Supreme Court E-Library
Information At Your Fingertips

  View printer friendly version

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 Mr. Napoleon G. Rama, to wit:

Almighty God, there are those who call into question the value of a new Constitution as an instrument to change a system and reform society. There are those who scoff at what they believe the exaggerated importance attached to the appointive Constitutional Commission as a solver of the national problems.

So horrible and entrenched are the evils in our system and society that it ought to be obvious that it takes more than words and pious incantation of principles on a piece of paper, however elegantly strung together, to exorcise them.

Have we not perhaps, through our public hearings and press releases, set so lofty a goal, and thus set up the people for so crushing a letdown? Are we making a Constitution and building an illusion?

I was beginning, Lord, to have doubts myself about the soundness of the formula of constitution-making as an instrument of national reform and redemption. But I remember that You, too, had a formula for reforming man and saving mankind.

I recall, Lord, that when you decided to recreate man in Your image and recover for him his lost Eden, You sent Your only Son to this world. And the first thing He did was to revise the old laws of Moses and introduced new doctrines. He wrote a new Constitution, now known as the New Testament.

The New Testament, Your new Constitution bearing Your Son's words and ideas, transfigured, ennobled and saved man. Constitution-making was also Your procedure for bringing reform and salvation to mankind.

We ask You now, Lord, let this new Constitution that we are now writing in this hall be the New Testament for the Filipino.

Amen.   

ROLL CALL

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

Aquino, F. S.	Nolledo, J. N.
Bacani, T. C.	Ople, B. F.
Bennagen, P. L.	Padilla, A. B.
Bernas, J. G.	Muñoz Palma, C.
Rosario Braid, F.	Quesada, M. L. M.
Calderon, J. D.	Rama, N. G.
De Castro, C. M.	Regalado, F. D.
Concepcion, R. R.	De los Reyes, R. F.
Davide, H. G.	Rigos, G. A.
Foz, V. B.	Rodrigo, F. A.
Gascon, J. L. M. C.	Romulo, R. J.
Guingona, S. V. C.	Rosales, D. R.
Jamir, A. M. K.	Sarmiento, R. V.
Laurel, J. B.	Sumulong, L. M.
Maambong, R. E.	Tan, C.
Monsod, C. S.	Treñas, E. B.
Natividad, T. C.	Uka, L. L.
Nieva, M. T. F.	Villacorta, W. V.

With 36 Members present, the Chair declared the presence of a quorum.

The following Members appeared after the Roll Call: 

Abubakar, Y. R.	Colayco, J. C.
Alonto, A. D.	Garcia, E. G.
Azcuna, A. S.	Lerum, E. R.
Bengzon, J. F. S.	Suarez, J. E.
Brocka, L. O.	Tadeo, J. S. L.

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. Calderon, 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, with the correction, at the instance of Mr. de los Reyes on page 263, column 2, paragraph 3, line 1, to change the word "normal" to USUAL.

REFERENCE OF BUSINESS

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

REFERRAL TO COMMITTEES OF RESOLUTIONS

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

Proposed Resolution No. 524, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION ON THE RIGHTS AND ROLE OF PEOPLE'S ORGANIZATIONS

Introduced by Honorable Garcia

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

Proposed Resolution No. 525, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION A PROVISION ON THE RIGHT OF ALL CITIZENS TO DECENT SHELTER

Introduced by Honorable Garcia

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

Proposed Resolution No. 526, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION AN ARTICLE FOR THE SYNCHRONIZATION OF NATIONAL ELECTIONS

Introduced by Honorable Guingona

TO THE COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS AND AGENCIES

Proposed Resolution No. 527, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION AN ARTICLE PROVIDING FOR NATIONAL/LOCAL ELECTIONS IN 1987

Introduced by Honorable Guingona

TO THE COMMITTEE ON AMENDMENTS AND TRANSITORY PROVISIONS

Proposed Resolution No. 528, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION AN ARTICLE TO RESTRICT INSTANCES WHEN THE STATE MAY ENGAGE IN BUSINESS ENDEAVORS

Introduced by Honorable Guingona

TO THE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY

Proposed Resolution No. 529, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION AN ARTICLE ON THE RATIFICATION OF THE DRAFT CONSTITUTION

Introduced by Honorable Guingona

TO THE COMMITTEE ON AMENDMENTS AND TRANSITORY PROVISIONS

COMMUNICATIONS
Communication No. 204 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from the Philippine Chamber of Health signed by Dr. Eduardo R. de la Cruz, proposing provisions on health in the preamble, declaration of principles and state policies, bill of rights, and general provisions

TO THE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL JUSTICE

Communication No. 205 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Deputy Minister Carmelo C. Noriel, Ministry of Labor and Employment, submitting the position paper of the Ministry on the subjects of profit-sharing, workers' participation in decision-making and compulsory arbitration

TO THE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL JUSTICE

Communication No. 206 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from the Honorable Commissioner Ahmad Domocao Alonto; transmitting Special Resolution No. 6-27, series of 1986, of Daaron Nadwatol Islamia, petitioning the Commission to include the rights of the Muslims of Southern Philippines for an autonomous government

TO THE COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

Communication No. 207 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Communication from Mr. Willie B. Dazo of 14 Don Matias Street, Don Antonio Heights, Quezon City, proposing the inclusion of a provision on the right to bear arms

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

Communication No. 208 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Campaign for a Sovereign Philippines signed by Ms. Ma. Socorro I. Diokno, Ms. Loretta Ann P. Rosales, Messrs. Butch Abad and Efren C. Moncupa, and Rev. Elmo Gideon Manapat, calling for a ban from Philippine soil of all military bases and nuclear weapons and power plants

TO THE COMMITTEE ON GENERAL PROVISIONS

Communication No. 209 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Mr. Jose Mari C. Gonzales, Officer-in-Charge, Bureau of Broadcasts, Ministry of Information, proposing the inclusion of a provision on the right to bear arms

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

Communication No. 210 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Ms. Delia Rarela-Barcelona for the Association for Non-Traditional Education, recommending the consideration of the need for alternative learning systems, along the lines of non-traditional education

TO THE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

Communication No. 211 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from TransProResources Corporation signed by Rene S. Santiago, proposing a general provision for a balanced budget

TO THE COMMITTEE ON GENERAL PROVISIONS

Communication No. 212 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from General Fidel V. Ramos, Chief of Staff, Armed Forces of the Philippines, submitting the NAFP position on the Constitution

TO THE COMMITTEE ON GENERAL PROVISIONS

Communication No. 213 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Ms. Lily A. Rubio of the Ministry of Information, NCR, endorsing a proposal of Mr. Federico R. Co of Anahaw Street, Project 7, Quezon City, for the grant of old age pension to 70 years old and above citizens

TO THE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL JUSTICE

Communication No. 214 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry signed by Mr. Aurelio Periquet, Jr., submitting proposals on private enterprise

TO THE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY

COMMITTEE REPORT
Committee Report No. 29 submitted by the Committee on Human Resources,

Re: EDUCATION

Proposed Resolutions Nos. 77, 102, 104, 451 (Davide), 114, 276, 303, 471 (Quesada), 106, 130, 416, 441 (Guingona), 134,162, 163, 206, 166, 387 (Rosario Braid), 168 (Sarmiento), 220, 335 (Villacorta), 252 (Tingson), 278 (Nolledo), 289 (Bacani), 311 (Gascon), 417, 418 (Tan), 327 (Suarez)

ARTS AND CULTURE

Proposed Resolutions Nos. 71 (Brocka), 299 (Tingson)

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Proposed Resolutions Nos. 177 (Rosario Braid), 222 (Quesada)

NATIONAL LANGUAGE

Proposed Resolution No. 286 (Uka)

CULTURAL COMMUNITIES

Proposed Resolutions Nos. 298, 300, 301 (Tingson), 346, 465 (Bennagen)

Sponsors: Hon. Villacorta, Uka, Guingona, Quesada, Rigos, Brocka, Bennagen, Tan, Rosario Braid, Gascon and Treñas

TO THE STEERING COMMITTEE

UNFINISHED BUSINESS: COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 20 ON PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 469

On motion of Mr. Rama, there being no objection, the Body proceeded to the continuation of consideration of Committee Report No. 20 on Proposed Resolution No. 469 (Period of Amendments), entitled:

Resolution providing for the provisions on the Commission on Audit in the new Constitution.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

At this juncture, the Chair suspended the session.

