| 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 15, 1986 ]
JOURNAL NO. 30
Tuesday, July 15, 1986
CALL TO ORDER
At 9:33 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 Mrs. Minda Luz M. Quesada, to wit:
(Before the recitation of the prayer, upon request of Mrs. Quesada, the Body paused for a minute of silent prayer for the eternal repose of the soul of Mr. Sarmiento's father who died the night before.)
Our Most gracious God Almighty, as we start another session, help us to remember the homeless, the hungry, the sick, the dispossessed and all those suffering from all forms of deprivation. We pray, O Lord, for them even as we pray for mercy when we gloss over the sad realities of existence among the many of our poor, deprived and oppressed people.ROLL CALL
In their cries for food and shelter, we can hear in the silent comers of our conscience the appeal they make on us not only to pray, but to act, not only to work, but to struggle.
Our Heavenly Father, we are so privileged as to have been chosen to draft the new fundamental law of the land. Touch our hearts and minds that when we make vital decisions, we shall always keep the ideals, aspirations and interests of the majority poor and our country as the guiding principles.
Enlighten us as we struggle, as we now decide whether to give the people with less in life, more in our fundamental law, or on the issue of opening our boundaries limitless to foreigners even to even the detriment of our national identity and sovereignty.
Warm our hearts as to radiate goodness and strengthen w that we may remain physically and mentally healthy as we work hard to complete the enormous task given us.
All these we ask through Jesus Christ, the Great Physician, Teacher, Worker, Brother, Advocate and Redeemer.
Amen.
Upon direction of the Chair, the Secretary-General of the Commission called the Roll and the following Members responded:
With 28 Members present, the Chair declared the presence of a quorum.
Bennagen, P. L. Rama, N. G. Bernas, J. G. Regalado, F. D. Rosario Braid, F. Rigos, C. A. De Castro, C. M. Rodrigo, F. A. Concepcion, R. R. Romulo, R. J. Davide, H. G. Rosales, D. R. Foz, V. B. Sarmiento, R. V. Jamir, A. M. K. Suarez, J. E. Maambong, R. E. Sumulong, L. M. Monsod, C. S. Tadeo, J. S. L. Nieva, M. T. F. Tan, C. Nolledo, J. N. Treñas, E. B. Muñoz Palma, C. Uka, L. L. Quesada, M. L. M. Villacorta, W. V.
The following Members appeared after the Roll Call:
Mr. Calderon was absent.
Abubakar, Y. R. Gascon, J. L. M. C. Alonto, A. D. Guingona, S. V. C. Aquino, F. S. Laurel, J. B. Azcuna, A. S. Lerum, E. R. Bacani, T. C. Natividad, T. C Bengzon, J. F. S. Ople, B. F. Brocka, L. O. Padilla, A. B. Colayco, J. C. De Los Reyes, R. F. Garcia, E. G.
Mr. Villegas was on official mission.
Mr. Tingson officially notified the Constitutional 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. Proposed Resolution which were, in turn, referred by the Chair to the Committees hereunder indicated:
Proposed Resolution No. 497, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION SECTION ONE OF THE DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES OF THE 1973 CONSTITUTION A STATEMENT OF NATIONAL PURPOSEProposed Resolution No. 498, entitled:
TO THE COMMITTEE ON GENERAL PROVISIONS
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION SECTION ONE OF THE DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES OF THE 1973 CONSTITUTION WITH AN AMENDMENT TO QUALIFY THE ORIGIN OF THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLEProposed Resolution No. 499, entitled:
Introduced by Honorable Villegas
TO THE COMMITTEE ON PREAMBLE, NATIONAL. TERRITORY AND DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES OF THE 1986 CONSTITUTION A STATEMENT OF NATIONAL PURPOSEProposed Resolution No. 500, entitled:
Introduced by Honorable Villegas
TO THE COMMITTEE ON PREAMBLE, NATIONAL TERRITORY AND DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES OF THE NEW CONSTITUTION A SECTION ON THE FILIPINO COMMITMENT TO PEACE, BENEVOLENCE AND RECONCILIATIONProposed Resolution No. 501, entitled:
TO THE COMMITTEE ON PREAMBLE, NATIONAL, TERRITORY AND DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES OF THE NEW CONSTITUTION A SECTION PROVIDING FOR THE DEFENSE OF THE NATIONProposed Resolution No. 502, entitled:
Introduced by Honorable Villegas
TO THE COMMITTEE ON PREAMBLE, NATIONAL TERRITORY AND DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION PROVISIONS FIXING THE INITIAL SALARIES OF THE PRESIDENT, VICE-PRESIDENT, SPEAKER, AND MEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY, AND THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURTProposed Resolution No. 503, entitled:
Introduced by Honorable Davide, jr.
TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE EXECUTIVE
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE TRANSITORY PROVISIONS OF THE NEW CONSTITUTE PROVISION MANDATING THE IMMEDIATE FILLING UP OF VACANCIES IN THE JUDICIARYProposed Resolution No. 504, entitled:
Introduced by Honorable Davide, Jr.
TO THE COMMITTEE ON AMENDMENTS AND TRANSITORY PROVISIONS
RESOLUTION TO ADOPT AS AMENDED ARTICLE 2, SECTION 6 OF THE 1973 CONSTITUTION FOR CORPORATION IN THE DECLARATION OF PEOPLES AND STATE POLICIES OF THE NEW CONSTITUTIONProposed Resolution No. 505, entitled:
Introduced by Honorable Villegas
TO THE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL JUSTICE
RESOLUTION TO ADOPT AS AMENDED, TO FURTHER EMPHASIZE THE RIGHTS OF THE FA ARTICLE 2, SECTION 4 OF THE 1973 CONSTITUTION FOR INCORPORATION IN THE DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES OF THE CONSTITUTIONProposed Resolution No. 506, entitled:
Introduced by Honorable Villegas
TO THE COMMITTEE ON PREAMBLE, NATIONAL TERRITORY AND DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES
RESOLUTION TO ADOPT AS AMENDED ARTICLE 2, SECTION 5 OF THE 1973 CONSTITUTION FOR CORPORATION IN THE DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES AND STATE POLICIES OF THE NEW CONSTITUTION EMPHASIZING THE ROLE AND RIGHT OF THE YOUTHProposed Resolution No. 507, entitled:
Introduced by Honorable Villegas
TO THE COMMITTEE ON PREAMBLE, NATIONAL TERRITORY AND DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE AS AMENDED IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 5, SECT OF THE 1973 CONSTITUTION UNDER THE ARTICLE ON THE DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS OF CITIZENSProposed Resolution No. 508, entitled:
Introduced by Honorable Villegas
TO THE COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP, BILL RIGHTS, POLITICAL RIGHTS AND OBLIGATION AND HUMAN RIGHTS
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE AS AMENDED IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 5, SEC 3 OF THE 1973 CONSTITUTION UNDER THE ARTICLE ON THE DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS OF CITIZENSProposed Resolution No. 509, entitled:
Introduced by Honorable Villegas
TO THE COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP, BILL OF RIGHTS, POLITICAL RIGHTS AND OBLIGATION AND HUMAN RIGHTS
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION REQUIRING THE SOCIAL SECURITY AGENCY TO PROVIDE COVER- AGE TO ALL WORKERS WHO WORK FOR PRIVATE EMPLOYERS INCLUDING DOMESTIC HELPERS AND SELF-EMPLOYED INDIVIDUALS WHO VOLUNTARILY SUBMIT THEMSELVES FOR COVERAGEProposed Resolution No. 510, entitled:
Introduced by Honorable Sarmiento and Quesada
TO THE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL JUSTICE
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION TO MAKE ALL GOVERNMENT WORKERS AND EMPLOYEES SUBJECT TO CIVIL SERVICE RULES AS PERMANENT WORKERS AFTER RENDERING SIX MONTHS OF SERVICEProposed Resolution No. 512, entitled:
Introduced by Honorable Sarmiento and Quesada
TO THE COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION AND AGENCIES
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION TO MAKE ALL GOVERNMENT WORKERS AND EMPLOYEES SUBJECT TO CIVIL SERVICE RULES AS PERMANENT WORKERS AFTER RENDERING SIX MONTHS OF SERVICEProposed Resolution No. 513, entitled:
Introduced by Honorable Bacani
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION MORE SPECIFIC PROVISIONS FOR PROMOTING AND PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF LABORProposed Resolution No. 514, entitled:
Introduced by Honorable Garcia and Gascon
TO THE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL JUSTICE
RESOLUTION INCORPORATING IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION TO REDUCE INEQUALITY AND THEREBY PROMOTE THE WIDEST PARTICIPATION OF CITIZENS IN NATIONAL DEVELOPMENTProposed Resolution No. 515, entitled:
Introduced by Honorable Garcia and Gascon
TO THE COMMITTEE ON GENERAL PROVISIONS
RESOLUTION INCORPORATING IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION PROVISIONS TO REGULATE THE OWNERSHIP, USE AND DISTRIBUTION OF LANDProposed Resolution No. 516, entitled:
Introduced by Honorable Garcia and Gascon
TO THE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL JUSTICE
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION AN ARTICLE TO PROVIDE FOR THE SUCCESSION TO THE PRESIDENCY AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THE PERIOD OF EIGHT CONSECUTIVE YEARS IN CASE THE INCUMBENT PRESIDENT SHOULD RUN FOR REELECTION AND WINSProposed Resolution No. 518, entitled:
Introduced by Honorable Guingona
TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE EXECUTIVE
RESOLUTION INCORPORATING IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION FOR FREE EDUCATIONProposed Resolution 519, entitled:
Introduced by Honorable Sarmiento and Rosales
TO THE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
RESOLUTION INCORPORATING IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION FOR FREE EDUCATIONProposed Resolution No. 520, entitled:
Introduced by Honorable Sarmiento and Rosales
TO THE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION ON AN EFFECTIVE HEALTH CARE DELIVERY SYSTEM, MAINTENANCE OF AN EFFECTIVE FOOD AND DRUG MONITORING BODY AND HEALTH MANPOWER DEVELOPMENT
Introduced by Honorable Quesada, Bennagen, Brocka, Sarmiento and Suarez
TO THE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL JUSTICE
Communication No. 192 — Constitutional Commission of 1986
Letter from the Honorable Commissioner Ma. Teresa F. Nieva, presenting the preliminary and partial results of the consultations of the new Constitution initiated by the Bishops-Businessmen's Conference for Human DevelopmentCommunication No. 193 — Constitutional Commission of 1986
TO THE STEERING COMMITTEE
Communication from the women sector signed by Ms. Evelyn L. Rañises and 17 others of Gingoog City, proposing a presidential form of government with a bicameral legislature and provisions on the bill of rights, national economy, sovereignty and foreign relations social services, among othersCommunication No. 194 — Constitutional Commission of 1986
TO THE STEERING COMMITTEE
Letter from Mr. Horacio V. Marasigan for Concerned Citizens of San Juan, Batangas, submitting a position paper on value system and attitudesCommunication No. 195 — Constitutional Commission of 1986
TO THE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
Letter from the Federation of Senior Citizens Association of the Philippines, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, signed by Mr. Felix Gabriel, endorsing the proposal that citizens have the right to material assistance when they are old, sick or disabledCommunication No. 196 — Constitutional Commission of 1986
TO THE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL JUSTICE
Letter from the Chamber of Commerce of the Philippines Foundation, Inc., signed by Ms. Lourdes L. Sanvictores, submitting the recommendation of its Constitutional Reforms CommitteeCommunication No. 197 — Constitutional Commission of 1986
TO THE STEERING COMMITTEE
Letter from Mr. Andres Cristobal Cruz of the Ministry of Information, for the Kapisanan ng Balitaan sa Katimugang Tagalog (KABALIKAT), submitting proposals on the night to information and the right to have a family and duty to foster the planning of family sizeCommunication No. 198 — Constitutional Commission of 1986
TO THE COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP, BILL OF RIGHTS, POLITICAL RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Letter from Mr. Francisco T. Arpon of Luz Village, Butuan City suggesting that the Constitution center on economic benefits for the poorest sectors of the society.
