. Davide modified his amendment to read as follows:

No person shall be appointed member of Supreme Court OR ANY LOWER COLLEGIATE COURT unless he is a natural-born citizen of the, Philippines. A MEMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT MUST BE at least forty years of age, and MUST HAVE BEEN for fifteen years or more a judge o a lower court or engaged in the practice of law the Philippines.

MR. MAAMBONG'S PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT

Mr. Maambong proposed to amend the amendment to read as follows:

A MEMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT MUST BE AT LEAST FORTY YEARS OF AGE AND MUST HAVE FOR FIFTEEN YEARS OR MORE BEEN A JUDGE OF A LOWER COURT OR ENGAGE THE PRACTICE OF LAW.

Mr. Davide stated that the Members could leave to the Committee on Style.

On the clarification sought by Mr. Suarez, Davide stated that, in effect, his proposal would allow the National Assembly to provide for the qualifications of members of the Intermediate Appellate Court, the Sandiganbayan or the Court of Tax Appeals which may be less stringent than the qualifications for members of the Supreme Court.

In this connection, he stressed that the basic qualifications for judges would be natural-born citizenship and membership in the Philippine Bar.

RESTATEMENT OF MR. DAVIDE'S AMENDMENT

Mr. Davide restated his final amendment to as follows:

NO PERSON SHALL BE APPOINTED MEMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OR ANY LOWER COLLEGIATE COURT UNLESS HE IS A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN OF THE PHILIPPINES. A MEMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT MUST BE AT LEAST FORTY YEARS OF AGE AND MUST HAVE BEEN FOR FIFTEEN YEARS OR MORE A JUDGE OF A LOWER COURT OR ENGAGED IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW IN THE PHILIPPINES.

At this juncture, Mr. Suarez observed that if the application of the rest of the provisions would be limited to members of the Supreme Court, then it would render null and void the Nolledo amendment regarding the requirement that justices of the Supreme Court and all judges of the lower courts must be with proven integrity.

The Chair reminded the Body that it should decide on the concept and leave the style to the Committee on Style.

At this juncture, Mr. Regalado pointed out under Section 4(2), the National Assembly shall scribe the qualifications of judges of lower courts who are required to be members of the Philippine Bar.

On the apprehension of Mr. Monsod that membership in the Philippine Bar was not included among the qualifications for the Supreme Court or Inter- mediate Appellate Court Mr. Davide stated that the second paragraph insofar as membership in the Philippine Bar is concerned would be applicable to members of the lower collegiate court. 

Thereafter, the Committee accepted Mr. Davide's amendment.

Mr. Bacani spoke against the amendment on the ground that it would forever disqualify naturalized citizens who may even be more patriotic than natural- born citizens from occupying posts in the lower collegiate courts; and that it would be unlikely that a person who has not fully assimilated himself as a Filipino citizen would rise in the hierarchy of the judiciary.

Submitted to a vote, and with 28 votes in favor and 3 against, the amendment was approved by the Body.

RECONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF THE MAAMBONG-DE LOS REYES AMENDMENT

Thereafter, on motion of Mr Davide, there being no objection, the Body reconsidered the approval of the Maambong-de los Reyes amendment on page 4, line 24, which reads:

Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall REMAIN VALID AND EFFECTIVE UNLESS DISAPPROVED by the Supreme Court.

AMENDMENT OF MR. DAVIDE

As proposed by Mr. Davide and accepted by the Sponsor, the Body approved an amendment to delete the words "valid and"

INQUIRY OF MR. BERNAS

In reply to Mr. Bernas' query on the number of votes needed to resolve the question of constitutionality of presidential decrees, Mr. Concepcion reaffirmed his reply given in the previous session that paragraph 2 of Section 3 would apply.

INQUIRY OF MR. MAAMBONG

Adverting to a reply to his previous question that presidential decrees are not in the same category as laws passed by the Legislature, Mr. Maambong sought clarification on the position of the Committee when it said, in reply to Mr. Bernas' inquiry, that in order to declare a presidential decree unconstitutional, Section 3(2) would apply, which reply, he observed, would place presidential decrees in the same category as statutes.

In reply, Mr. Romulo explained that a presidential decree is not the same as a statute passed by the Legislature and therefore, the required vote would fall under Section 3(3).

Mr. Regalado pointed out that under Section 3(2) all cases involving the constitutionality of a treaty, international or executive agreement, or law, require the concurrence of a majority plus one of all the members while under Section 3(3), cases involving the application or operation of presidential decrees, proclamations, orders, instructions, ordinances and other regulations, require the concurrence of the majority of the members who actually participated in the deliberations.

Mr. Padilla explained that a statute refers to a Republic Act, Batas Pambansa, Commonwealth Act or even an Act of the Philippine Commission. However, under the Transitory Provisions of the 1973 Constitution, proclamations, presidential decrees, executive orders and letters of instructions, were declared valid and effective as forming part of the law of the land. These Transitory Provisions, he pointed out, had already been superseded by the Freedom Constitution under Proclamation No. 3.