It was 9:48 a.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 9:53 a.m., the session was resumed.

Upon resumption of session, Mr. Rama stated that the parliamentary status would be the period of amendments.

Upon request of Mr. Rama, the Chair recognized Messrs. Foz, Monsod and Jamir to collaborate for the sponsorship.

PROPOSED SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT OF MR. NOLLEDO

On page 1, Mr. Nolledo proposed an amendment by substitution for Section 2(1) to read:

SECTION 2. (1) THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT SHALL HAVE THE POWER AND AUTHORITY TO EXAMINE, AUDIT, AND SETTLE ALL ACCOUNTS PERTAINING TO THE REVENUE AND RECEIPTS OF, AND EXPENDITURES OR USES OF FUNDS AND PROPERTY, OWNED OR HELD IN TRUST BY, OR PERTAINING TO, THE GOVERNMENT, OR ANY OF ITS SUBDIVISIONS, AGENCIES, OR INSTRUMENTALITIES, INCLUDING GOVERNMENT-OWNED AND CONTROLLED CORPORATIONS AND THEIR SUBSIDIARIES AND SUCH NON-GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES RECEIVING SUBSIDY OR EQUITY, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, FROM OR THROUGH THE GOVERNMENT.

Mr. Nolledo explained 1) that the entities mentioned in (a) and (b) of Section 2(1), lines 27 to 30, really fall under the category of "government" and 2) the deletion of "post-audit basis" is necessary because time may come when circumstances may warrant the need of a pre-audit.

Mr. Nolledo also proposed to delete the clause "which are required by law or the granting institution to submit to such audit as a condition of subsidy or equity" on lines 34 to 36 on the ground that said clause is restrictive because in the absence of a law or condition from the granting institution the non-governmental entities concerned may not be required to submit to such audit. He maintained that as long as public funds are involved, the COA should not be deprived of its power to audit.

Replying thereto, Mr. Monsod explained that the Committee made an exception because there are certain institutions within the government itself which by the nature of their functions would be hampered by pre-audit procedures and that it is a trade-off between limiting the COA to post-audit and hampering its functions with pre-audit procedures. He said that with pre-audit procedures present, there could be a little dictator who could inquire into the merits of the decision itself of the Board of Directors of a government corporation.

Mr. Monsod also pointed out that, looking at the performance of COA, over 90% of the anomalies were unearthed on a post-audit basis and the reason for so many anomalies during the Marcos regime was not because of the absence of a pre-audit or post-audit function but because the whole system prevented the COA from the normal exercise of its functions. He stressed that under normal circumstances, the post- audit is a very effective tool as well as a very effective deterrent, although there is a need to balance it against the normal day-to-day operations of corporations which must necessarily involve huge amounts of money. He, however, stated that the Committee would be prepared to accept an amendment granting the COA appropriate measures necessary to correct deficiencies within its system, including the use of temporary pre-audit procedures which would serve as a balance between the normal operations of government corporations and the watchdog function of the COA.

He stated that it would be a good compromise if the COA were given special powers to look into the operations of the company, to correct the deficiency and to initiate temporary measures, including pre-audit.

On whether government funds which were invested in non-governmental entities would be exempt from audit in the absence of a law requiring such audit or failure on the part of the granting institution to set it as a condition of subsidy or equity, Mr. Monsod explained that the provision would oblige granting institutions and government financial institutions to put conditions on the grant of subsidy or equity. He raised the problem of "grandfather equity" which happens, for instance, when a government financial institution, like the Philippine National Bank, puts a ten percent equity in a bank which, in turn, invests a ten percent equity in a certain company. He pointed out that under this kind of relationship, the specific destination of funds could not be determined, in which case the COA has to look into the entire operations of the third party which is the company. This procedure, Mr. Monsod stated, would discourage operations and have a stifling effect under which business may not flourish. Since the intention is to correct the abuses of the past, he cautioned against creating new opportunities for abuse. He stressed though that if the situation in the past was very bad, it was because the system was not allowed to function

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS OF MR. GUINGONA

Before presenting his proposed amendments, Mr. Guingona stressed that public funds should be protected, which protection should be done by the Commission on Audit, the watchdog of the people's money. He likewise stated that there is always the logical presumption that public officials would perform their duties in accordance with law. With respect to the so-called "grandfather equity", he pointed out the fact that equity could run into millions which needs to be safeguarded.

Mr. Guingona also called attention to the wordings of Section 2(1)(b) and suggested the change of the words "autonomous educational institutions" to AUTONOMOUS STATE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES so as not to leave any doubt that what are referred to are public and not private educational institutions.

Thereupon, Mr. Guingona read Section 2 incorporating therewith his proposed amendments, to wit:

SECTION. 2.  (1) THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT SHALL HAVE THE EXCLUSIVE POWER AND AUTHORITY TO EXAMINE, AUDIT, AND SETTLE ALL ACCOUNTS PERTAINING TO THE REVENUE AND RECEIPTS OF, AND EXPENDITURES OR USES OF FUNDS AND PROPERTY, OWNED OR HELD IN TRUST BY, OR PERTAINING TO, THE GOVERNMENT, OR ANY OF ITS SUBDIVISIONS, AGENCIES, OR INSTRUMENTALITIES, INCLUDING ON A POST-AUDIT BASIS: (A) CONSTITUTIONAL BODIES, COMMISSIONS AND OFFICES THAT HAVE BEEN GRANTED FISCAL AUTONOMY UNDER THIS CONSTITUTION, (B) AUTONOMOUS STATE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES, (C) GOVERNMENT-OWNED OR CONTROLLED CORPORATIONS AND THEIR SUBSIDIARIES, AND (D) SUCH NON-GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES RECEIVING SUBSIDY OR EQUITY, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, FROM OR THROUGH THE GOVERNMENT: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT IN THE INSTANCES ENUMERATED WHERE THE INTERNAL CONTROL SYSTEM OF THE AUDITED AGENCIES IS INADEQUATE, THE COMMISSION MAY ADOPT SUCH MEASURES INCLUDING TEMPORARY OR SPECIAL PRE-AUDIT AS ARE NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE TO CORRECT THE DEFICIENCIES.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

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

It was 10:15 a.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 10:35 a.m., the session was resumed.

AMENDMENT OF MR. GUINGONA

Upon resumption of session, Mr. Guingona stated that upon consultation with the members of the Committee, he was deleting the word "exclusive" in his previous proposal because the COA has the preponderant power and authority to examine, audit and to settle accounts of government, so that his proposed amendment on Section 2(1) would consist, on page 1, line 30, in the deletion of the words "educational institutions" and the insertion in lieu thereof of the words STATE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES and on line 36, after the period (.) after "equity", the insertion of the following proviso: PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT WHERE THE INTERNAL CONTROL SYSTEM OF THE AUDITED AGENCIES IS INADEQUATE, THE COMMISSION MAY ADOPT SUCH MEASURES INCLUDING TEMPORARY OR SPECIAL PRE-AUDIT AS ARE NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE TO CORRECT THE DEFICIENCIES.

Mr. Guingona then restated the entire Section 2(1) to read:

THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT SHALL HAVE THE POWER AND AUTHORITY TO EXAMINE, AUDIT AND SETTLE ALL ACCOUNTS PERTAINING TO THE REVENUE AND RECEIPTS OF, AND EXPENDITURES OR USES OF FUNDS AND PROPERTY, OWNED OR HELD IN TRUST BY, OR PERTAINING TO, THE GOVERNMENT, OR ANY OF ITS SUBDIVISIONS, AGENCIES, OR INSTRUMENTALITIES, INCLUDING ON A POST-AUDIT BASIS: (A) CONSTITUTIONAL BODIES, COMMISSIONS AND OFFICES THAT HAVE BEEN GRANTED FISCAL AUTONOMY UNDER THIS CONSTITUTION; (B) AUTONOMOUS STATE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES; (C) GOVERNMENT-OWNED OR CONTROLLED CORPORATIONS AND THEIR SUBSIDIARIES; AND (D) SUCH NON-GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES RECEIVING SUBSIDY OR EQUITY, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, FROM OR THROUGH THE GOVERNMENT, WHICH ARE REQUIRED BY LAW OR THE GRANTING INSTITUTION TO SUBMIT TO SUCH AUDIT AS A CONDITION OF SUBSIDY OR EQUITY; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT WHERE THE INTERNAL CONTROL SYSTEM OF THE AUDITED AGENCIES IS INADEQUATE, THE COMMISSION MAY ADOPT SUCH MEASURES INCLUDING TEMPORARY OR SPECIAL PRE-AUDIT AS ARE NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE TO CORRECT THE DEFICIENCIES. IT SHALL KEEP THE GENERAL ACCOUNTS OF THE GOVERNMENT AND, FOR SUCH PERIOD AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW, PRESERVE THE VOUCHERS PERTAINING THERETO.