TO THE STEERING COMMITTEE
Committee Report No. 25 on Proposed Resolution No. 511, prepared by the Committee on Local Governments, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NE CONSTITUTION ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS IN THE NEW ARTICLE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS,Committee Report No. 26 on Proposed Resolution No. 517, prepared by the Committee on the Executive, entitled:
recommending its approval in substitution of Proposed Resolutions Nos. 15, 17, 138, 176, 17 247, 394, 409 and 414.
Sponsors: Hon. Nolledo, Calderon, Tingson Rosales, Alonto, De Castro, Bennagen, Rigos Regalado, Jamir and Ople
TO THE STEERING COMMITTEE
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION AN ARTICLE ON THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTCommittee Report No. 27 on Proposed Resolution No. 521, prepared by the Committee on Constitutional Commissions and agencies and Guingona
recommending its approval in substitution of Proposed Resolutions No. 9, 55, 56, 59, 107, 118, 124, 128, 151, 156, 158, 183, 197, 198, 234, 255, 257, 352, and 433.
Sponsors: Hon. Sumulong, Regalado, Alonto Aquino, Bernas, Calderon, Concepcion, Davide Jr., Foz, Jamir, Lerum, Maambong, Natividad, Rama and Sarmiento
Co-Sponsors: Hon. De Castro, Ople, De los Reyes, Jr:, Bengzon, Jr., Romulo, Azcuna Nolledo, Tingson and Guingona
TO THE STEERING COMMITTEE
TO THE STEERING COMMITTEE
Committee Report No. 27 on Proposed Resolution No. 521, prepared by the Committee on Constitutional Commissions and Agencies, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION THE PROVISIONS ON THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS,SUSPENSION OF SESSION
recommending its approval in substitution of Proposed Resolutions Nos. 57, 60, 62, 68, 110, 193, 195, 225, 244, 284, 305, 308, 312, 349, 350, 358, 380 and 410.
Sponsors: Hon. Foz, Monsod and De los Reyes, Jr.
TO THE STEERING COMMITTEE
At this juncture, the Chair suspended the session.
It was 9:52 a.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 10:01 a.m., the session was resumed.
CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 19 ON PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 468 AND COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 20 ON PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 469
On motion of Mr. Rama, there being no objection, the Body proceeded to the consideration of Committee Report No. 19 on Proposed Resolution No. 468 and Committee Report No. 20 on Proposed Resolution No. 469 (Period of Sponsorship), respectively, entitled:
Resolution to incorporate in the new Constitution the common provisions on the Constitutional Commission and the provisions on the Civil Service Commission; andUpon request of Mr. Foz, the Chair recognized Mr. Jamir for the sponsorship of Proposed Resolution No. 469 on the provisions for the Commission on Audit.
Resolution providing for the provisions on the Commission on Audit in the new Constitution.
SPONSORSHIP REMARKS OF MR. JAMIR
Mr. Jamir prefaced his remarks by stating that the Committee proposal was mainly based on the 1973 Constitution which was, considered together with the proposals of the U.P. Law Center and the Commission on Audit.
Going into the salient features which departed from the 1973 Constitution, Mr. Jamir initially pointed out that they consist in 1) the reduction of the age qualification of the Commissioners from 40 to 35 years; and 2) the auditing experience required of them in addition to the requirements of being certified public accountants or members of the Philippine Bar.
He also pointed out that in order to have a well-rounded team of auditors, the Committee had proposed to provide that at no time should the Commission on Audit be composed of members belonging to only one profession, the proposal being that the Commission should he composed of either one lawyer and two CPAs or two lawyers and one CPA.
To avoid the possibility of exceeding the seven-year tenure, Mr. Jamir stated that the Committee also proposed that no Commissioner will be appointed or designated in an acting or temporary basis.
On the powers and duties of the Commission, he recalled that during the time of the military government under President McKinley, the duties of the Auditor were defined in an executive order, which duties changed and expanded from time to time. He stated that although under the Jones Law the effects of the decisions of the Auditor were limited to the Executive branch, the Philippine Legislature in Act No. 3066 expanded his jurisdiction to cover all the three branches of government, subject to appeal.
He said that it was in the 1935 Constitution where the Auditing Office was constitutionalized because of the increasing necessity of vesting it with powers to withstand political pressures, adding that because of the inadequacy of one Auditor to withstand said political pressures, the 1973 Constitution provided for a Commission on Audit (COA) composed of the Chairman and two Commissioners.
He pointed out that the powers of the COA under the proposal remain the same as those provided in the 1973 Constitution except that these powers place under COA's jurisdiction the subsidiaries of government-owned or controlled corporations and other non-government entities that would be subject to post-audit.
Mr. Jamir, likewise, stated that the COA would be empowered to define the scope of its audit and that its power to promulgate rules and regulations had been extended to disallowing irregular and unnecessary expenses and uses of government funds.
PERIOD OF INTERPELLATIONS
Thereafter, upon suggestion of Mr. Foz, the Chair stated that the instant interpellations would be limited to the Common Provisions and on the Civil Service Commission before proceeding to the Commission on Audit.
Thereupon, Mr. Jamir yielded the floor to Mr. Foz.
INTERPELLATION OF MR. NOLLEDO
In reply to Mr. Nolledo's query on the coverage of the word "subsidiaries", Mr. Foz explained that it refers to corporations organized by a government-owned or controlled corporation, either under a special law or under the general corporation law.
Adverting to the May 1, 1986 announcement of the President to apply the Labor Code to government-owned or controlled corporations, Mr. Nolledo observed that, by virtue thereof, the Labor Code would apply to corporations organized under the Corporation Code. In this connection, in reply to his inquiry on the applicability of such pronouncement in relation to Section 1(1) of the Article on the Civil Service, Mr. Foz stated that the provisions of Section 1(1) merely give a general statement of the scope of the Civil Service.
On the apprehension that the labor sector, particularly the workers in government-owned or controlled corporations, might object to the all-embracing meaning of the term "government-owned or controlled corporation", Mr. Foz underscored that the definition was precisely a general statement, with some exceptions, of the scope of the Civil Service.
Specifically, on whether the Committee was prepared to make certain delineations, like providing that the Civil Service Law would apply only to the qualifications for appointments in government-owned or controlled corporations but that with respect to the right of the workers therein to form unions and engage in concerted activities, they would be at par with workers in the private sector, Mr. Foz suggested that instead of providing it in Section 1(1), it could be in the appropriate subsequent provisions.
On Section 1(2), relative to the phrase "as far as practicable", Mr. Foz affirmed that competitive examination is not the only means of determining merit and fitness.
On the deletion of exceptions with respect to appointments to policy-determining, primarily confidential and highly technical positions which were found in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, Mr. Foz explained that the Committee intended to lay down a general principle on the merit system, and that the terms "policy determining, primarily confidential and highly technical" are no longer found in the existing Civil Service Law nor in the Reorganization Act which only mentions career and non-career service.
On Section 2(1), page 2, line 9, Mr. Nolledo opined that the use of the word "preferably" would make the requirement of "proven capacity for public administration" only directory.
He suggested the deletion of the word "preferably", in reply to which, Mr. Rigos, who made the proposal and to whom the question was addressed, stated that the Committee would consider it during the period of amendments.
As to how the "proven capacity" may be determined, Mr. Rigos stated that it is a matter addressed to the appointing authority.
Finally, adverting to Section 6, in reply to Mr. Nolledo's observation that the President may not be prevented from appointing an officer of the Armed Forces, whether in a temporary or acting capacity, because there might in fact be a law which allows a member of the AFP to hold a civilian position in a concurrent capacity, Mr. Foz stated that Section 6 is encompassing enough to include all manner of appointments and to bar the Legislature from passing a law that would allow officers of the Armed Forces to occupy two or more positions.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
The Chair suspended the session.
It was 10:29 a.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 10:40 p.m. the session was resumed.
At this juncture, the Chair clarified, for the guidance of the Members, that there were two documents 1) the basic document given in the previous session and 2) the amended version of the common provisions, copies of which were distributed during the session.
INTERPELLATION OF MRS. QUESADA
On Mrs. Quesada's query whether the Committee would insist on the retention of the clause "including government-owned or controlled corporations" found in Section 1(1), Mr. Foz stated that the Committee would be amenable to any reasonable amendment; the proper time.
On whether the Committee would consider amendment to make Section 1(4) which provides the "No officer or employee in the Civil Service shall engage, directly or indirectly, in any partisan politic activity" stricter, Mr. Foz stated that the existing Civil Service Law and implementing rules on the matter are exhaustive enough, but he would accept any suggestion to improve the phraseology.
On Section 3, in reply to Mrs. Quesada's query whether it is the Committee's intention to give the Civil Service Commission certain functions already exercised by the Office of Compensation and Position Classification in the Office of Budget and Management, Mr. Foz stated that under existing laws, the Office of Budget and Management classifies government positions but this does not preclude the Civil Service Commission from classifying certain positions although the matter of salary scales and rates are still being coordinated with the Office of Budget and Management. Mr. Foz, however, stated that the Committee would consider amendments to clarify the functions that would be assigned to the Commission.
INTERPELLATION OF MR. DE CASTRO
In reply to Mr. de Castro's query whether Committee intends to provide for additional Constitutional Commissions aside from those mentioned in Section 1, Mr. Foz stated that the Committee is considering the proposals for the creation of other Constitutional Commissions.
As to how the proposed salaries of the Chairman and the Commissioners were arrived at, Mr. Foz stated that it was computed to be between the salary scales of the Justices of the Supreme Court and those of the Intermediate Appellate Court. He added, however, that the Committee would be amenable to considering any amendment at the proper time.
On Mr. de Castro's query whether "teaching" would be considered as practice of a profession, Mr. Foz stated that the Committee had no definite stand on the matter and that it would be amenable to considering amendments at the proper time.
On the meaning of the phrase "fiscal autonomy" in Section 4, Mr. Foz stated that it would mean the automatic release of funds once approved and appropriated by the Legislature.
On Mr. de Castro's query whether "Member" in Section 2(2) also refers to the Chairman, Mr. Foz stated that the word includes the Chairman since it is used in its generic sense.
INTERPELLATION OF MR. BERNAS
On Mr. Bernas' query on Section 5, whether the provision would limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to cases which may be brought to it on certiorari, Mr. Regalado, to whom Mr. Foz referred the query, answered in the affirmative and added that the proviso also contemplates a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court which includes grave abuse discretion, lack of jurisdiction and excess of jurisdiction as grounds. He stressed that it is the position of the Committee to rely on Rule 45 of the Rules of Court to provide the grounds for the filing of a petition for review on certiorari over rulings, orders or decisions made by the Commissions.
On whether the deletion of the phrase "policy-determining, primarily confidential and highly technical" from the provision of Section 1(2) means that such classification no longer exists as a basis for determining who should be given competitive or non-competitive examinations, Mr. Foz replied that the Civil Service Law, PD No. 807, and its implementing rules no longer use the terms "policy-determining, primarily confidential and highly technical in nature" and had categorized position classifications into career and non-career service.
Mr. Bernas maintained that even under the career and non-career service there is still a sub-classification into policy-determining, primarily confidential and highly technical positions, which matter can be further discussed during the period of amendments.
On Section 1(3), in reply to Mr. Bernas' query whether the phrase "as may be provided by law" means that not only the procedure but also the causes should be specified by law, Mr. Foz affirmed that it refers to both procedure and substance.
On Section 4, in response to Mr. Bernas' observation that the phrase "Unless otherwise provided by law" was not in the 1973 Constitution but was inserted in the 1981 amendment to give the President a free hand in his decree-making power which practically renders the provision useless, Mr. Foz admitted that the original draft of the 1973 provision was without said clause which, however, was later on inserted by the Committee members so that as worded now, the provision would authorize the Legislature to pass a law allowing the appointment of an elective official to an executive office.