Mr. Padilla stressed that a law should be understood as a statute which was passed by the Legislature and approved by the President, and should not be identical with those provided for under the Transitory Provisions of the 1973 Constitution.

AMENDMENTS OF MR. BERNAS

For purposes of clarity, Mr. Bernas proposed, on page 1, Section 3(3), the insertion of the word CONSTITUTIONALITY and a comma (,) on line 27, after the word "the" and on page 3, Section 7(2), subparagraph (a) the insertion of the words PRESIDENTIAL DECREE after the word "law" on line 27.

The Committee accepted the proposed amendments and, there being no objection, were approved by the Body.

INQUIRY OF MR. NATIVIDAD

In reply to Mr. Natividad's query on the effect of non-compliance with Section 12, Mr. Romulo explained that in the absence of any question on the matter, the decision would become final and executory without prejudice to an administrative action against the judge.

On the effect of a decision rendered by a division which would change the doctrine or principle of law previously laid down by the Supreme Court, Mr. Romulo stated that such a decision would be invalid.

INQUIRY OF MR. RODRIGO

In reply to Mr. Rodrigo's query on the absence of a specific amount for the salaries of the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices, Mr. Romulo informed that the Committee was waiting for the decision of the Committee on the Executive as to how much they would recommend as salary for the President.

At this juncture, the Chair suggested that the Chairman of the Committees on the Executive, the Legislative and the Judiciary meet and discuss the compensation aspect. In the meantime, the Body would proceed to vote, on Second Reading, on the Article on the Judiciary with the understanding that the compensation aspect would be held in abeyance.

INQUIRY OF MR. BERNAS

Relative to the questions raised by Mr. Natividad, in reply to Mr. Bernas' query as to whether the judgment, in the absence of the reconsideration, would be binding on the parties and would not reverse the previous judgment, Mr. Romulo stated that if it is in excess of jurisdiction, it would have no validity whatsoever. However, if the explicit intent of the proposal is followed, it would be in excess of jurisdiction.

TERMINATION OF THE PERIOD OF AMENDMENTS

On motion of Mr. Rama, there being no objection, the Body closed the period of amendments.

APPROVAL ON SECOND READING OF THE DRAFT ARTICLE ON THE JUDICIARY

On motion of Mr. Rama, there being no objection, the Body unanimously approved, on Second Reading, the draft Article on the Judiciary.

CONSIDERATION, ON SECOND READING, OF PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 468

On motion of Mr. Rama, there being no objection, the Body proceeded to the consideration, on Second Reading, of Committee Report No. 19 on Proposed Resolution No. 468, entitled:

Resolution to incorporate in the new Constitution the common provisions of the Constitutional Commissions and the provisions of the Civil Service Commission.

Thereupon, the Chair recognized Mr. Foz, Sponsor of the measure.

SPONSORSHIP REMARKS OF MR. FOZ

In his remarks, Mr. Foz informed that the Committee on Constitutional Commission and Agencies intended to file three separate reports, two of which had already been filed, namely, Committee Report No. 19 on Proposed Resolution No. 468 and Committee Report No. 19 on Proposed Resolution No. 468 and Committee Report No. 20 on Proposed Resolution No. 469.

Mr. Foz stated that the Committee had introduced basic changes in the common provisions affecting the three Constitutional Commissions, and which are 1) fiscal autonomy which provides 1 appropriations shall be automatically and regularly; released to the Commissions in the same manner that provided for the Judiciary, 2) fixed term of without reappointment on a staggered basis to ensure continuity of functions and to minimize the opportunity of the President to appoint all the Members during his incumbency; 3) prohibition to decrease salaries of the Members of the Commission during their term of office; and 4) appointments of Member would not require confirmation.

Aside from the innovations mentioned, Mr. E likewise, informed that the Committee had provided, for a definite period for the Commissions to decide, cases and a common provision for appeals to the Supreme Court.

Specifically on the provisions for the Civil Service Commission he stated that the Committee had z enshrined the merit system, the principle of neutrality and security of tenure which constitute the trip of the Civil Service System, which emphasized the Civil Service Commission is the central personnel agency of the government with all the powers and functions inherent in and incidental to human sources management. He, likewise, pointed to a new provision prohibiting the appointment of the Members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines in active service to civilian positions in the government. 

Mr. Foz then manifested his willingness to answer interpellations.

ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION

Thereafter, on motion of Mr. Rama, there being no objection, the Chair declared the session adjourned until nine-thirty in the morning of the following day.

It was 7 :36 p.m.

I hereby certify to the correctness of the foregoing.

(SGD.) FLERIDA RUTH P. ROMERO
Secretary-General

ATTESTED:

(SGD.) CECILIA MUÑOZ PALMA
          President

Approve on July 15, 1986