The Committee accepted the proposed amendment but with the insertion of a comma (,) between "including" and "on" on line 7.

There being no objection, the proposed amendment of Mr. Guingona as modified by the Committee was approved by the Body.

AMENDMENTS OF MR. OPLE, JOINTLY WITH MESSRS. RAMA, NOLLEDO AND GUINGONA

As proposed by Mr. Ople and accepted by the Sponsor, on page 1, line 22, the Body approved the deletion of the word "and" between "power" and "authority", and the insertion of the words AND DUTY between "authority" and "to".

Mr. Ople then proposed to insert a new Section 4 read as follows:

SECTION 4.   NO LAW SHALL BE PASSED EXEMPTING ANY ENTITY OF THE GOVERNMENT OR ITS SUBSIDIARY IN ANY GUISE WHATEVER, OR ANY INVESTMENTS OF PUBLIC FUNDS FROM THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT.

Mr. Ople explained that his second proposal was prompted by the fact that in the past a number of entities, like the Philippine National Oil Company and the United Coconut Planters Bank, took advantage of the absence of the Legislature in obtaining exemption, through presidential decrees, from the jurisdiction of COA.

The Sponsor accepted the proposed amendment.

In reply to Mr. de Castro's observation that the proposal was already covered by Section 2(1) which provides for the audit of "government-owned and controlled corporations", so that any law which would exempt said corporations from audit would be unconstitutional, Mr. Jamir stated that the intention of the proposal is to avoid instances in the past when despite the provision in the 1973 Constitution, presidential decrees were issued to exempt some corporations from audit.

Furthermore, Mr. Monsod adverted to the deletion in the proposal of Mr. Guingona of the word "exclusive" on the ground that it may become a disincentive to private investments, since some government institutions have private investments which are also subject to private audit concurrently with COA audit.

There being no objection, the Body approved the proposed amendment of Mr. Ople.

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 7, between "Bar" and "for", insert the phrase WHO HAVE BEEN ENGAGED IN THE PRACTICE OF LAW;
2.	line 8, between "years" and the period (.), insert the phrase AND MUST NOT HAVE BEEN CANDIDATES FOR ANY ELECTIVE POSITION IN THE ELECTION IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THEIR APPOINTMENT;
3.	line 4, delete the letter "s" in "appointments"; and on line 5, delete the word "and" before "certified"; and
4.	on line 17, delete the word "thereafter".

AMENDMENT OF MR. MAAMBONG

As proposed by Mr. Maambong, and accepted by the Sponsor, the Body approved, on page 1, line 11, between the words "President" and "for", the insertion of the phrase WITH THE CONSENT OF THE COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS; and on lines 12 and 13, to delete the sentence "Appointments to the Commission need no confirmation."

AMENDMENT OF MR. DE LOS REYES

As proposed by Mr. de los Reyes, and accepted by the Sponsor, the Body approved on page 1, line 19, between the words "appointed" and "in", the insertion of the words OR DESIGNATED.

AMENDMENT OF MR. SARMIENTO AS AMENDED BY MESSRS. OPLE AND REGALADO

Thereafter, Mr. Sarmiento proposed, on page 2, line 3, to delete "and extent" after "scope"; on line i, to delete the words "and establish" after "formulate", and the words "and methods" after "techniques "; on line 7, to delete the comma (,) after "irregular" and the words "unnecessary, excessive", and in lieu thereof to insert the word AND; and on line 8, to add the word AND after "funds".    

Mr. Sarmiento pointed out that the words he proposed to delete were redundant and that the Constitution must be simple but comprehensive.

At this juncture, Ms. Aquino interposed her objection to Mr. Sarmiento's proposal on the ground that the concepts "irregular, unnecessary, excessive and extravagant" had already been subjected to thorough debate in the Supreme Court and the jurisprudence laid down on such matters should be preserved.

In view thereof, Mr. Sarmiento manifested that he was withdrawing his proposal.

Thereupon, Mr. Ople stated that before the withdrawal, he would propose to amend Mr. Sarmiento's amendment so as to insert OR UNCONSCIONABLE after "extravagant".

Mr. Sarmiento accepted the amendment.

Mr. Padilla manifested that the phrase "irregular, unnecessary, excessive or extravagant expenditures" appeared both in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions. He opined that the phrase "irregular and extravagant" is objectionable because the preposition used in the previous Constitutions was "or" which is alternative whereas "and" is cumulative, thereby making it appear that the requirements of irregularity and extravagance must concur.

Thereupon, Mr. Sarmiento agreed to retain all the words in the alternative. He also acceded to Mr. Regalado's proposal to delete the words "formulate and" and to retain the word "establish" in the light of the latter's explanation that one cannot establish unless he has previously formulated the techniques.

Thereafter, Mr. Sarmiento read the final version of his proposed amendment, as modified by Messrs. Padilla, Ople and Regalado, and accepted by the Sponsor, to wit:

SECTION 3. THE COMMISSION SHALL HAVE EXCLUSIVE AUTHORITY, SUBJECT TO THE LIMITATIONS IN THIS ARTICLE, TO DEFINE THE SCOPE OF ITS AUDIT AND EXAMINATION, ESTABLISH THE TECHNIQUES AND METHODS REQUIRED THEREFOR, AND PROMULGATE ACCOUNTING AND AUDITING RULES AND REGULATIONS INCLUDING THOSE FOR THE PREVENTION AND DISALLOWANCE OF IRREGULAR, UNNECESSARY, EXCESSIVE, EXTRAVAGANT OR UNCONSCIONABLE EXPENDITURES OR USES OF GOVERNMENT FUNDS AND PROPERTIES.

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

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. DAVIDE

On Section 2, page 2, Mr. Davide proposed to rewrite lines 5 and 6 to read as follows: REQUIRED THEREFOR, PRESCRIBE AND PROMULGATE AN ACCOUNTING SYSTEM RELATIVE THERETO AND AUDITING RULES AND REGULATIONS INCLUDING THOSE FOR THE DETERMINATION AND PREVENTION . . .

Reacting thereto, Mr. Monsod stated that the addition of the word "prescribe" would mean the COA would have to undertake a massive undertaking of prescribing and promulgating the accounting and auditing systems of all institutions when actually such institutions could design their own systems within the ambit of COA's rules and regulations.

With this understanding, Mr. Davide withdrew the word "prescribe" from his proposal but insisted on approval of the rest.

In reply to Mr. Monsod's query on the meaning of “accounting system”, Mr. Davide explained that with his amendment COA would prescribe only the general principles.

Thereupon, Mr. Davide accepted Mr. Monsod's proposal to change "system" with PRINCIPLES.

At this juncture, Mr. de los Reyes proposed an amendment to Mr. Davide's amendment by rewording the lines to read: AND ADOPT ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES AND PROMULGATE AUDITING RULES AND REGULATIONS.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

At this juncture, the Chair suspended the session.

It was 11:14 a.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 11:18 a.m., the session was resumed.

Upon resumption of session, Mr. Davide withdrew his proposed amendment.

AMENDMENTS OF MR. DAVIDE

As proposed by Mr. Davide and accepted by the Sponsor, the Body approved the following amendments

1.	On Section 2, line 11, substitute "Congress" with NATIONAL ASSEMBLY: and
2.	As modified by Mr. Azcuna, on Section 3, line 15, add AND SUCH NON-GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES SUBJECT TO ITS AUDIT after the word "corporations".

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. DAVIDE

Mr. Davide proposed on Section 3, line 17, to insert after "effectiveness" AND THE PROSECUTION OF PARTIES FOUND LIABLE FOR MALFEASANCE AND MISFEASANCE IN THE USE OF FUNDS OR PROPERTIES HEREIN REFERRED TO.

On Mr. Foz's query whether the COA would now be given the power to prosecute, Mr. Davide stated that it could only recommend such prosecution, it being the first entity to discover the malfeasance or misfeasance.

Mr. Regalado then proposed an amendment to the proposed amendment to delete the word “found”, which Mr. Davide accepted.