INTERPELLATION OF MR. MAAMBONG
Mr. Maambong prefaced his interpellation with the observation that the Constitutional Commissions had been created as independent bodies which should be "non-partisan" and "impartial" but whose officials are presidential appointees whose appointments would no longer need confirmation by any other government body including the Commission on Appointments should the Committee's proposal be approved. He called for the need of instituting some checks and balances into the provision and adverted to Resolution No 460 which contains a section providing that one-third of the composition of each Commission shall be appointed from a list of competent persons recommended by Opposition parties to provide some checks and balances. He admitted that after consultation with Mr. Jamir, a member of the Committee, he was inclined to believe that the proposal would be more applicable to the Commission on Elections and not to the other constitutional bodies.
As to whether the Committee would consider Mr. Maambong's proposal that the members of the COMELEC, at least, should be appointed from a list of competent persons recommended by the Opposition party, Mr. Foz stated that the Committee would be ready to discuss this at the proper time.
On Section 5, in reply to Mr. Maambong's observation that it would run counter to Section 3, Article V of the 1973 Constitution which states that "it shall be the duty of every citizen to engage in gainful work to assure himself and his family a life worthy of human dignity" and would bar a qualified individual from a government position merely because he lost in an election, Mr. Foz explained that the original provision has been amended with the addition of the phrase "or in any of its subsidiaries", which addition, Mr. Maambong again observed, would make the prohibition worse. However, responding further to the query, Mr. Foz adverted to Mr. Bernas' book on the 1973 Constitution which deplores the evil practice of rewarding political lameducks with appointments in government service. Mr. Foz also explained that the principle of political neutrality in the civil service means that professionals in the public service should not involve themselves in political activities inasmuch as the purpose of the Civil Service Commission is the efficient delivery of services to the people as a whole. Involvement in political activities, he opined, would detract from this basic and essential goal of efficient performance.
On the applicability of the 1973 Constitutional provision, as amended in 1984, which generally prohibits an elective official from holding other offices except when he is a member of the Cabinet or when it is provided by law, Mr. Foz explained that the prohibition is covered by Section 4 of the draft.
Mr. Maambong then adverted to Mr. de Castro's earlier statement about teaching law as a profession and noted the lack of a Supreme Court decision which can settle this matter.
INTERPELLATION OF MS. TAN
Adverting to Mr. Davide's Resolution No. 54 which contained the observation that many public offices have become the properties of politicians or pieces of inheritance for which many families and officials devote their time preparing for reelection or election of close relatives, Ms. Tan inquired if the Committee would be willing to entertain an amendment to the effect that within two years following the expiration of the term of an elective official, no spouse or relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree of such official shall be eligible for election to the office to be vacated by the latter.
In reply, Mr. Foz stated that the Committee would consider the proposal at the proper time but pointed out that a similar provision approved by the Committee on the Executive is now a part of the draft Committee Report.
INTERPELLATION OF MR. DAVIDE
On the Common Provisions of the Article on the Constitutional Commissions, Mr. Davide inquired if it would not be appropriate, in line with the policy of the government, to prohibit members of the Constitutional Commissions from holding any office or employment in any government agency, subdivision or instrumentality, to which Mr. Foz agreed that this would be consistent with the prohibition for Members of the National Assembly.
On Section 5, on the matter of computing the period within which a Commission shall decide a matter or a case pending before it, Mr. Davide pro- posed that the Committee apply the rules just approved by the Body on the provisions on the Judiciary, which rule states that a case or matter is deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief or memorandum required in this instance by the Rules of the Commission or by the Commission itself.
Mr. Foz stated that computing the period in such manner would advance the date.
As to whether the time frame propose Mr. Davide would put the Commission in difficulty Mr. Foz stated that the period of 60 days comp from the date of submission would be sufficient.
As to whether Section 5 on the Commission Elections provisions which states that the decision the COMELEC on municipal and barangay officials shall be final, unappealable and executory, would cover all crimes or issues affecting such official whether it shall refer only to matters related to election, Mr. Foz explained that this would refer 4 to electoral contests. Mr. Foz, however, manifestation the Committee's willingness to entertain an amendment to clarify the provision.
On Section 1(4) of the Civil Service Commission Mr. Davide noted that the clause "or take part in election except to vote" after the word “activity” had been deleted. Mr. Foz explained that the c] was removed to avoid any confusion or ambiguity the wordings of the implementation of this specific provision.
As to whether this is a denial to civil servants their right to vote because voting is deemed a par activity, Mr. Foz maintained that this does not them from voting.
REMARKS OF MR. MONSOD
On the proposed restoration of the phrase take part in any election except to vote", Mr. Monsod opined that the original provision seemed to indicate that there are two types of activities which are voting and partisan political activities. He stated that only non-partisan political activity one can engage as a citizen is voting.
Mr. Davide then proposed retention of the clause “or take part in any election except to vote” which would allow the public servants to participate in writing process as well as the addition of the sentence "Participation in any plebiscite, referendum initiative proceedings shall not be considered partisan." Mr. Monsod made a counter-proposal to add a sentence that would allow civil servants to engage in non-partisan political activities such as poll watch and safeguarding the polls as a citizens.
INTERPELLATION OF MR. OPLE
In reply to Mr. Ople's query on the scope Section 1(1), and on whether the definition w deny the right to self-organization and collective bargaining to civil service employees, Mr. Foz stated that the Committee did not make any declaration the matter.
Mr. Ople then invited attention to Section Article II of the 1973 Constitution which extends workers and employees regardless of whether the in the private or public sector, the right to organization and collective bargaining. He stated there has been a dispute pertaining to the Article Civil Service of the 1973 Constitution because the Executive branch presumed that the guarantee to self-organization in Section 9, Article II extends only to employees of subsidiaries in the private sector and in some cases, to employees of government-owned and controlled corporations. In this connection, he opined that the Commission should not shirk from the duty of clarifying a constitutional stalemate between two articles of the Constitution.
Mr. Ople then made a reservation to submit an amendment by way of an additional section to resolve the issue, by giving the right to self-organization and collective bargaining to government employees.
Responding thereto, Mr. Foz stated that the Declaration of Principles does not make any distinction when it states that "the State shall assure the right of workers to self-organization and collective bargaining" nor does it say that this right should ex- tend only to those in private employment. Mr. Foz also stated that the provision in the Article on Civil Service of the 1973 Constitution which especially mentioned government-owned or controlled corporations to be within the ambit of the civil service does not state that those employed therein are deprived of their right to self organization and collective bargaining.
Mr. Foz opined that there was a misunderstanding when the particular provision was being discussed in the 1971 Constitutional Convention, the consequence being that employees in government-owned or controlled corporations would be deprived of that these workers were not deprived of any right granted to them under the declaration of principles
Mr. Ople stated that he fully subscribed to such interpretation but would be glad if the Committee would entertain an amendment that would make explicit the protection of this right for more than one million government employees, in reply to which, Mr. Foz stated that the proposed amendment could be embodied in another provision of the Constitution.
On whether the Civil Service Commission has anything to do with government owned or controlled corporations which had been sequestered by the Presidential Commission on Good Government, Mr. Foz stated that Presidential Decree No. 2029 defines government-owned or controlled corporations. He maintained that in the case of San Miguel Corporation it remains as a private corporation even if majority of its shares of stock were sequestered by the government.
On whether being a member of the National Movement for Free Elections (NAMFREL) is an exception to the prohibition found in Section 1(4), Mr. Foz pointed out that since NAMFREL is not a partisan organization, participation in election activities would not be covered by the prohibition.
REMARKS OF MR. OPLE
Mr. Ople pointed out that there had been controversies with respect to the non-partisan character of the NAMFREL following the appointment of some of its leaders to the Cabinet of President Aquino. He contended, however, that while he was not raising this as a conclusion to show that NAMFREL is not non-partisan, controversies concerning this presumption of non-partisanship of NAMFREL might arise in the future.
On whether the Committee had ratified the fact that NAMFREL is indeed non-partisan, Mr. Foz stated that the issue was never taken up in the Committee and that his statements were his personal views. In this connection, Mr. Foz maintained that NAMFREL as an organization, is really non-partisan. He opined that if some government employees or officers had joined its activities and engaged in partisan political activities, the blame should not be laid on NAMFREL but on those government officers or employees individually.
Mr. Ople pointed out that, although he had nothing personal against NAMFREL, situations might arise wherein government employees would be tempted to join NAMFREL for volunteer work so that under the cover of a noble and idealistic organization, they could take sides in the local elections.
REMARKS OF MR. MONSOD
At this juncture, Mr. Monsod expressed willingness to discuss the matter of non-partisanship of NAMFREL with Mr. Ople at some other time and place. He pointed out, however that those who claimed that NAMFREL was partisan were those who wanted to cheat.
On the matter of appointment of NAMFREL people to government positions, Mr. Monsod stressed that civic-minded people who are qualified to hold government positions, are not disqualified by reason of having participated in a non-partisan organization like NAMFREL.
INTERPELLATION OF MR. SARMIENTO
On Section 5 of the Common Provisions, in reply to Mr. Sarmiento's query on the rationale for limiting finality of decisions of the Commission of Elections to municipal and barangay officials, Mr. Foz stated that under existing law, the decisions of the municipal courts as regards barangay election contests are final. He added, however, that in the case of electoral contests involving municipal officials, the decisions of the municipal court are appealable to the Regional Trial Court. He stressed that under this provision, the decisions of the Commission on Elections would also be final in the case of municipal and barangay officials. However, he expressed willingness to include the cases of city officials among those in which the decisions of the Commission on Elections would be final.
INTERPELLATION OF MR: TADEO
In reply to Mr. Tadeo's query with respect to Section 1(3) on the provisions on the Civil Service Commission, Mr. Foz stated that only one cause would be sufficient to remove, suspend or discipline a member of the Civil Service. In this connection, he adverted to a typographical error in the word "causes" which should be in singular form.
On Section 1(4), Mr. Foz pointed out that the same was formulated in coordination with the Committee on General Provisions, and the provision which prohibits members of the Armed Forces of the Philip- pines from engaging in partisan political activity has been transferred to the Article on General Provisions.
At this juncture, Mr. Monsod stated that the military is not part of the Civil Service and, therefore, must be dealt with in another part of the Constitution.
On the rationale for inserting the word "public" in Section 4, Mr. Foz stated that the idea is to prevent a situation where a local elective official would work for appointment to another position in government and thus neglect his constituents.
INTERPELLATION OF MR. SUAREZ
In reply to Mr. Suarez' query on the rationale for Section 2(2), Mr. Foz agreed that one of the considerations was the desire to obviate the repetition of Mr. Tantuico's case who was appointed as Chairman of the Commission on Audit for almost 12 years. He pointed out, however, that the idea was really to make sure that any Member of the Commissions would not serve beyond seven years.
On Section 4, on the query as to whether the Committee took into account the practice in the past regime of appointing elective officials to other government positions considering the modifications made in the 1973 Constitution, Mr. Foz manifested that the Committee did not have those officials in mind although he proposed the adoption of the original provision of the 1973 Constitution, which proposal was overruled in the Committee when it added the clause "Unless otherwise provided by law".
Mr. Suarez pointed out that the proposal referred to was consistent with the provision contained in Resolution No. 110 that was submitted to a plebiscite on January 27, 1984. He then inquired whether it is the intention of the Committee to adopt said provision.
In reply, Mr. Foz pointed out that as presently worded, the draft does not mention exceptions w were provided in the 1973 Constitution.
On the observation that the phrase "temporary acting capacity" could be interpreted to mean that elective official may be eligible for appointment designation in a permanent capacity, Mr. Monsod explained that “appointment” refers to assumption of office in a permanent capacity while “designation” refers to temporary or acting capacity. He, however, expressed willingness to entertain amendments that would clarify the intent of the Committee.
On Section 6, on whether the term "civil positions" would have reference to positions in Bureau of Customs, Bureau of Land Transportation Veterans Administration, etc. where military officials were appointed to during the past regime, Mr. Foz stated that the provision was motivated by a desire to forestall the past practice of appointing military men to purely civilian positions including those in the MERALCO and in the Jacinto Steels Mills.
TERMINATION OF THE PERIOD OF SPONSORSHIP AND DEBATE
Thereafter, on motion of Mr. Rama, there being no objection, the Body closed the Period of Sponsorship and Debate.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
On motion of Mr. Rama, the Chair suspended session until two-thirty in the afternoon.
It was 12:11 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 2:42 p.m., the session was resumed with Honorable Efrain B. Treñas presiding.