In reply to Mr. Rodrigo's query whether the National Assembly would be prosecuting cases since the report would be submitted to it and the President, Mr. Davide stated that COA’s annual report may contain recommendations for the prosecution of cases relevant to which the National Assembly could pass measures.

However, Mr. Rodrigo maintained that COA could prosecute cases periodically and does not have to do it once through the annual report.

In addition thereto, Mr. Maambong commented that there is something wrong when the procedure includes in the annual report the names of persons who have not yet been convicted of crimes.

Mr. Davide stressed that his idea is precisely to give COA the power to initiate or encourage the prosecution arm of the government to initiate prosecution since it can determine those who are liable for malfeasance or misfeasance through its process of inquiry and verification.  

Mr. Monsod rejected the proposal for the reasons that 1) it is an inherent power of the Commission to make such recommendation; 2) the prosecution need not be done at the end of the year; and 3) the names of those not yet found guilty of malfeasance or misfeasance need not be included in the report.

Mr. Padilla observed that the terms "malfeasance" and "misfeasance" are vague and general because the Revised Penal Code does not use them in relation to crimes committed by public officers, but rather to crimes against public administration.

Mr. Davide contended that "malfeasance" and "misfeasance" have settled broader jurisprudential meaning unlike the specific provisions of the Penal Code which could be amended any time.

Thereafter, Mr. Davide's proposal was submitted to a vote and with 5 Members voting in favor and 22 against, the Chair declared the same as lost.

AMENDMENT OF MR. DAVIDE

As proposed by Mr. Davide and accepted by the Sponsor, the Body approved the deletion of the entire Section 4 for the reason that it is already included in the Common Provisions.

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS OF MR. GUINGONA

Mr. Guingona proposed the addition of two new sections, the first to read as follows:

SECTION ___.  PRIVATE AUDITING FIRMS MAY NOT EXAMINE OR AUDIT ACCOUNTS PERTAINING TO THE REVENUE AND RECEIPTS OF, AND EXPENDITURES OR USES OF FUNDS AND PROPERTY OWNED OR HELD IN TRUST BY OR PERTAINING TO THE GOVERNMENT OR ANY OF ITS SUBDIVISIONS, AGENCIES OR INSTRUMENTALITIES.

Mr. Guingona explained that he wanted to establish through his proposed amendment the general principle that private auditing firms should not be allowed to look into government accounting records and funds. He maintained that audit by private firms may be allowed only when an urgent need for it arises.

Reacting thereto, Mr. Monsod stated that Mr. Guingona's proposal assumes that there would be no need for entities other than those listed to allow audit by private auditing firms. He pointed out, however, that for government agencies, instrumentalities and subdivisions which had borrowed money from foreign sources, the possibility of concurrent auditing by private firms should not be precluded.

On the matter of auditing fees, Mr. Monsod stated that these are negotiable and governed by certain professional auditing regulations which may not be transcended by an auditing firm. He cited the need for flexibility so that procedural requirements would not impede financial transactions.

Mr. Guingona informed that the proposed provision would have a qualifier "or as may be provided by law" added to it. He reiterated his objection to allowing private auditing firms to examine the books of account of the Government, which, he stressed, should only be reviewed and examined by the government auditors.

Mr. Monsod, on behalf of the Committee, did not accept the proposed amendment.

Submitted to a vote, and with 6 Members voting in favor and 27 against, the amendment was lost.

Thereafter, Mr. Guingona submitted his second amendment, to wit:

SECTION ___.NON-GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES RECEIVING SUBSIDY OR EQUITY EQUIVALENT TO THREE-FOURTHS OF THEIR PAID-UP CAPITAL, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, SHALL BE SUBJECT TO TEMPORARY OR SPECIAL PRE-AUDIT IN CASES WHERE THE INTERNAL CONTROL SYSTEM OF THE SAID ENTITY OR ENTITIES IS INADEQUATE.

Mr. Guingona reasoned that a lot of government money are channelled into non-governmental entities and though post-audit may discover any irregular, extravagant and unconscionable use of such money, the money lost would be difficult to retrieve. He concurred with Mr. Monsod's view that pre-audit would not be needed when the amount involved is insubstantial but when the amounts run to millions or even billions of pesos, COA should be allowed to look into, examine and audit the accounts of the recipient non-governmental entities.

In reply to Mr. Monsod's inquiry as to what he would consider to be the minimum percentage or amount, Mr. Guingona stated that in terms of percentage he could amend his proposal to 60 percent. Mr. Monsod noted that in this case any institution, organization or group with a P15,000 equity, 60% of which is owned by the government, could be pre-audited by COA and would require a resident COA auditor, in reply to which, Mr. Guingona reiterated that the pre-audit he envisioned is a temporary or special audit which will not require a resident auditor.

Mr. Monsod then adverted to an amendment to Section 2(1) which would include the subject matter proposed by Mr. Guingona On whether this proposal would be considered an amendment to that amendment, Mr. Guingona explained that he had made a reservation to propose an amendment thereto. He stated that white he accepted the Committee's views, he wanted to bring up his proposal before the Body. He stated that he does not perceive any difficulty or problem with the pre-audit of an entity which is partially or wholly subsidized by the government, but that entities that have something to hide would object to pre-audit.

INQUIRY OF MR. NATIVIDAD

On whether the shift to pre-audit in some cases is based on the concern for government equity or the probability of an irregularity, Mr. Guingona stated that there are two requisites under his proposal, to wit: 1) substantial amount of government equity involved; and 2) that the internal control system of the agency is inadequate or irregular. He confirmed that COA would have the discretion to decide whether or not the internal control of an entity is weak which decision could be challenged in court. He explained that temporary or special pre-audit could be used in some cases to conduct some kind of spot auditing to determine the extent of the irregularities.

Mr. Monsod stated that the proposed amendment as formulated would allow the National Assembly to provide the details for a law which would cover the situation.

Thereafter, Mr. Guingona restated his amendment to wit: NON-GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES RECEIVING SUBSIDY OR EQUITY EQUIVALENT TO SIXTY PERCENT OF THEIR PAID-UP CAPITAL PROVIDED THAT THE AMOUNT INVOLVED IS NOT LESS THAN ONE MILLION, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, SHALL BE REQUIRED TO BE SUBJECT TO TEMPORARY OR SPECIAL PRE-AUDIT WHERE THE INTERNAL CONTROL SYSTEM OF SUCH ENTITIES IS INADEQUATE.

Submitted to a vote, and with 6 Members voting in favor and 25 against, the amendment was lost.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

The Chair suspended the session until two-thirty in the afternoon.

It was 11:59 a.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 2:48 p.m., the session was resumed.

AMENDMENT OF MR. SARMIENTO

On page 1, line 38, after "thereto", Mr. Sarmiento proposed to add the phrase AND OTHER EVIDENCE SUPPORTING EVERY FINANCIAL TRANSACTION OF THE GOVERNMENT INCLUDING THE ACQUISITION AND DISPOSITION OF PROPERTIES.

MR. SUAREZ' AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT

Mr. Suarez proposed an amendment to the amendment by substituting Mr. Sarmiento's amendment with the words AND OTHER SUPPORTING PAPERS SO that line 38 would read: BY LAW, PRESERVE THE VOUCHERS AND OTHER SUPPORTING PAPERS PERTAINING THERETO.

Mr. Sarmiento accepted the amendment.

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

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. SARMIENTO

On page 2, line 9, after "properties", Mr. Sarmiento proposed to add the sentence: THE COMMISSION SHALL BE EMPOWERED TO ISSUE SUCH OTHER RULES AND REGULATIONS IN PURSUANCE TO ITS OBJECTIVES AND TO IMPOSE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW REASONABLE PENALTIES FOR THE VIOLATION THEREOF.

On Mr. Regalado's request for clarification on the sanctions envisioned by the proponent to be imposed in accordance with law, Mr. Sarmiento stated that it would be purely administrative sanctions.

Relative thereto, Mr. Monsod stated that perhaps the Body could assume that the power sought to be granted is inherent since COA can promulgate such other rules and regulations necessary to accomplish its purpose.

Mr. Regalado also stated that the auditing laws already provide for both administrative and penal sanctions and that it would be better to leave it to the law.

Thereupon, Mr. Sarmiento withdrew his amendment.