ADDITIONAL REFERENCE OF BUSINESS
Upon resumption, on motion of Mr. Rama, there being no objection, the Body proceeded to the Additional Reference of Business.
Upon direction of the Chair, the Secretary General read, on First Reading, the title of the following proposed Resolution which was, in referred by the Chair to the Committee hereunder indicated:
Resolution No. 523, entitled:
RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE SINCERE CONDOLENCE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION OF 1986 ON THE DEATH OF THE FATHER OF THE HONORABLE RENE V. SARMIENTO
Sponsor: Honorable Quesada
TO THE STEERING COMMITTEE
Communication No. 203 — Constitutional Commission of 1986
Communication from the Civic Assembly of Women of the Philippines (CAWP), National Council of Women, proposing provisions on the declaration of principles and state policies, citizenship, suffrage, constitutional commissions and general provisionsCommittee Report No. 28 on Proposed Resolution No. 522, prepared by the Committee on Preamble, National Territory and Declaration of Principles, entitled:
TO THE COMMITTEE ON PREAMBLE, NATIONAL TERRITORY AND DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES
COMMITTEE REPORT
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION ARTICLES ON THE DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES,PERIOD OF AMENDMENTS
recommending its approval in substitution of Proposed Resolutions Nos. 3, 64, 86, 190, 231, 295, 302, 372, 383, 393 and 437.
Sponsors: Honorable Davide, Jr., Nolledo, Bengzon, Jr., De Castro, Villacorta, Rama, Calderon, Sarmiento, Tingson, Rosales, Aquino, Azcuna, Rosario Braid, Foz, Garcia, Quesada and Villegas.
TO THE STEERING COMMITTEE
Thereafter, on motion of Mr. Rama, there being no objection, the Body proceeded to the Period of Amendments on Proposed Resolution No. 468.
AMENDMENT OF MR. COLAYCO
In reply to Mr. Colayco's observation, Mr. Foz affirmed that Section 4 of the provisions on Civil Service gives the Legislature the power to authorize appointments or designations in a temporary or acting capacity.
Mr. Colayco then proposed the deletion of the phrase "Unless otherwise provided by law" on page 3, line 5 of the amended draft.
The Sponsor accepted the amendment which, there being no objection, was approved by the Body.
MOTION OF MR. DAVIDE
At this juncture, on motion of Mr. Davide, there being no objection, the Body approved the use of the amended draft Article on Constitutional Commissions and Agencies as the basis of the individual amendments.
AMENDMENT OF MR. DAVIDE
On page 1, line 5, between the words "receive" and "annual", Mr. Davide proposed to insert the article AN; on line 6, to change "salaries" to SALARY; and on line 8 to delete the words "or increased".
He explained that the Section refers to the salary of each Commissioner, thus it should be in singular form. He also stated that the Legislature should be prevented from decreasing the said salary, but not from increasing it, depending upon the economic situation of the times.
Mr. Foz underscored that the increase in salary may be a means of influencing the Commissioners on cases pending before them, thus impairing the independence of the Commission, in reply to which Mr. Davide stated that, on the contrary, the increase would enhance the independence of the Commission because the Members thereof would be adequately compensated.
Additionally, Mr. Davide pointed out that if the increase is not allowed, the salary would be pegged to a fixed amount for seven years despite fluctuations in the value of the peso.
In view thereof, the Sponsor accepted the proposed amendment.
However, Mr. Romulo proposed an amendment to Mr. Davide's amendment by leaving out in the meantime the amount for salary of the Commissioners to which Mr. Davide and the Sponsor agreed.
In this connection, in reply to Mr. Ople's suggestion for the formulation of a general principle on the compensation rate of Commissioners, Mr. Davide stated that that was the effect of Mr. Romulo's proposal. He also pointed out that Section 2 already contains the phrase "Unless otherwise provided by law".
Still on the proposal of Mr. Romulo, Mr. Padilla observed that it would indeed be difficult to fix the compensation of the Commissioners considering the fluctuations in exchange rates, although he expressed the hope that with a less corrupt and more productive government, the decline in inflation rate would increase the purchasing power of the peso
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
At this juncture, on motion of Mr. Rama, the Chair suspended the session in order that the Members could consolidate their proposed amendments with the Committee.
It was 3:01 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 3:14 p.m., the session was resumed.
AMENDMENT OF MR. DAVIDE AS MODIFIED BY MESSRS. ROMULO AND RODRIGO
As proposed by Mr. Davide, modified by Messrs. Romulo and Rodrigo, and accepted by the Sponsors, the Body approved the amendment to Section 2 to read as follows:
SECTION 2. UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW THE CHAIRMAN AND EACH OF THE COMMISSIONERS SHALL RECEIVE AN ANNUAL SALARY OF ____________ AND __________, RESPECTIVELY WHICH SHALL NOT BE DECREASED DURING THEIR TENURE.AMENDMENT OF MR. DAVIDE
As proposed by Mr. Davide and accepted by the Sponsor, the Body approved the insertion of the phrase HOLD ANY OTHER OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT, OR between "tenure," and "engage" on Section 3, line 10.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. DAVIDE
Mr Davide proposed, on Section 3, line 11, to insert GOVERNANCE OR between "the" and "management".
On Mr. Foz' query on the difference between "governance" and "management", Mr. Davide explained that in management, a person would be involved in the management aspect as in the case of the manager while for purposes of governance, mere membership in the board of directors, as the governing body, would be enough.
On whether as a consequence of the proposal a Member of the Commission would be prohibited from engaging in business, Mr. Davide stated that what is prohibited is engagement in the practice of any profession or business and membership in a board of directors of a corporation which implies that he is engaged in business.
On Mr. Monsod's query if it would be acceptable to place on record that the term "management" means not only actual management but even mere membership in the board of directors of a corporation, Mr. Davide; stated that he would have no objection as long as the prohibition to participation in the management of any business would also mean a prohibition to be a member of the board of directors of any firm, business or entity.
On Mr. Foz' query whether a Commissioner may be allowed to own a business provided he does not participate in the management or as member of the board of directors thereof, Mr. Davide stated that he can be allowed.
Mr. Foz accepted the proposed amendment which, there being no objection, was approved by the Body.
At this juncture, Mr. Monsod stated that it is his understanding during an interpellation that Mr. Davide would be willing-to withdraw his proposal the Committee would accept the interpretation that “management” includes membership in the board directors.
Mr. Davide agreed to Mr. Monsod's statement.
Thereupon, Mr. Monsod stated that the Committee accepts the interpretation.
Mr. Davide then withdrew his proposal.
There being no objection to the reconsideration of the approval of the proposed amendment, Chair declared the approval reconsidered and amendment withdrawn.
REMARKS OF MR. MAAMBONG
At this juncture, in reply to Mr. Maambong concern over the conflict between Section 3 and provisions on the Executive in the sense that the would be more prohibitions against the President Vice-President and Members of the Cabinet than Members of the Constitutional Commissions, Mr. F stated that the provisions for the Executive must be stricter because these government officials exercise more powers and there is more possibility of their abuse than in the exercise of powers by the Members of the Constitutional Commissions.
On Mr. Maambong's query whether the Body has already agreed to the principle that the prohibition against the Executive must be stricter than those the Members of the Constitutional Commission Mr. Foz stated that the Committee was not in the position to make a pronouncement or stand because it had nothing to do with the provisions adopted by the Committee on the Executive.
Thereafter, Mr. Foz agreed to Mr. Maambong suggestion to leave open the decision on the mat until after consultations shall have been ma between the Chairmen of the two Committees.
INQUIRY OF MR. DE CASTRO
In lieu of proposing an amendment, Mr. de Castro inquired whether the Committee would be willing place on record that in the interpretation of 1 phrase "engage in the practice of any profession teaching would be included.
Mr. Foz stated that he would leave the mat to be decided by the Body.
Mr. Rodrigo reacted that if it would be placed record then the Body would be more strict with Members of the Constitutional Commissions than Members of the Supreme Court since many of latter teach law part time to refresh their minds legal provisions.
Mr. de Castro contended that the teaching of law is actual practice of the law profession since involves not only the making of pleadings.
However, Mr. Rodrigo stated that the way he understood the provision, it means the actual handling of cases rather than teaching.
Thereupon, replying to Mr. de Castro's query as to whether the practice of a profession would include the teaching of law, Mr. Regalado opined that teaching as a profession presupposes tenure which may be on a full time or part time basis. He stated that members of the Judiciary who teach are only required to secure a permit to teach-the justices from the Supreme Court, the justices of the Intermediate Appellate Court from their Presiding Justice, officers in the Armed Forces from the Office of the President. Teaching in these circumstances, he explained, are subject to certain conditions such as the number of hours that they could teach and that they would not in any way have any hand in the management of that educational institution. He maintained that such is not considered a profession as it is not advocacy or handling of legal cases or legal work for which they are compensated. Teaching, he implied, involves only imparting whatever knowledge they have of the law. Mr. Regalado compared teaching of law to teaching of medicine which is not the actual practice of the profession.
Mr. de Castro maintained that practicing law involves research and study of jurisprudence and teaching of law involves much of the same thing. He manifested his desire to put the matter to the Body.
Thereupon, Mr. Nolledo stated that the practice of law would involve an attorney-client relationship which Mr. de Castro pointed out is not always the case as when a lawyer appears before the Supreme Court as an amicus curiae where there is no client.
Mr. Monsod, at this juncture, explained the Committee's position that teaching is not prohibited under the provision and at Mr. de Castro's insistence, maintained that teaching of law is not a practice of a profession.
REMARKS OF THE CHAIR
Thereafter, the Chair directed Mr. de Castro to present his amendment to the specific article being considered by the Body. Mr de Castro then reserved the right to introduce an amendment on Section 3.
AMENDMENT OF MR. PADILLA
On Section 3, line 11 of the Constitutional Commissions provisions, Mr. Padilla proposed to insert after the word "business" the phrase WHICH IN ANY WAY MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE FUNCTIONS OF HIS OFFICE, maintaining that the retention of the original section with its all-encompassing phrase "or in the management of any business" would discourage qualified individuals from appointment to Constitutional Commissions. In reply to Mr. Padilla's views, Mr. Foz stated that this amendment will allow a member of the Constitutional Commissions to engage in any business as long as that business is not affected by the functions of his office, which interpretation Mr. Padilla confirmed.
Mr. Foz pointed out that the objective of the whole Section, if amended, would not only be to avoid conflict of interest but also prohibit a member from being interested in any kind of contract with the government. Mr. Padilla, while expressing his concurrence with the general principle that a member should not have any direct or indirect interest in any contract with, franchise or privilege granted by the government, maintained that the phrase "any business" is all-comprehensive.
Under the 1935 Constitution which Mr. Padilla adverted to which says in part that ". . . private enterprise, which in any way may be affected by the function of their office", the mere possibility of being affected by the function of his office, Mr. Foz opined, would be sufficient to bar an individual from being appointed to the Commission.
Mr. Foz accepted the amendment on behalf of the Committee.
OBJECTION OF MR. DAVIDE
Mr. Davide objected to the amendment inasmuch as the prohibition as worded now is in the management of a business which might interfere with the Commissioner's functions but not to engage in a business. Accepting the Padilla amendment, he maintained, would destroy the critical element of the function of the Commission as he will be allowed to manage a business.
RESTATEMENT OF MR. PADILLA'S AMENDMENT
Thereafter, on direction of the Chair, Mr Padilla restated his amendment to insert on Section 3, line 11, after "business", the phrase WHICH IN ANY WAY MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE FUNCTIONS OF HIS OFFICE.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
The Chair suspended the session.
It was 3:54 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 4:06 p.m., the session was resumed.
Upon resumption of session, Mr. Davide reiterated his objection to Mr. Padilla's amendment on the ground that the provision, as worded, would be adequate since the prohibition relates only to the management of business. He argued that if the Padilla proposal were accepted, it would mean that a Commissioner may be allowed to manage a business provided that such business would not in any way affect the functions of his office, a situation, which, he stressed, could be very dangerous because the Commissioner may devote most of his time to managing a business to the detriment of public service.