INQUIRY OF MR. SUAREZ

In reply to Mr. Suarez' query on whether the institutions enumerated in Section 2(1) would not be subject to regular audit, Mr. Monsod stated that where the internal control system of these institutions is inadequate, COA may adopt such measures, including temporary or special pre-audit, as are necessary to correct the deficiency. He stated that this would not, contrary to Mr. Suarez' observation, be a class legislation, because a post-audit is a regular audit; besides, COA would merely acknowledge certain distinctions with respect to institutions which, if pre-audit procedure were applied, would have difficulty in their operations.

On the reasons why the Committee recommended doing away with pre-audit procedures in the institutions enumerated, Mr. Monsod explained 1) that pre-audit in these institutions would defeat the purpose of fiscal autonomy for constitutional bodies; 2) it would hamper the operations of the state educational institutions; and 3) normal operations of government-owned and controlled corporations involve amounts in excess of P500,000 which is exempt from pre-audit which can cause undue delay.

Mr. Monsod stressed that post-audit is a deterrent in itself, although this was abused in the past years by not allowing the system to operate normally.

Finally, on whether he would have no objection to the suggestion to constitutionalize the phrase "post-audit basis", Mr. Monsod opined that there are enough safeguards and enough powers given to the COA to fulfill its duties and obligations.    

TERMINATION OF PERIOD OF AMENDMENTS

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

APPROVAL ON SECOND READING OF SUBDIVISION D — THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT, ARTICLE XII, CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS

Thereupon, submitted to a vote and with 32 Members voting in favor and none against, the Body approved, on Second Reading, Subdivision D — the Commission on Audit, of Article XII — the Constitutional Commissions, as amended.

CONSIDERATION, ON SECOND READING, OF PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 521

On motion of Mr. Bengzon, there being no objection, the Body proceeded to the consideration, on Second Reading, of Committee Report No. 27 on Proposed Resolution No. 521, entitled:

Resolution to incorporate in the new Constitution the provisions on the Commission on Elections.

At this juncture, Mr. Regalado invited the attention of the Body to a typographical error on page 4, line 21, pointing out that in the word "Elections", the first letter "E" should be in the lower case.

Thereupon, the Chair recognized Mr. Foz to sponsor the measure.

SPONSORSHIP REMARKS OF MR. FOZ

In his remarks, Mr. Foz explained the highlights and basic changes introduced by the Committee, among them 1) the provision on fiscal autonomy which had already been provided for in the Common Provisions, 2) the provision making the COMELEC the sole judge of all contests relating to the election returns and qualifications of all elective provincial, city, municipal and barangay officials, thereby losing its jurisdiction over election contests involving the Members of the Legislature on the basis of a forthcoming report of the Committee on the Legislative which seeks to recreate the Electoral Tribunal in the Legislature; 3) the provision empowering the Commission to deputize, with notice to the President, law enforcement agencies and instrumentalities of the government, including the Armed Forces of the Philippines, for the exclusive purpose of ensuring free, orderly, honest and peaceful elections; 4) the provision referring to registration of political parties, organizations or coalitions, the accreditation of a citizens arm and excepting from registration religious sects and parties which seek to achieve their goals through violence and refuse to uphold the Constitution, which provision would do away with the two-party system installed in the 1973 Constitution; 5) the provision empowering the Commission to file petitions in court upon verified complaint or on its own for inclusion or exclusion of voters from the registry of qualified voters and to investigate, and where appropriate, prosecute cases of violations of election laws; 6) the provision allowing partial block voting; 7) the provision prohibiting political parties, organizations or coalitions registered under the party-list system from being represented in the voters' registration boards, boards of election inspectors, boards of canvassers or other similar bodies although they are entitled to appoint poll watchers in accordance with law; 8) the provision regarding the regulation by the Commission of the enjoyment or utilization of all franchises or permits for the operation of transportation and other public utilities, media of communication or information, and all grants, special privileges or concessions granted by the government or any of its subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations; and 9) the provision allowing the inclusion in the regular or special appropriations of all funds certified by the Commission as necessary to defray the expenses for the holding of regular and special elections, referenda and plebiscites, which should be automatically released upon certification by the Chairman of the Commission.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. MAAMBONG

In his interpellation, Mr. Maambong adverted to the Omnibus Election Code which provides that in cases involving election contests of barangay officials, the original jurisdiction is vested in the Municipal Trial Court, subject to appeal to the Regional Trial Court whose decision would be final; with respect to municipal officials, in the Regional Trial Court whose decision is appealable to the COMELEC; while in the case of provincial and city officials, exclusive jurisdiction is in the COMELEC. On the proposed provision making the COMELEC the sole judge of all cases involving barangay, municipal, provincial and city officials, Mr. Maambong pointed out the difficulty which the COMELEC may encounter. He opined that if cases involving barangay and municipal officials are allowed to be filed in the appropriate courts, these cases would be given the proper consideration.

In reply to the queries of Mr. Regalado, Mr. Maambong affirmed that his proposal would only be with respect to the original jurisdiction as provided for under the Omnibus Election Code.

Mr. Monsod explained that the proposal is based on the provision that the COMELEC has original jurisdiction in these cases. He allayed the fear of lack of personnel to attend to said cases in the light of the recent review of the COMELEC organization which revealed some redundancies within its system, thus, allowing the retraining of redundant personnel for possible appointment as regional election arbiters.

Mr. Maambong, adverting to past experiences, pointed out that normally, in order to supplement the personnel in the regional level, the COMELEC had to send hearing officers, which practice, he opined, destroyed the sanctity of the right of a person to suffrage.

In reply, Mr. Monsod maintained that these hearing officers, who are lawyers, have the expertise and experience in election contests. He asked Mr. Maambong to present his suggestion at the proper time.

In reply to Mr. Regalado's query, Mr. Maambong affirmed that under the present law, decisions of the Regional Trial Courts on appeal from the Municipal Trial Courts are final and executory. He stated that the present setting dilutes the jurisdiction of the COMELEC.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. BACANI

On the initial query of Mr. Bacani, Mr. Foz explained that the term "religious sects" refers to groups or churches. On the rationale of Section 2(5), considering that the word "sects" may mean a minority or a break-away group, Mr. Foz stated that the provision is a takeoff from the constitutional injunction that the separation of the Church and the State shall be inviolable.

Mr. Bacani then suggested that atheists, agnostics and other groups who do not believe in religion be also prohibited from registration with the COMELEC because it would be degrading for the religious sects if said groups would be registered.

In reply, Mr. Foz stated that the matter could be considered during the period of amendments.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. RODRIGO

In reply to Mr. Rodrigo's query on the inconsistency between Section 2(2) and Section 10, Mr. Regalado explained that Section 10 was originally in the Common Provisions but was transferred to the provisions on the COMELEC without incorporating the corrections thereto. He stated that Section 10 should have read as follows: "Decisions, final orders or rulings of the Commission on Elections on election contests involving elective municipal and barangay offices, shall be final and immediately executory." He explained, however, that the decisions involving the provincial and city officials may be appealable to the Supreme Court.

On Mr. Rodrigo's observation that under Section 2(2), the COMELEC shall be the sole judge of all contests, including provincial, city, municipal and barangay elections, Mr. Regalado pointed out that an appeal on certiorari does not diminish the power of the COMELEC as the sole judge of election contest because said appeal would only involve questions of law and jurisdiction.

On Section 2(4) which provides for the deputation of law enforcement agencies to ensure a free, honest and peaceful election, Mr. Rodrigo inquired why the "consent" of the President was changed to mere "notice", in reply to which, Mr. Regalado stated that the 1971 Constitutional Convention required consent of the President in order to let him share the blame for failure to deputize law enforcers in the event he does not give such consent. He added that to avoid delay the Committee opted, as a compromise, that notice to the President would be sufficient.

Furthermore, Mr. Regalado opined that even without such consent, the power of the President as the Commander-in-Chief is not diminished, because if the purpose of the deputation is really meritorious, the President is not expected to object, otherwise it would mean neglect of duty on his part.

Mr. Rodrigo then observed that under the proposal, the deputation could take place even before the President gives his consent and that all that is left for the President is the power to veto such action by the COMELEC, in reply to which, Mr. Regalado maintained that prior notice would inform the President of the need for deputation. He stressed that the COMELEC is not usurping the power of the President because deputation would be done with prior consultation.

INTERPELLATION OF MS. TAN

On Ms. Tan's query regarding the confirmation of the appointment of COMELEC commissioners by the Commission on Appointments, Mr. Monsod stated that in view of the amendments in the provisions on the other Constitutional Commissions, he would consider similar proposals during the period of amendments.

On the reason for reducing the number of members of the COMELEC from 9 to 7, Mr. Monsod explained that the COMELEC itself recommended such reduction because of the difficulty of making decisions when there are many commissioners.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. NOLLEDO

On Section 4, which prohibits harassment and discrimination, Mr. Nolledo observed that there has been no implementing statute on the matter.

On whether criminal or administrative suit could be filed against a candidate during the period of campaign, Mr. Foz stated that it would depend on whether the evidence would warrant the filing of such case, and affirmed that it would constitute harassment when there is no evidence. He pointed out, however, that candidates do not enjoy immunity from suit during the period of campaign.

Mr. Regalado also pointed out that the government or any party could not be prevented from filing a suit, however, the candidate should not be alarmed if he is really innocent, because after all, if the charges are unfounded, the party who filed them could be liable either for malicious prosecution or perjury.

On the suggestion to include persecution in the prohibition, Mr. Regalado stated that in the period of amendments, Mr. Nolledo could propose that the Legislature should pass a law providing for safeguards against harassment and discrimination of candidates.

Mr. Regalado further explained that discrimination could be in the form of deprivation of the right to equal availment of media facilities and electoral relief; while harassment includes the filing of criminal charges and other means calculated to intimidate the candidate.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. SARMIENTO

In reply to Mr. Sarmiento's observation that Section 2(2) is silent as to when the contest shall be filed and when the same shall be resolved and decided by the COMELEC, Mr. Regalado pointed out that although proposals had been presented to fix the period therefor, the Committee decided to leave the matter to the COMELEC because, like the other Constitutional Commissions, it is mandated to promulgate its own rules and procedures to expedite the disposition of election contests. He added, however, that the Supreme Court is called upon to oversee that said rules will grant appropriate remedies.

On the period for resolving cases, Mr. Regalado pointed out that Section 5 of the Common Provisions states that each Commission shall resolve cases within sixty days upon submission.

INTERPELLATION OF MRS. ROSARIO BRAID

In response to Mrs. Rosario Braid's suggestion to provide additional qualifications for members of the COMELEC, such as independence, probity and moral character, Mr. Monsod stated that the matter is addressed to the appointing power who shall consider such qualifications. However, he requested that the suggestion be raised in the period of amendments.

And on the proposed additional criterion of a well-defined government platform or program in the registration of political parties, Mr. Monsod opined that this would only apply to political parties. He stated, however, that the Committee intended to open up the registration to the different sectors who might wish to field their own candidates, in line with its desire to establish a multi-sectoral system.

On the contention that even citizens groups have clearly defined national development programs, Mr. Monsod said that the Commission on Elections; nevertheless, has its own criteria for registration, and that to specify such criteria would exclude other deserving organizations.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. BENNAGEN

In reply to Mr. Bennagen's query on the meaning of "nuisance candidacy", Mr. Monsod stated that the term is defined in the Omnibus Election Code and has acquired a definite interpretation based on jurisprudence. Specifically, on whether an opposition candidate financed by the ruling party could be considered a nuisance candidate, Mr. Monsod affirmed that the definition in said Code is broad enough to cover the situation, although one's candidacy is a nuisance per se if intended to confuse the voters such as by fielding candidates with similar names.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. PADILLA

In reply to Mr. Padilla's suggestion to reword Section 7 to better ensure that all candidates in an election would have equal media. time, space and exposure, Mr. Monsod pointed out that the Committee had even added the clause "including rates, reasonable free space and time allotments for public information campaigns and forums among candidates" in the hope that this would clarify the COMELEC's responsibilities under said Section. He added that the Committee would consider amendments at the proper time.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. SUAREZ

On Mr. Suarez' query whether the word "register" in Section 2(2) means accreditation, Mr. Monsod stated that the COMELEC made a distinction in the sense that accreditation would refer to certain rights, and registration, to the ability to participate in the process; and that registration would be limited to political parties while accreditation could have reference to the Commission's citizens arm.

On the meaning of the phrase "after sufficient publication", Mr. Regalado explained that the matter of publication would be provided in the rules which the COMELEC is authorized to adopt after taking into consideration the geographic, demographic and print media available in the different areas of the country. He added that registration would only be effected upon the presentation of proof of compliance with the publication requirement.

On whether upon presentation of such proof, any political party or organization irrespective of the number of their members would be entitled to rights similarly granted to any other organization, Mr. Monsod stated that the COMELEC's duty in this regard is discretionary rather than ministeral, thus, it would have the discretion on whether or not to register an organization in accordance with the rules and regulations it may adopt.

On the interpretation of the provisions of Section 61 of the Omnibus Election Code, Mr. Monsod stated that the Committee has considered prohibiting, religious organizations and parties which seek to achieve their goals through violence and refuse to uphold the Constitution from being registered as political parties, and adding other exceptions as the Legislature may see fit.   

On the change of the word "subversion" found in the 1973 Constitution to the phrase "refuse to uphold this Constitution", Mr. Foz stated that the latter phrase is broader and includes subversion.

On whether the conjunction "and" in the clause "which seek to achieve their goals through violence and refuse to uphold this Constitution" would mean that the two elements must concur before an application for registration could be denied, Mr. Monsod stated that the Committee has intended to place "or" instead of "and" and that it would welcome an amendment on this at the proper time.

In reply to Mr. Suarez' query on the reason why the prohibition against religious sects or one advocating change of government through violence, which was absent in the 1935 Constitution, was reintroduced in the Committee's proposal, Mr. Foz replied that the purpose is to prevent the possibility that a religious sect may gain political power.

Additionally, Mr. Monsod stated that although it was not considered necessary in 1935, the Committee believes that the provision in the 1973 Constitution should be reintroduced.

Moreover, Mr. Regalado stated that although theocracy may be acceptable in other countries, it is not acceptable in this jurisdiction.

On whether the provision in the Omnibus Election Code relative to the accreditation of the dominant opposition party would preclude the Catholic Church from entering into politics, Mr. Regalado adverted to a specific provision which prohibits the COMELEC from registering religious organizations.

Mr. Monsod added that the Committee did away with the concepts of majority and dominant opposition party. What is prohibited, he stressed, is the registration of religious organizations as a political party, and not of individual priests who may want to run for an elective office.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. NATIVIDAD

In reply to the query of Mr. Natividad, Mr. Monsod stated that the representatives of political parties would function as watchers under the Election Code but disqualified from serving in the board of election inspectors and other boards.

Mr. Natividad noted that in every election, candidates would post or exhibit their propaganda materials in every conceivable place and that after each election, the community at the expense of the government, would have to clean up the mess left behind. COMELEC, he said, would come up with specifications on the campaign materials but such specifications are often violated and well-financed candidates had better chances of displaying their campaign materials. He added that it would be wishful thinking to have the Constitution "recommend to the Legislature efficient means of minimizing election spending" as all other Constitutions have contained such provisions which were never followed. He proposed that it would be better for COMELEC to specify areas where and how the campaign materials can be exhibited as this will give equal opportunity to less-financed candidates and minimize extravagant and unnecessary propaganda.

Mr. Monsod, in reply, stated that Mr. Natividad's proposal partakes of the nature of legislation and putting it in the Constitution would not guarantee that the candidates would not circumvent it. He concurred with Mr. Natividad's opinion that the provision of the Committee on election spending would be difficult to implement but maintained that remaining silent about it would not solve the problem.

Mr. Natividad admitted that such a provision should be in the form of legislation but the Legislature has failed to enact such a law. He then proposed to indicate in the Constitution a need for such a law.

Mr. Monsod responded by stating that the proposal can be submitted and taken up by the Body for consideration at the proper time.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. OPLE

Mr. Monsod, upon inquiry, affirmed that Section 5 would signify a disengagement of the 1986 Constitution from the two-party system as provided for in the 1973 Constitution. As to whether, in view of the provision in Section 5, the political arena would now be open to any political party and would usher in a multi-party system, in lieu of the two-party system, Mr. Monsod maintained that Section 5 recognizes the change in the principle from a two-party system to a multi-party system adding however, that mere prohibition would not give birth to a multi-party system.

Mr. Monsod admitted that Section 5 would in effect remove the constraints on a fully-evolved party system the outcome of which would most probably be a multi-party system.

Mr. Monsod manifested the Committee's willingness to accept Mr. Ople's amendment at the proper time which amendment would clarify the intention of the Committee to promote a freely evolved and open party system or a multi-party system.