In reply to Mr. Rodrigo's query as to the status of Mr. Davide's earlier proposal to include "governance", the Chair stated that the proposal had been withdrawn.
Responding to Mr. Davide's objections, Mr. Padilla contended that if the interpretation of the word "management" would be such that the general manager would stay in his business office most of the time, then he would agree with Mr. Davide. He maintained, however, that the word "management" is very broad, and his proposal would not make this prohibition too broad and comprehensive. He further stated that as long as the Commissioner is qualified and would want to serve the government, regardless of whatever investments he had he should not be disqualified from the position.
MR. REGALADO'S AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT
Mr. Regalado proposed an amendment to Mr. Padilla's amendment by inserting the word ACTIVE between "the" and "management".
Mr. Padilla accepted the amendment to his amendment.
Submitted to a vote, and with 15 Members voting in favor and 7 against, the amendment was approved by the Body.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. DE CASTRO
On page 1, line 11, Mr. de Castro proposed to insert the words WHICH INCLUDES THE TEACHING THEREOF, between "profession" and "or".
Mr. de Castro explained that teaching is practice of the profession and, if not considered as such, one would not know how such a profession could be practiced.
Submitted to a vote, and with 3 Members voting in favor and 21 against, the amendment was lost.
AMENDMENTS OF MR. DE LOS REYES
As proposed by Mr. de los Reyes and accepted by the Sponsor, the Body approved the following amendments on page 1:
1) line 15, delete "a" between "including" and "government"; andAMENDMENT OF MR. DAVIDE
2) line 16, add “S” to “corporation” and substitute the words “any of its” with THEIR.
As proposed by Mr. Davide and accepted by the Sponsor, the Body approved an amendment on page 1 line 11, to insert the words OR CONTROL between "management" and "of".
PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. DE CASTRO
On page 1, line 17, Mr. de Castro propose deletion of the sentence "The Commission shall fiscal autonomy".
He explained that its retention would be redundant because fiscal autonomy means the automatic release of appropriations already spoken of in next sentence.
Mr. Monsod pointed out that the definition fiscal autonomy is broader than just the autonomy release of appropriations in the sense that autonomy includes the nonimposition of any procedures like preaudit system in bodies that e fiscal autonomy. He stated that the provision w actually subject the Commission on Audit to a comprehensive post-audit procedure and, w their internal control system is inadequate, to necessary measures to include a special preaudit system.
Mr. de Castro insisted, however, that the sentence is a repetition of the second sentence, which Mr. Monsod replied that fiscal autonomy include not just automatic and regular release funds but also the imposition of certain preaudit requirements for release. He also stated that preaudit procedures would also include the right to disallow any expenditures inconsistent therewith and, therefore, would include the right to stop disbursement
Mr. de Castro argued that preaudit proceed would include the right to stop disbursement but the release because the release involved is the release from the Office of Budget and Management and the release of the funds to be used for projects then expressed willingness to temporarily withdraw his amendment until such time that the Body considers the provisions on the Commission on Audit.
Mr. Monsod further clarified the point by stating that if a preaudit procedure were to be exercised there is a prohibition of disallowance, the release the disbursement cannot be made.
A discussion further ensued between Messrs Castro and Monsod on the preaudit procedures pertinent to the release of funds.
AMENDMENTS OF MR. DAVIDE
As proposed by Mr. Davide and accepted by the Sponsor, the Body approved the following amendments on page 1:
1) line 17, after the period (.) following "autonomy", insert the words THE APPROVED ANNUALINQUIRY OF MR. REGALADO
2) line 18, change the capital letter A in “Appropriations" to a small letter and delete words "once approved"; and
3) line 19, insert AND REGULARLY be "automatically" and "released".
Before posing his query, Mr. Regalado invited attention to a typographical error on page 1, line 25, to insert the word WITHIN between "party" and "thirty".
On the rationale for adopting the last sentence of Section 5 declaring decisions or orders of the Commission on Elections final and executory with respect to election contests involving municipal and barangay officials, Mr. Foz stated that there is a provision among the powers and functions of the Commission on Elections which would vest the Commission with the power of being the sole judge of all contests relating to the elections, returns and qualifications of all elective provincial, city, municipal and barangay officials.
Mr. Foz pointed out, however, that in the case of electoral contests involving city and provincial officials, the decision of the Commission on Elections would not be final but appealable to the higher courts.
AMENDMENT OF MR. REGALADO
Thereafter, Mr. Regalado proposed the following amendments on page 1, line 26, to transpose "final' to the slot after the comma (,) following "decisions"; and on line 28, to delete the word "unappealable" and after "and" insert the word IMMEDIATELY, so that the sentence from lines 26 to 29 would read: HOWEVER, DECISIONS, FINAL ORDERS OR RULINGS OF THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS ON MUNICIPAL AND BARANGAY OFFICIALS SHALL BE FINAL AND IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY.
In connection with the amendment, Mr. Regalado stated that while the decisions respecting barangay and municipal officials are final and immediately executory and, therefore, not appealable, it does not rule out the possibility of an original, special court action for certiorari, prohibition, or mandamus under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.
AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT BY MESSRS. RODRIGO AND DAVIDE
Thereupon, Mr. Rodrigo, jointly with Mr. Davide, proposed an amendment to the amendment by inserting between the words "on" and "municipal" the words CONTESTS RELATING TO THE ELECTIONS, RETURNS, AND QUALIFICATIONS OF, which Mr. Regalado and the Committee accepted.
Thereafter, submitted to a vote, there being no objection, Mr. Regalado's amendment, as amended, was approved by the Body.
At this juncture, Mr. Padilla suggested the transfer of the last sentence of Section 5 to the provisions on the Commission on Elections, stating that it is a matter of form and that there should be no fear that when there is a general provision and a specific provision, it is always the specific provision that prevails.
Relative to Mr. Padilla's suggestion, Mr. Maambong adverted to Committee Report No. 27 on Proposed Resolution No. 521, specifically Section 10 thereof which contains the same provision.
In view thereof, the Committee agreed that the last sentence of Section 5 appearing on lines 26 to 29, be transferred to Section 10 of Proposed Resolution No. 210 on the Commission on Elections.
AMENDMENT OF MR. RODRIGO
As proposed by Mr. Rodrigo and accepted by the Sponsor, the Body approved the amendment on page 1, line 23, to insert the words BY THIS CONSTITUTION OR between the words "provided" and "by".
AMENDMENTS OF MR. DAVIDE
On Section 5, page 1, Mr. Davide proposed the following amendments:
1) on line 20, after the word "Commission", place a comma (,) and add the following OR A DIVISION THEREOF WHENEVER AUTHORIZED UNDER THIS ARTICLE and place a comma (,) after it;The Committee did not accept the proposed amendment on line 20 on the ground that the intention is to give the COMELEC, it being the only Commission which meets by division, flexibility to promulgate its own rules with respect to decisions by divisions.
2) on line 21, insert the words OR MATTER between the words "case" and "brought"; and
3) on line 22, insert the words DECISION OR between the words "for" and "resolution" and after the period (.) add a new sentence to read as follows: A CASE OR MATTER IS DEEMED SUBMITTED FOR DECISION OR RESOLUTION UPON THE FILING OF THE LAST PLEADING, BRIEF, OR MEMORANDUM REQUIRED BY THE RULES OF THE COMMISSION OR BY THE COMMISSION ITSELF.
In view of the explanation, Mr. Davide did not insist on his proposed amendment on line 20.
The Committee, however, accepted the other two proposed amendments which, there being no objection, were approved by the Body.
FURTHER AMENDMENTS OF MR. DAVIDE
After Section 5, page 1, Mr. Davide proposed to add a new Section to be denominated as Section 6 which shall read as follows:
SECTION 6. EACH COMMISSION MAY PROMULGATE ITS OWN RULES CONCERNING PLEADINGS AND PRACTICE BEFORE IT OR BEFORE ANY OF ITS OFFICES. SUCH RULES HOWEVER SHALL NOT DIMINISH, INCREASE OR MODIFY SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS.On Mr. Foz' observation that each Commission has the inherent authority to promulgate its own rules, Mr. Davide pointed out the existence of such provision in the subdivision for the COMELEC, which provision is not provided for in the Commission on Audit and the Commission on Civil Service.
On Mr. Concepcion's observation that the rules for each Commission should be uniform, Mr. Davide stated that his proposed amendment would precisely authorize the Commission to promulgate its own rules.
In view of Mr. Concepcion's observation that the words "Each Commission" may be construed as each division of the Commission, Mr. Davide modified his proposed amendment to read: EACH COMMISSION EN BANC MAY PROMULGATE ITS OWN RULES.
The Committee accepted the proposed amendment, as modified, and there being no objection, was approved by the Body.
Mr. Davide affirmed for the record that the rules to be promulgated shall be subject to approval by the Supreme Court.
Thereupon, Mr. Davide proposed to add another Section, as Section 7 which shall read:
SECTION 7.EACH COMMISSION SHALL PERFORM SUCH OTHER FUNCTIONS AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW.On Mr. Foz' observation that there is already a similar provision under the Commission on Elections, Mr. Davide stressed that it would be better to place such a provision under the Common Provisions.
The Committee accepted the proposed amendment and, there being no objection, was approved by the Body.
AMENDMENT OF MR. RODRIGO
As a consequence of Mr. Davide's amendments, as proposed by Mr. Rodrigo and accepted by the Sponsor, the Body approved to renumber the Sections accordingly.
AMENDMENT OF MR. OPLE
After Section 8, Mr. Ople proposed, jointly with Ms. Tan, Mrs. Quesada, Messrs. Tadeo and Lerum, to add a new Section 9 to read as follows:
SECTION 9. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY PROVISION OF THIS ARTICLE, THE RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION SHALL NOT BE DENIED TO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES.Explaining the proposal, Mr. Ople recalled that during the general debate, the Chairman of the Committee pointed out that Section 9, Article II of the 1973 Constitution, which provided guarantees for the right to self-organization and collective bargaining for workers and employees, pertains to government employees as well as to employees in the private sector. Mr. Ople stated that unfortunately, it was the tendency of the government to apply said very restrictively thereby removing about 1,200,000 government employees from the coverage of the right to self-organization. He urged for the approval proposed amendment in order to remove what appears to be a developing constitutional stalemate between Article II on self-organization and the Service provisions of the Constitution.
In objecting to the proposed amendment, Padilla maintained that Section 9, Article II of the 1973 Constitution is mainly addressed to workers to ensure equal work, regulate relations between workers and employers, right of workers to organization, collective bargaining, security of tenure, just and humane conditions of work. He pointed that to extend this right to government employees would be to admit the possibility of a strike against public service. He argued that labor-employer relationship is not identical to employee-govern relationship and that the right to strike against government would have adverse effects against public service.
Replying thereto, Mr. Ople stated that Padilla's interpretation of the right of public servants to self-organization was based on exaggerated fear.
He explained that although it is not mandatory for government employees to go on strike, they have the right to petition the government, which is an "employer" in its broadest sense. He observed certain increases of wages were granted only to private sector but not to government worker which case the latter were discriminated against the government itself. He stated that for this other reasons, government employees, like those other countries, shall organize their own association to have a forum for their professional and development, but not necessarily to bargain wages. He added that they also act as watchdogs their own superiors in the commission of graft corruption.
In reply to Mr Nolledo's query on whether right to self-organization would apply to both sovereign or governmental functions and proprietary functions of government, Mr. Ople replied in the affirmative but underscored the distinctions between right to organize and the right to collective bargaining.
On Mr. Nolledo's observation that should all government employees go on strike, the government would be paralyzed, Mr. Ople noted that although public service unions are recognized in many tries like the United States, Japan and Malaysia isolated cases of strikes were reported, so that possible adverse effects or disaster of public unions should not be exaggerated.
Mr. Nolledo then suggested that for the purpose of petitioning the government for redress of grievances, the government employees should be allowed to organize associations for their mutual benefit instead of staging strikes which could paralyze government activities, to which Mr. Ople agreed and maintained that if the proposal would not be accepted, government employees would be deprived the right to self-organization as announced by President Aquino. He also affirmed that if and when government employees find the facilities of government insufficient to perform governmental functions, said employees could resort to strike.
He also informed the Commission that there has been a registration of public service unions in the Ministry of Labor and Employment which had not produced adverse effects. In fact, he disclosed that weekly forums were held in the Ministry to thresh out ways and means of cooperation between the employees and the government.
At this juncture, reacting to Mr. Padilla's comment that the Committee might have accepted Mr. Ople's proposal without reflecting, Mr. Monsod stated that the matter had been thoroughly discussed in various fora such as the Bishops-Businessmen's Conference and other consultations with the labor sector, pointing out that even in the consultation in the Industrial Relations Department of the University of the Philippines, the term "collective negotiation" was suggested to substitute "collective bargaining".
Furthermore, as cosponsor of the proposal, Mr. Lerum explained that the right to organize does not necessarily mean the right to strike, in the same manner that Republic Act No. 875 allows government workers to organize but prohibits them from striking.
Likewise, Mrs. Quesada stressed the need to give more respect to and faith in government workers who are most exploited, underpaid and overworked, in their desire to organize. She cited cases of harassment and intimidation on any effort of civil servants to organize, not for any collective bargaining.
At this juncture, Mr. Rodrigo clarified-that the proposed Section would be denominated as Section 8 of the provisions on the Civil Service Commission.
Thereupon, Mr. Padilla, by way of rejoinder, observed that Mr. Lerum and Mrs. Quesada explained that the proposal only includes the right to self-organization, while Mr. Ople justified strikes and collective bargaining in addition to the right to organize. He stated that if the purpose is to allow government employees to form associations, said right is already contained in the Bill of Rights, therefore, the amendment is unnecessary.
On public service unions, Mr. Padilla stated that he understood it to refer to private corporations that are engaged in providing public utilities like transportation, and that their right to organize is also covered under the Bill of Rights.
Thereupon, Mr. Monsod restated Mr. Ople's proposal to add a new Section 8 to read as follows:
SECTION 8. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY PROVISION OF THIS ARTICLE, THE RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION SHALL NOT BE DENIED TO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES.Submitted to a vote, and with 33 Members voting in favor and 1 against, the proposed amendment was approved by the Body.
AMENDMENT OF MR. BERNAS
On page 2, line 7, Mr. Bernas proposed between the words "determined" and "as", the insertion of a comma (,); and on line 8, between the words "practicable" and "by", to insert the phrase AND EXCEPT TO THOSE WHICH ARE POLICY-DETERMINING, PRIMARILY CONFIDENTIAL AND HIGHLY TECHNICAL and a comma (,) after it.
He explained that the proposal would exempt policy-determining, primarily confidential and highly technical positions from competitive examination as a means for determining merit and fitness.
He noted, however, that said positions are also covered by the security of tenure as stated by the Supreme Court in its subsequent decisions. He further stated that highly technical positions means those which require more than ordinary professionalism.
In reply to Mr. Suarez' query, Mr. Bernas explained that said positions would be noncompetitive in the sense that the appointees do not have to undergo competitive examination to determine merit and fitness, but the proposal does not preclude any other way of determining merit and fitness.
He pointed out that the phraseology of the 1973 Constitution was changed in view of subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court that they are exempt from competitive examinations but not from security of tenure. He added, however, that in the case of confidential positions, when the confidence of the appointing authority is lost, the position is also terminated, which termination, as the Supreme Court maintained, is not equivalent to removal but the end of the term because it is coterminous with confidence.
On Mr. Foz' query whether an employee who occupies a policy-determining position has security of tenure, Mr. Bernas replied that according to a Supreme Court decision, the classification has something to do only with merit and fitness and not with security of tenure. He added that the Executive or Legislative departments initially determine which positions are considered policy-determining, highly technical or primarily confidential although the court has the final decision on the matter. He explained further that the classification is determined not by the title but the nature of the assigned tasks and that the Supreme Court had decided that highly technical means something beyond the ordinary requirements of a profession.
On Mr. Foz' contention that merit and fitness should be the general rule, Mr. Bernas stated that this would then be the exception.
Mr. Foz opined that the classification has been the source of the spoils system, to which Mr. Bernas replied that the classification could always be challenged in court since it is not enough that an administrative agency classifies a position as primarily confidential because what makes it such is the nature of the duties.
On Mr. Foz' apprehension that the classification would extend to some employees certain privileges which are not available to others, Mr. Bernas stressed that employees for some positions should not be determined by competitive examination since there are other ways of determining merit and fitness.
Thereafter, Mr. Foz accepted the proposed amendment.
Submitted to a vote, there being no objection, the amendment was approved by the Body.
AMENDMENT OF MR. PADILLA
Mr. Padilla proposed to reword Section 1(3), page 2, lines 9 to 12, to read:
(3) NO MEMBER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE SHALL BE REMOVED OR SUSPENDED EXCEPT FOR CAUSE PROVIDED BY LAW.Mr. Padilla explained that the deletion of the phrase "as may be" before the phrase "provided by law" would make it clear that the provision would not allow the inclusion of additional causes provided in previous laws. He added that the word "just" before "cause" should be deleted to obviate the possibility of court litigations in order to determine whether the causes already provided by law are just or unjust.
Mr. Foz accepted the amendment on the understanding that the words "for cause" have acquired a definite meaning in law and for the reason given relative to the last phrase.
Submitted to a vote, there being no objection, the amendment was approved by the Body.
AMENDMENT OF MS. AQUINO
Ms. Aquino proposed to reword Section 1(4) to read:
(4) NO OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE IN THE CIVIL SERVICE SHALL ENGAGE, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, IN ANY ELECTIONEERING AND OTHER PARTISAN POLITICAL CAMPAIGN.Ms. Aquino explained that the phrase "except to vote" in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, which was deleted by the Committee, was actually intended to guarantee the public workers' right to vote.
Mr. Foz stated that it was not the intention of the Committee to disenfranchise any government officer or employee but only to prohibit them from participating actively in any political campaign.
Ms. Aquino maintained that the records of the previous Constitutional Convention would show that the phrase deleted by the Committee was intended to be a definitive qualification of the general prohibition.
Mr. Foz accepted the amendment with clarification.
Submitted to a vote, there being no objection the amendment was approved by the Body.
INQUIRY OF MR. ROMULO
On Mr. Romulo's query whether the clause including government-owned or controlled corporations or their subsidiaries" in Section 3 of the Common Provisions means that the Philippine Airlines would now be run under the Civil Service Rules, Mr. Foz stated that the provision only affects the franchise privilege granted to such government-owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries and not management of the Airline.
AMENDMENT OF MR. MAAMBONG
Mr. Maambong proposed, on Section 2(2), page line 24, to insert the phrase WITH THE CONSENT OF THE COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS after the word "President" and to delete the sentence "Appointments to the Commission need no confirmation" line 25.
Mr. Maambong explained that the Constitution Commissions would have too much independence their Chairmen and Commissioners would be appointed without confirmation by the Commission Appointments.
On Mr. Foz' query whether the proposal to reestablish the Commission on Appointments is already assured of approval, Mr. Maambong stated that Mr. Davide, the Chairman of the Committee on the Legislative, had assured him that such approval almost a certainty.
With this assurance, Mr. Foz accepted the proposed amendment.
Submitted to a vote, there being no objection, amendment was approved by the Body.
Thereafter, Mr. Maambong made a reservation introduce the same amendment with respect to other Constitutional bodies.
RECONSIDERATION OF MR. MAAMBONG'S AMENDMENT
At this juncture on motion of Mr. Foz, being no objection, the Body reconsidered its appeal of Mr. Maambong's amendment.
Mr. Monsod explained that it is the position the Committee that the Constitutional Commissions would be best insulated from partisan politics by not subjecting the appointments of their Members to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.
Mr. Maambong, however, pointed out that the President, who has the sole prerogative to appoint the Members of the Constitutional Commissions, is also a politician.
Mr. Monsod maintained that the staggered appointments and the prohibition against reappointment are sufficient safeguards to ensure that the members of the Commissions would not be beholden to one President.
Mr. Bernas stressed that Mr. Maambong's proposal would precisely put a check on the appointing authority which would, in effect, insulate the Commissions from politics since the President is also a politician and that even though the terms are staggered, the first appointees would still be appointed by the same President.
Commenting on the proposal, Mr. de Castro stated that he concurs with Mr. Monsod's statement on insulating the Members of the Constitutional Commissions from partisan politics on condition that his Resolution No. 330, which calls for the creation of a Committee on Appointments in lieu of the Commission on Appointments, shall be considered and accepted by the Committee on the Legislative. He explained that the Resolution would empower the Committee on Appointments to pass upon the appointments of Members of the Civil Service Commission, the Commission on Audit and the Commission on Elections.
VOTING ON MR. MAAMBONG'S AMENDMENT
Submitted to a vote, and with 21 Members voting in favor and 7 against, the amendment of Mr. Maambong was approved by the Body.
AMENDMENT OF MRS. QUESADA
Mrs. Quesada proposed to introduce in Section 1 a provision which would extend permanent status to government workers and employees, subject to Civil Service rules, after six months of continuous service. She cited the cases of thousands of workers who have been in public service for more than five years but who have not enjoyed many of the rights, such as security of tenure and self-organization, that other workers have been enjoying. She stated that the government has in fact been the number one exploiter of civil servants and to improve the service would require the extension of protection of the law to such workers. Moreover, she expressed the failure of casual workers to secure legislation which would give them the same rights as their counterparts in the private sector under the Labor Code.
In view thereof, she proposed to insert, as the last paragraph of Section 1, the following:
GOVERNMENT WORKERS SHALL BE GRANTED PERMANENT STATUS AFTER RENDERING SIX MONTHS OF SATISFACTORY AND ESSENTLAL SERVICE.Thereafter, in reply to Mr. de los Reyes' inquiry, Mrs. Quesada confirmed that the amendment contemplates that service is continuous and important to the organization.
Mr. de los Reyes noted that the normal practice followed by the appointing power is to break the continuity of service so as to deprive the worker of a permanent appointment.
On Mr. Rodrigo's query whether there is inconsistency between Section 1(2) of the Civil Service Commission provision and the proposed amendment inasmuch as there are casual employees who have not undergone competetive examination but who are sought to be given permanent status merely for having served for six months, Mrs. Quesada replied that competitive examination is not the only way to judge the merit and fitness of a government employee
As to whether the amendment would apply only to those who are not compelled to take competitive examination, Mrs. Quesada stated that the amendment refers to the status that is accorded to workers who have rendered services. She maintained that as public servants, these workers would have to undergo the requirement of merit and fitness.
Mrs. Quesada confirmed that the service must be satisfactory and essential-which matters shall be decided by the supervisor or officer-in-charge.
In instances where the supervisor questions the merit and fitness of an individual employee, Mrs. Quesada stated that the Civil Service has provided for a grievance machinery by which workers can seek redress for any injustice. Moreover, Mrs. Quesada explained that though the Civil Service has provided a promotions board or committee within its organization, casual workers cannot seek redress from such grievance committee because of their status.
As to who shall decide whether the services rendered is necessary for the maintenance of an office, Mrs. Quesada replied that there are other mechanisms which workers can resort to other than the grievance committee.
Mrs. Quesada pointed out that no protection under the law has been enjoyed by government workers inasmuch as politicians who exploit them would prefer them to remain casuals so they can be part of the spoils system.
Mrs. Quesada affirmed that the six-month period is the same period under the Labor Code for the private sector. Mr. Rodrigo opined that this matter is better left to legislation which can settle the many attendant details related thereto.
Mrs. Quesada, by way of a rejoinder stated that the principle involved is to protect the particular sector of government.
In reply to Mr. Bernas' query as to whether a temporary appointment would automatically ripen into a permanent appointment after six months, Mrs. Quesada stated that it is the intention of the amendment.