As to whether Section 2(5) which empowers the COMELEC to register parties would also empower it to deregister parties upon determination of violations that such parties have committed, Mr. Monsod replied in the affirmative.

On whether political parties which derive their fundamental inspiration and political philosophies from certain religious faiths are embraced within the prohibition for purposes of registering political parties, Mr. Regalado stated that they are not, otherwise, the present political parties which derive their faith from the Catholic religion would also be disqualified.

As to whether, in the event a certain religious sect in order to circumvent the prohibition should decide to form a party of its own, shall be covered by the prohibition, Mr. Monsod answered that the COMELEC can decide based on the evidence if the intention is merely to circumvent the prohibition.

As to what shall be the basis or ground for denial of registration to parties or groups which seek to achieve their goals through violence and refuse to uphold the Constitution, Mr. Regalado stated that the COMELEC will have to adopt certain criteria and guidelines and that this is the reason for the requirement that there be prior, sufficient publication before registration.

As to whether the Partido ng Bayan, once it becomes a full-pledged party and subscribes to the Constitution shall qualify for registration under Section 2(5) even if its platform and program, from a certain ideological point of view will not be too dissimilar from the CPP, Mr. Regalado pointed out that the conjunction "and" in the Section should be "or" such that the whole phrase will read "those which seek to achieve their goals through violence OR refuse to uphold this Constitution". Mr. Regalado stated that under this provision the group, even if it ostensibly offers to uphold the Constitution but its programs seek to achieve their goals through violence, shall be disqualified.

Mr. Ople noted that the burden of proof that any party is not qualified to be registered will have to rest on those who will file complaints. On whether this is the correct reading of the intent of the Committee, Mr. Regalado stated that the people who want to oppose the registration of the party will have to file a verified statement which can be checked by military intelligence if necessary.

Mr. Ople asked if the COMELEC can exercise its power to deregister a party which was found to have violated Section 2(5) which violation has been verified following the observance of due process under the Bill of Rights. Mr. Regalado explained that a distinction must be made as the provision refers to post registration. He stated that if the constitutional breaches were committed in the past or before registration, a distinction must be made as to whether those breaches were in line with the attempt of the party to achieve its goals through violence at which instance COMELEC can deregister the party concerned.

As to whether the draft article of the Committee contains any safeguards against the risks and dangers imposed by future attempts to subvert the national sovereignty through foreign contributions to political parties, Mr. Monsod stated that the constitutional provision does not contain such safeguards although the Omnibus Election Code does

Mr. Monsod expressed the willingness of the Committee to entertain a brief provision concerning this matter in the draft article.

ADDITIONAL REFERENCE OF BUSINESS

On motion of Mr. Romulo, 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 titles of the following Committee Reports which were in turn, referred by the Chair to the Committees hereunder indicated:

Committee Report No. 30 on Proposed Resolution No. 530, prepared by the Committee on Citizenship, Bill of Rights, Political Rights and Obligations and Human Rights, entitled:

RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION AN ARTICLE ON SUFFRAGE,

recommending its approval in substitution of Proposed Resolutions Nos. 8, 99, 161, 246, 370 and 405.

Sponsors: Hon. Laurel, Jr., Bernas, Abubakar, Colayco, Sarmiento, Tadeo, Garcia, Villegas, Rodrigo, Bennagen, Lerum, Bacani, Padilla and Natividad

Committee Report No. 31 on Proposed Resolution No. 531, prepared by the Committee on General Provisions, entitled:

RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO INCORPORATE IN THE CONSTITUTION AN ARTICLE ON GENERAL PROVISIONS AND A SECTION IN THE TRANSITORY PROVISIONS,

recommending its approval in substitution of Proposed Resolutions Nos. 49, 80, 88, 95, 97, 133, 142, 172, 174, 200, 203, 215, 230, 243, 260, 267, 271, 306, 307, 315, 328, 341, 345, 351, 390, 395, 408, 420, 423, 436 and 493.

Sponsors: Hon. Rosario Braid, Bacani, Aquino, De Castro, Foz, Gascon, Maambong, Natividad, Nolledo, Rigos, Uka, Bennagen, Brocka, Davide, Jr., De los Reyes, Jr., Garcia, Guingona, Ople, Quesada, Sarmiento, Suarez, Tadeo, Tan, Treñas, Tingson and Villacorta

TO THE STEERING COMMITTEE

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

The Chair suspended the session.

It was 5:02 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 5:33 p.m., the session was resumed.

TERMINATION OF THE PERIOD OF SPONSORSHIP AND DEBATE

On motion of Mr. Romulo, there being no objection, the Body closed the period of sponsorship and debate and proceeded to the period of amendments.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. MAAMBONG

On Section 1, line 14, Mr. Maambong proposed to add a sentence after the word "years" to read as follows: ONE-THIRD OF THE COMMISSION SHALL BE APPOINTED FROM A LIST OF QUALIFIED PERSONS RECOMMENDED BY OPPOSITION PARTIES.

Mr. Maambong adopted as his explanation the remarks he made during the debate on the Common Provisions, adding that the most serious attack against the previous administration was the perception by many that the COMELEC was manned by the Chairman and the Commissioners who were beholden to the President.   

Mr. Monsod did not accept the proposed amendment and stressed that the COMELEC, being the neutral arbiter of the election process, should be insulated from politics.

Submitted to a vote, and with 5 Members voting in favor and 18 against, the amendment was lost.

AMENDMENTS OF MR. MAAMBONG

As proposed by Mr. Maambong and accepted by the Sponsor, the Body approved the following amendments:

1.	On Section 1(2), line 16, after the word "President", insert the words WITH THE CONSENT OF THE COMMISSION ON APPOINTMENTS; and
2.	On lines 17 and 18, delete the sentence "Appointments to the Commission need no confirmation."

Mr. Monsod manifested for the record that the reason for the inclusion of the original provision was the fear that the COMELEC might be beholden to politicians and the acceptance of the amendment would give importance to the need for checks and balances.

AMENDMENTS OF MR. DAVIDE

As proposed by Mr. Davide and accepted by the Sponsor, the Body approved the following amendments: 

1.	On Section 1(1), line 11, after the word "degree", add a comma (,) and the words AND MUST NOT HAVE BEEN CANDIDATES FOR ANY ELECTIVE POSITION IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ELECTION; and
2.	On line 10, before the word "holders", change the word "and" to a comma (,).

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. DAVIDE

On Section 1(2), line 19, Mr. Davide proposed to insert, after the word "Members", a comma (,) and the words INCLUDING THE CHAIRMAN and then another comma (,).

Mr. Monsod did not accept the proposed amendment on the ground that it would favor only one person and it would, likewise, open the possibility that the present Chairman would serve more than seven years.

Mr. Davide explained that his proposal would give priority to the Chairman to serve a term of seven years. He stressed that his amendment has no reference to the incumbent Chairman, who cannot be reappointed under the 1973 Constitution.

In reply, Mr. Foz informed that he had submitted a proposed provision for inclusion in the Transitory Provisions which would give the incumbent members of the Constitutional Commissions the first priority for appointment under the new Constitution.

On the observation that the proposed provision would destroy the intent of the provision on staggered terms of office, Mr. Foz stated that it would not, because of the fact that some incumbents would be replaced before the ratification of the new Constitution and that the replacements would only serve several years and would be barred from being appointed under the new Constitution.

Mr. Monsod added that in the case of the COMELEC, should the incumbent Chairman be reappointed, such appointment would only be less than seven years.

On the contention that the appointing power would violate the provision on a staggered system, Mr. Foz stated that it would not, considering that said system would start with the first appointment under the new Constitution.

Should the Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions not approve the proposed provision referred to, Mr. Monsod referred to the first sentence of Section 1(2) which provides that the appointment may be for a term of seven years without reappointment.

Thereupon, Mr. Davide moved to defer consideration of his proposed amendment until after the Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions shall have submitted a report on the proposed Resolution filed by Mr. Foz and should the entire  Subdivision on the COMELEC be approved, it could be reopened to accommodate the possibility of an amendment, which motion, there being no objection, was approved by the Body.

AMENDMENT OF MR. DE LOS REYES

On page 2, line 3, as proposed by Mr. de los Reyes and accepted by the Sponsor, the Body approved the amendment to insert the words OR DESIGNATED between the words "appointed " and "in".

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. MAAMBONG

On page 2, line 7, Mr. Maambong proposed the deletion of the word "recalls", which proposal was withdrawn after it was explained that the system of recall is contained in the Local Government Code and that the system should remain in case the COMELEC is called upon to administer such recalls.