MR. REGALADO'S PROPOSED SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT
Mr. Regalado proposed a substitute amendment to be inserted after Section 1(3) to read:
NO MEMBER OF THE CIVIL SERVICE SHALL BE REMOVED, SUSPENDED, OR OTHERWISE DISCIPLINED EXCEPT FOR CAUSE AND SHALL ENJOY SECURITY OF TENURE AS PROVIDED BY LAW.He maintained that the amendment would allow more flexibility and give more room to the Legislature to make the necessary adjustments on the different contingencies and different classifications rather than putting the six-month limitation in the Constitutional provision. Mr. Regalado explained that his amendment would follow Mr. Padilla's amendment which reads "except for causes provided by law" to which he would now add AND SHALL ENJOY SECURITY OF TENURE AS PROVIDED BY LAW which would set forth a constitutional mandate but would still allow the enactment of the necessary legislation to make the corresponding adjustment.
Mrs. Quesada did not accept the amendment on the ground that it failed to capture the spirit and intention of her amendment.
Commenting on the proposal, Mr. de Castro stated that the amendment would in effect destroy the essence of the merit system. He noted that under the amendment, temporary employees who do not possess the necessary civil service eligibility and whose appointments last only for six months shall occupy positions for which they do not possess the necessary eligibilities. Casuals, he pointed out, who can be terminated or laid off at any time because their appointments are based on temporary need, would likewise be given permanent status despite the lack of positions for them. Mrs. Quesada reiterated that the workers adverted to in the amendment are those workers who are essential to the smooth operation of any government entity and who perform certain functions covered by the civil service.
MR. OPLE'S PROPOSED SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT
Mr. Ople proposed a substitute amendment to read:
TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES OF THE GOVERNMENT SHALL ENJOY SECURITY OF TENURE AS MAYBE PROVIDED BY LAW.He explained that this implies a mandate to the Legislature to determine the terms and condition employment of casuals which will give them security of tenure consistent with the financial position of the government at any given time, which amendment was accepted by Mrs. Quesada.
On the inclusion of the phrase "after he rendered a number of months" to the amend Mr. Ople stated that the law will provide for such clause.
As to Mr. Foz' inquiry if the words “temporary” and “security of tenure” are inconsistent, Mr. Ople stated that there is no inconsistency because "temporary" status means it is for the time being. Thereafter Mr. Ople offered alternative amendments to Committee.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
At this juncture, the Chair suspended the session to allow a reformulation of the amendment.
It was 6:33 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 6:40 p.m., the session was resumed.
MODIFIED AMENDMENT OF MRS. QUESADA
Upon resumption of session, Mrs. Quesada posed the following modified amendment, to wit:
TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES OF THE GOVERNMENT SHALL ENJOY THE PROTECTION OF LAW.The Sponsor accepted the amendment.
At this juncture, Mr. Maambong informed Body that before the Batasang Pambansa abolished, the Committee on Civil Service of which he was a member was precisely working on a sin formulation to give permanent status to tempo government employees. He then manifested sup for the amendment.
Mr. de Castro interposed an objection to Quesada's amendment on the ground that it would destroy the whole gamut of the merit system in civil service.
For his part, Mr. Padilla also stressed that protection actually exists for the temporary employees because they have no permanent status they do not enjoy security of tenure.
MR. NATIVIDAD'S PROPOSED SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT
Mr. Natividad proposed to substitute amendment to read:
TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES SHALL BE ACCORDED PERMANENT STATUS AFTER A PERIOD OF TIME PROVIDED BY LAW.
Mrs. Quesada accepted the amendment the amendment.
Mr. Natividad explained that his proposal would extend to temporary employees permanent status after a period of time provided for by law.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
On motion of Mr. Foz, the session was suspended.
It was 6:50 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 6:56 p.m., the session was resumed.
AMENDMENT OF MRS. QUESADA
Upon resumption of session, Mrs. Quesada withdrew all the amendments introduced on the floor and submitted the following final amendment, to wit:
TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES OF THE GOVERNMENT SHALL BE GIVEN SUCH PROTECTION AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW.
The Sponsor accepted the amendment.
At this juncture, in reply to Mr. Bengzon's query on the intent of the provision accepted by the Committee, Mr. Foz stated that the question should really be addressed to the Legislature.
Mr. Bengzon pointed out, however, that the amendment would make temporary employees without civil service eligibilities permanent, thereby wrecking havoc on the whole civil service merit system, to which Mrs. Quesada replied that her proposal would allow for legislation to provide protection for these employees.
Mr. Monsod also pointed out that since the Committee had some suggestions on the framing of the provision, the law could impose certain conditions for conversion to permanent status.
In reply to Mr. de Castro's query on the kind of protection expected from the law, Mrs. Quesada stated that the Commission could leave it to the Legislature.
Mr. de Castro, however, reiterated that the provision would wreck the whole Civil Service system.
Submitted to a vote, and with 25 Members voting in favor and 5 against, the amendment was approved by the Body.
INQUIRY OF MR. ROMULO
On whether the Philippine Airlines, a government-controlled corporation, is included in the coverage of Section 1(1), Mr. Foz explained that PAL was established as a private corporation which was later acquired by the Government through the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS).
On Mr. Romulo's reaction that in a recent Supreme Court decision, no distinction had been made between a government-owned corporation created under the Corporation Code and one created by a charter, Mr. Foz confirmed that the decision in the case of NHA vs. Juco, all government corporations irrespective of the manner of creation are deemed covered by the Civil Service because of its wide-embracing definition under the 1973 Constitution. Mr. Foz stressed that the Committee does not intend to make a declaration whether or not employees of these corporations should be barred from the operation of such laws like the Labor Code of the Philippines;
Mr. Ople, on a point of information, recalled that following the proclamation of martial law and the ratification of the 1973 Constitution, the Civil Service Law took immediate force and effect, in the same manner as that of the Labor Code. He cited the case of LUSTEVECO, a government-owned corporation, which at that time had a strike and in the resolution of such strike, the then Secretary of Justice rendered an opinion that government Corporations with original charters, like the GSIS, were covered by the Civil Service while those second generation corporations, like the Philippine Airlines, Manila Hotel and the Hyatt Regency, functioning as private subsidiaries were covered by the Labor Code. It was for this reason, he stated, that these corporations had collective bargaining agreements. In the light of the Supreme Court decision in the case of NHA vs. Juco, that these corporations are covered by the Civil Service Law, the Cabinet then agreed to allow the CBAs to lapse before applying the full force and effect of said decision. This problem, Mr. Ople stated, arose when the new government took over and posed the question whether this could be addressed to the Civil Service Law or whether it would be enough to contend with the statement of the Chairman of the Committee that Section 1(1) is just a general description of the coverage and nothing more.
On Mr. Romulo's query whether it is the intent of the Committee to exclude from the coverage of said provision companies like the Philippine Airlines, Mr. Monsod explained that the provision does not preclude the Civil Service from prescribing the rules and procedures, including emoluments of employees of proprietary corporations and suggested that Mr. Romulo present an amendment to exclude government-owned or controlled corporations.
In view thereof, Mr. Romulo made a reservation to submit an amendment at the proper time.
AMENDMENT OF MR. REGALADO
In reply to the query of Mr. Regalado on the rationale for using the word "preferably", on page 2, line 19, Mr. Rigos explained that the Committee is not totally excluding other people with expertise in other fields.
As proposed by Mr. Regalado and accepted by the Sponsor, the Body approved the deletion of the word "preferably" on line 19, page 2 of the draft Resolution.
AMENDMENT OF MR. ROMULO
After the word "corporations" on page 2, line 5, Mr. Romulo proposed to add a comma (,) and the following: EXCEPT THOSE EXERCISING PROPRIETARY FUNCTIONS.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
At this juncture, the Chair suspended the session.
It was 7:16pm.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 7:21 p.m., the session was resumed.
Upon resumption of session, Mr. Romulo proposed a modified amendment to insert the words WITH ORIGINAL CHARTERS after the word "corporations" on line 5.
In reply to the query of Messrs. Foz and Natividad, Mr. Romulo affirmed that the words "original charters" would refer to those created by special laws and not by the General Corporation Law.
The Sponsor accepted the proposed amendment.
There being no objection, the Body approved the amendment.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MS. AQUINO
In reply to Ms. Aquino's query, Mr. Foz affirmed that Section 2(2) on the staggering of appointments of the Members of the Commission would make the same a continuing body and would insulate it from the influence of the President and the Executive as a whole.
On whether the provision would be flexible to accommodate changes in case the Body would decide on a four-year term for the President, Mr. Monsod stated that the Committee had considered such a possibility and should that happen, the Committee would consider a reconsideration.
Thereupon, Ms. Aquino proposed to add a new sentence after the word "predecessor" on line 31 to read: THE APPOINTEE SHALL IN NO CASE SERVE AN AGGREGATE PERIOD OF MORE THAN SEVEN YEARS.
Ms. Aquino explained that her proposal would approximate a situation wherein a Commissioner is upgraded to a position of Chairman. She however, expressed willingness to withdraw her proposal on the understanding that the provision sought to be amended would cover such a situation, in reply to which Mr. Foz invited attention to line 29, where a member who would be upgraded to the position of Chairman would only serve the unexpired term.
Ms. Aquino reiterated her query, to which Mr. Foz replied in the affirmative.
AMENDMENT OF MR. DE LOS REYES
On page 2, line 32, Mr. de los Reyes proposed insert between the words "appointed" and "in", words OR DESIGNATED.
He explained that his proposed amendment would erase the distinction commonly perceive between the words "appointment" and "designation".
The Sponsor accepted the amendment, and the being no objection, the same was approved by Body.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MS. AQUINO
On page 2, line 35, Ms. Aquino proposed change the comma (,) after "service" to a period and to delete the words following it up to page 3, line inclusive, and in lieu thereof to insert the follow sentences: THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AS THE CENTRAL PERSONNEL AGENCY OF THE GOVERNMENT, SHALL ESTABLISH A CAREER SERVICE A ADOPT MEASURES TO PROMOTE MORALE, EFFICIENCY AND INTEGRITY IN THE CIVIL SERVICE. SHALL STRENGTHEN THE MERIT AND REWARD SYSTEM, INTEGRATE ALL HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS FOR ALL LEVELS AND RANKS INSTITUTIONALIZE A MANAGEMENT CLIMATE CONDUCIVE TO PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY, AND INCREASE INCENTIVES TO PROMOTE HONESTY, RESPONSIVENESS, PROGRESSIVENESS AND COURTESY IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE.
She explained that the proposal was intended amplify the concept of "central personnel agency the government". She stated that the phrases Proposed to be deleted were unnecessary repetitions said concept and should be replaced by concepts which would redefine and realign the focus of Civil Service Commission.
At this juncture, Mr. Foz observed that since proposal was long, it was necessary to first furnish the Members copies thereof, to which Ms. Aquino agreed, and, in the meantime allow other Member to introduce their amendments.
AMENDMENTS OF MR. REGALADO
Thereupon, on page 3, line 3, Mr. Regalado proposed to change the comma (,) after "programs" a period (.) and to delete the words following it to line 4.
On request of Mr. Davide, Mr. Regalado agreed to defer his proposal in view of the deferment Ms. Aquino's proposal.
Thereafter, on page 3, line 7, as proposed Mr. Regalado and accepted by the Sponsor, the Body approved to delete the phrase "a temporary or acting" and in lieu thereof to insert the word ANY.
Likewise, on the same page, line 15, Mr. Regalado proposed the deletion of the words "a temporary or acting" and in lieu thereof, to insert the word ANY.
At this juncture, Mr. Ople observed that although the proposal was sound, the possibility of appointing an officer of the Armed Forces in a temporary capacity for reasons of urgency and need of exceptional technical skills in a government position should not be discounted. He then proposed the addition of the phrase EXCEPT AS MAY BE DIRECTED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE PHILIPPINES. At that level, he opined that it is not easy to get a designation since the President as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces would resort to such prerogative only in case of emergency and for the public interest, at the same time preventing the Ministers to detail certain officers to different offices.
He cited the case of Admiral Rickover of the U.S. Navy whose knowledge and skills in submarine technology were considered indispensable that the United States extended his service. He also pointed out that there might be brilliant engineers in the Armed Forces of the Philippines who might be required in an emergency to assist in the completion of a strategic construction necessary to the national security. He affirmed, however, that said officers could be called upon without necessarily designating them to an office.
However, upon suggestion of Mr. Regalado, Mr. Ople withdrew his proposed amendment.
Thereupon, the Sponsor accepted the proposed amendment of Mr. Regalado, and there being no objection, the same was approved by the Body.
MANIFESTATION OF MR. FOZ
At this juncture, Mr. Foz stated that theres is no need of proposing any amendment on Section 7 considering that it was already transferred to the General Provisions, in reply to which Ms. Aquino observed that the Committee on General Provisions approved said provision without substantial amendments.
Thereupon, on request of Mr. Foz, the Chair recognized Mr. Maambong who read a similar provision in the Article on General Provisions with a slight difference, to wit:
"No elective or appointive public officer or employee shall receive additional, double or indirect compensations, except pensions or gratuities, unless specifically authorized by law, nor accept, without consent of the National Assembly, any present, emolument, office or title of any kind from any foreign state."He pointed out that the only amendment was that of Ms. Aquino, deleting the phrase "unless specifically authorized by law".
On request of Mr. Foz, Mr. Maambong agreed to transfer Section 7 of the provisions on the Civil Service Commission to the Article on General Provisions, so that the amendment of Mr. Ople would become Section 7.
AMENDMENT OF MRS. ROSARIO BRAID
On page 3, line 13, as proposed by Mrs. Rosario Braid and accepted by the Sponsor, the Body approved to change the word "officer" to MEMBER.
AMENDMENTS OF MR. DAVIDE
As proposed by Mr. Davide and accepted by the Sponsor, the Body approved the following amendments, one after the other:
1) on page 2, line 9, substitute the word "member" with the words OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE;Furthermore, on the same line 19, after the comma (,) following the word "age", Mr. Davide proposed to insert the words HOLDERS OF A COLLEGE DEGREE. He explained that in addition to some proven capacity for public administration, the qualifications should include a college degree.
2) on the same page, line 17, substitute the word "are" with SHALL BE and
3) on the same page, line 19, substitute the figure "35" with the word THIRTY-FIVE.
On the contention of Mr. Rigos that a college degree is not necessary provided one has the capacity for public administration, Mr. Davide opined that the orientation of a college degree holder is broader since it does not preclude a capacity for public administration. He added that it would be an insult to college graduates to see high school graduates with no such training in public administration occupying the position of a commissioner, to which Mr. Rigos replied that in such case, the appointing authority would be the one to consider such qualifications.
On motion of Mr. Davide, the Chair submitted the proposed amendment to a vote, and with 12 Members voting in favor and 14 against, the same was lost.
Thereafter, on page 2, line 29, Mr. Davide proposed to delete the comma (,) after the word “years” and the words “without reappointment” considering the said words already appeared on line 25, in reply to which, Mr. Foz cited the case of Vizcarra vs. Miraflor wherein Justice Angelo Bautista argued that the prohibition on reappointment applies only to a term of seven years and not to a lesser term.
Thus, Mr. Foz explained that the qualifying words “without reappointment” is necessary to foreclose any reappointment of those who were first appointed to the commission.
Mr. Davide maintained that technically, the general term is seven years, although for the first three groups of appointees, the tenure is seven, five and three years, respectively. He said that there is a difference between term and tenure.
Submitted to a vote, and with 2 members voting in favor and 21 against, the proposed amendment was lost.
Thereafter, as proposed by Mr. Davide and accepted by the Sponsor, the Body approved, on Section 4, page 3, line 8, to substitute “term” with tenure.
Thereafter, as proposed by Mr. Davide and accepted by the Sponsor, the Body approved, on Section 4, page 3, line 8, to substitute "term" with TENURE.
Mr. Davide agreed with Mr. Foz' interpretation that the amendment would make it possible for an elective public official to resign his position to accept another executive position.
At this juncture, Mr. Maambong informed the Body that the Committee on General Provisions has approved a similar provision which reads: "No elective or appointive public officer or employee should hold any office or employment in the government or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations."
Likewise, as proposed by Mr. Davide and accepted by the Sponsor, the Body approved on Section 6, line 16, to add INCLUDING GOVERNMENT-OWNED OR CONTROLLED CORPORATIONS after "Government".
In reply to Mr. de los Reyes' query whether the amendment is limited only to those corporations with original charters, Mr. Davide answered in the affirmative.
AMENDMENT OF MS. AQUINO
Ms. Aquino proposed to substitute the entire Section 3 with the following:
THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AS THE CENTRAL PERSONNEL AGENCY OF THE GOVERNMENT, SHALL ESTABLISH A CAREER SERVICE AND ADOPT MEASURES TO PROMOTE MORALE, EFFICIENCY AND INTEGRITY IN THE CIVIL SERVICE. IT SHALL STRENGTHEN THE MERIT AND REWARDS SYSTEM, INTEGRATE ALL HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS FOR ALL LEVELS AND RANKS, INSTITUTIONALIZE A MANAGEMENT CLIMATE CONDUCIVE TO PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY AND INCREASE INCENTIVES TO PROMOTE HONESTY, RESPONSIVENESS, PROGRESSIVENESS AND COURTESY IN THE PUBLIC SERVICE.Ms. Aquino stated that the proposed amendment was an amended version of Resolution No. 240 filed by Mr. Davide.
On Mr. Foz' query whether the proposed amendment would reduce the powers of the Civil Service Commission as enumerated in the original draft, Ms. Aquino stated that it would not since the powers of the Commission are deemed implicitly covered in the all-embracing definition and concept of "central personnel agency of the government". She added that the elimination of the enumeration of the Commission's powers would not in any way create an ambiguity because the concept of central personnel agency is generally accepted and, besides, the Commission is already performing these functions.
Thereafter, Mr. Regalado placed on record that the provision "promulgate and enforce policies personnel actions, classify positions, prescribe conditions of employment except as to compensation other monetary benefits which shall be provided law" which had been deleted by the proposed amendment is deemed subsumed under the concept "central personnel agency".
In reply to Mr. Bengzon's query whether acceptance of Mrs. Quesada's previous amendment would weaken the merit and rewards system, Mrs. Aquino stated that it would not and that it adoption of her proposal would, in fact, make the merit and rewards system the anchor of the Article on the Civil Service Commission.
Ms. Aquino agreed to Mr. Monsod's clarification that the power of the Commission to classify positions is subject to existing laws and regulation without prejudice to the rights of the Office Budget and Management.
At this juncture, Mr. Regalado proposed, amendment to the amendment on page 3, lines 2 and 3, to retain the sentence: "It shall submit to the President and the Congress an annual report on its personnel programs" and to delete "and perform such other functions as may be provided by law on lines 3 and 4.
The amendment was accepted by the Sponsor a by the Committee.
Thereupon, Mr. Padilla proposed to simply retain the clause "it shall strengthen the merit and rewards system conducive to public accountability" and eliminate the rest to make the provision clearer.
Mr. Foz, however, opposed the deletion of the clause "integrate all human resources development programs for all levels and ranks" because the Commission's role relative to this should be emphasized.
Ms. Aquino concurred with Mr. Foz' stand.
On Mrs. Rosario Braid's query on the meaning the phrase "integrate human resources development programs for all levels", Ms. Aquino stated that the Civil Service is authorized by law to initiate development programs and "integration" would mean that it could go beyond the programs it has initiated coordination with other programs pertinent to function.
On Mrs. Rosario Braid's proposal to change "integrate" to "coordinate", Mr. Foz stated that the Committee would insist on "integrate".
Thereupon, Mrs. Rosario Braid withdrew her proposal.
At this juncture, Mr. Padilla manifested that he wanted to simplify the provision but the Committee insisted on the retention of the clause "integration of all human resources development programs for all levels and ranks, institutionalize a management climate" which are all good words but hard to understand and implement.
AMENDMENT OF MS. AQUINO AS MODIFIED BY MR. REGALADO
As proposed by Ms. Aquino, modified by Mr. Regalado, and accepted by the Sponsor, the Body approved the substitution of the entire Section 3 with the following:
SECTION 3. THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AS THE CENTRAL PERSONNEL AGENCY OF THE GOVERNMENT, SHALL ESTABLISH A CAREER SERVICE AND ADOPT MEASURES TO PROMOTE MORALE, EFFICIENCY, INTEGRITY, RESPONSIVENESS, PROGRESSIVENESS, AND COURTESY IN THE CIVIL SERVICE. IT SHALL STRENGTHEN THE MERIT AND REWARDS SYSTEM, INTEGRATE ALL HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS FOR ALL LEVELS AND RANKS, AND INSTITUTIONALIZE A MANAGEMENT CLIMATE CONDUCIVE TO PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY. IT SHALL SUBMIT TO THE PRESIDENT AND THE CONGRESS AN ANNUAL REPORT ON ITS PERSONNEL PROGRAMS.AMENDMENT OF MR. DE LOS REYES
As proposed by Mr. de los Reyes and accepted by the Sponsor, the Body approved the inclusion of an additional section to read as follows:
SECTION — THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OR THE LEGISLATURE SHALL PROVIDE FOR THE STANDARDIZATION OF COMPENSATION OF GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES, INCLUDING THOSE IN GOVERNMENT-OWNED OR CONTROLLED CORPORATIONS, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE NATURE OF THE RESPONSIBILITIES PERTAINING TO, AND THE QUALIFICATIONS REQUIRED FOR, THE POSITIONS CONCERNED.Mr. de los Reyes stated that with the approval of Mrs. Quesada's amendment giving protection to temporary employees, there must also be a Constitutional provision giving similar protection to all other kinds of employees.
At this juncture, Mr. Lerum objected to the amendment on the ground that a similar provision in the 1973 Constitution had been used to deprive the government workers of their right to organize and ask for concessions.
Mr. Foz explained that the Committee has accepted Mr. Ople's amendment giving government workers the right to organize.
With this explanation, Mr. Lerum withdrew his objection.
Submitted to a vote, there being no objection, the amendment was approved by the Body.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. DE LOS REYES
Thereupon, Mr. de los Reyes proposed to include NO SALARY OR ANY FORM OF EMOLUMENT OF ANY PUBLIC OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE INCLUDING CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM THE PAYMENT OF INCOME TAX, as an additional proviso in his approved amendment.
However, he acceded to Mr. Davide's request to defer the consideration of his proposal to give way to the report of the Committee on General Provisions.
TERMINATION OF THE PERIOD OF AMENDMENTS
Thereafter, on motion of Mr. Davide, there being no objection, the Body closed the Period of Amendments.
APPROVAL ON SECOND READING OF ARTICLE XII — THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS, SUBDIVISSON A — THE COMMON PROVISIONS AND SUBDIVISION B — THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
Thereafter, submitted to a vote and with 25 Members voting in favor and none against, the Body approved, on Second Reading, Article XII - The Constitutional Commissions, as amended, Subdivision A — Common Provisions, and Subdivision B — The Civil Service Commission.
ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 523
At this juncture, Mr. Bengzon brought to the attention of the Body proposed Resolution No. 523 introduced by the Honorable Minda Luz Quesada expressing the sincere condolence of the Constitutional Commission on the death of the father of the Honorable Rene V. Sarmiento, which title and text read as follows:
RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THE SINCERE CONDOLENCE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION OF 1986 ON THE DEATH OF THE FATHER OF THE HONORABLE RENE V. SARMIENTOOn motion of Mr. Bengzon, there being no objection, Resolution No. 523 was adopted by the Body
RESOLVED BY THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION OF 1986 to express, as it hereby expresses, deep sorrow and sympathy, over the passing of Retired Fiscal Juan A. Sarmiento, Sr., father of the Honorable Rene V. Sarmiento, Commissioner in the Constitutional Commission of 1986.
RESOLVED FURTHER, To furnish and transmit to the bereaved family of the deceased, a copy of the Resolution upon its adoption.
TERMINATION OF THE PERIOD OF SPONSORSHIP AND DEBATE ON PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 469
On motion of Mr. Davide; there being no objection ,the period of sponsorship and debate on Proposed Resolution No. 469 on the Commission on Audit was closed by the Body.
ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION
Thereafter , on motion of Mr. Davide, there being no objection, the Chair declared the session adjourned until nine-thirty in the morning of the following day.
It was 8:34 p.m.
I hereby certify to the correctness of the foregoing.
Secretary-General
ATTESTED:
(SGD.) CECILIA MUÑOZ PALMA
President
Approved on July 16, 1986