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS OF MR. RODRIGO

On page 2, line 9, Mr. Rodrigo proposed the following amendments:

1.	Delete the words "be the sole"; and
2.	Capitalize the letter "j" in the word "judge" and delete "of" after "judge".

The Sponsor accepted the proposed amendments.

In reply to Mr. Davide's query whether the proposed amendment would mean that the National Assembly could provide, by law, for any other court that would be vested with the authority to decide cases relating to elections, returns and qualifications of the elective officials referred to in the subparagraph, Mr. Rodrigo explained that the term "sole judge" connotes that its decision is final and executory.

Mr. Davide pointed out that the term "sole judge" would refer to the exclusive original jurisdiction of the COMELEC over these cases. He stated that the deletion of the word "sole" would open the possibility for the National Assembly to enact a law vesting another tribunal the power to decide all these cases.

As amended by Mr. Davide, Mr. Rodrigo proposed the substitution of the words "be the sole judge of" with HAVE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION.

At this juncture, Mr. Maambong asked for the deferment of Mr. Rodrigo's amendment considering that he would propose an amendment on line 11 which may affect the amendment of Mr. Rodrigo.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

At 5:58 p.m., the Chair suspended the session.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 6:12 p.m., the session was resumed.

AMENDMENTS OF MR. MAAMBONG WITH MESSRS. RODRIGO AND DE LOS REYES

Upon resumption of session, as proposed by Mr. Maambong, in collaboration with Messrs. Rodrigo and de los Reyes, and accepted by the Sponsor, on page 2, line 9, the Body approved the deletion of the words "be the sole judge of" and in lieu thereof to insert the words EXERCISE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER; and on line 11, before the word "provincial", to insert the word REGIONAL and AND between "provincial" and "city"; to delete the comma (,) after "city" and the words "municipal and barangay"; and between the word "officials" and the semi-colon (;) to insert a comma (,) and the phrase AND OF ALL CONTESTS INVOLVING MUNICIPAL AND BARANGAY OFFICIALS ON APPEAL FROM THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS AND FROM METROPOLITAN OR MUNICIPAL COURTS, RESPECTIVELY.

As a consequence, Mr. Maambong proposed on Section 10, page 4, line 20, to delete the word "Final", capitalize the letter "d" in "decisions", and insert the word FINAL before the word "orders"; on line 21, to change the letter "E" in "Election" to a small letter "e"; and on line 22, after the word "final", to delete the comma (,) and the word "inappealable", and after the word "and" to insert the word IMMEDIATELY.

At this juncture, adverting to the proposed amendment on Section 2(2) on page 2, Mr. Foz inquired as to the propriety of the words "Regional Trial Courts" considering any future reorganization or change of name, in reply to which, Mr. Maambong affirmed Mr. Regalado's explanation that it is the only means to make distinctions, however, future legislatures are not prohibited to change the names of courts.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

At this juncture, the Chair suspended the session.

It was 6:22 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 6:40 p.m., the session was resumed.

Upon resumption of session, on motion of Mr. Maambong, there being no objection, the Body reconsidered the approval of the previous amendment to give way to the substitution of the entire Section 2(2) with the following:

(2) EXERCISE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OVER ALL CONTESTS RELATING TO THE ELECTIONS, RETURNS AND QUALIFICATIONS OF ALL ELECTIVE REGIONAL, PROVINCIAL AND CITY OFFICIALS, AND OF ALL CONTESTS INVOLVING MUNICIPAL OR BARANGAY OFFICIALS ON APPEAL FROM TRIAL COURTS OF GENERAL JURISDICTION AND FROM TRIAL COURTS OF LIMITED JURISDICTION, RESPECTIVELY.

Mr. Regalado accepted the amendment on behalf of the Committee, on the understanding that trial courts of general jurisdiction refer to Regional Trial Courts and trial courts of limited jurisdiction refer to Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts.   

On Mr. Suarez' query on the meaning of "regional elections", Mr. Maambong stated 1) that Articles 249 and 250 of the Omnibus Election Code specifically refer to regional elections because these elections are held in autonomous regions; and 2) that it was proposed in anticipation of the possibility of the Legislature's opening up the avenue for regional elections.

On whether the proposal also anticipates a bicameral legislature whereby Members of the Senate may be elected by region, Mr. Maambong stated that the election of senators even if conducted in the regional level, would be considered as a national election and would be governed by this provision, even if the election would only be for the purpose of filling up a vacancy.

In case of an election contest, Mr. Maambong stated that the Commission would have appellate jurisdiction over cases decided by courts mentioned in the proposal.

On Mr. Suarez' additional query on jurisdiction, Mr. Maambong stated that in the case of a barangay election contest, the decision of the court is appealable to the COMELEC whose decision would be final and immediately executory; likewise, the decisions of courts of general jurisdiction concerning municipal contests are also appealable to the COMELEC whose decision is also final and immediately executory.

Thereafter, the proposal was submitted to a vote, and there being no objection, the same was approved by the Body.

AMENDMENT OF MR. MAAMBONG

As proposed by Mr. Maambong, and accepted by the Sponsor, the Body approved the rewording of Section 10 to read as follows:

SECTION 10. DECISIONS, FINAL ORDERS OR RULINGS OF THE COMMISSION ON ELECTION CONTESTS INVOLVING ELECTIVE MUNICIPAL AND BARANGAY OFFICES SHALL BE FINAL, EXECUTORY AND NOT APPEALABLE.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. BACANI

Mr. Bacani proposed, on Section 2(5), line 24, to delete "religious sects, or".

Mr. Bacani explained that the proposal is intended to accommodate any future religious organization which may seek temporal reforms by entering politics.

Mr. Suarez proposed an amendment to the amendment to delete the clause "except that religious sects or, those which seek to achieve their goals through violence and refuse to uphold this Constitution, shall not be registered".

Mr. Bacani rejected the proposed amendment because religious organizations basically do not go directly against the existence of the State.

At this juncture, Mr. Rodrigo proposed an amendment to change "and" between "violence" and "refuse" to OR which was accepted by Mr. Bacani.

Thereafter, Mr. Bacani likewise accepted Mr. Maambong's proposed amendment to his amendment to place an apostrophe (') after "citizens".

Mr. Foz also accepted the amendment on behalf of the Committee.

In speaking against the proposal, Mr. de los Reyes stated that the traditional concept on the separation between the Church and the State must be maintained in order that there would be no state religion and that the possible dominance of a particular religious group in government could be prevented.

In reply, Mr. Bacani maintained that 1) historically, the union of the Church and the State has never been effected through political parties; and 2) that any people's organization which has an ideology could present itself as a political party and to disallow religious organizations from doing so, would be tantamount to discrimination.

Mr. de los Reyes, however, contended that if the majority religious group would be allowed to dominate, then it would be unfair to the minority.

Submitted to a vote, and with 4 Members voting in favor and 22 against, the same was lost.

On lines 24 and 25, Mr. Bacani proposed an amendment to the term "religious sects" with the substitution of the phrase, to wit:

CHURCHES, RELIGIOUS DENOMINATIONS, SECTS AND THEIR EQUIVALENTS AS WELL AS ATHEISTIC OR AGNOSTIC GROUPS OR GROUPS DEDICATED TO THE ABOLITION OF RELIGION.

He reasoned that atheistic or agnostic groups dedicated to the abolition of religion, if accredited as political parties, would enjoy more rights under the law than religious sects.

Mr. Brocka noted that the amendment would be carrying matters too far and inquired if there are atheistic or agnostic groups in existence. Mr. Bacani, in reply thereto, cited that strictly, communistic groups which adhere to the teachings of Lenin and Marx would be considered atheistic and mentioned agnostic groups in Europe. He proposed the substitution of the phrase "those who are dedicated to the abolition of religion" in lieu of agnostic or atheistic.

Mr. Monsod, thereafter, asked if Mr. Bacani's proposal can be taken up in pieces as there are two parts, the first being an amplification of religious sects and the second being an extension to atheistic or agnostic groups dedicated to the abolition of religion, to which request Mr. Bacani acceded.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

At this juncture, the Chair suspended the session.

It was 7:06 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 7:25 p.m., the session was resumed.

MR. PADILLA'S AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT

Mr. Padilla proposed to insert the word RELIGIOUS before "churches" inasmuch as to mention denomination or sects only would give the impression that the Body is against the minority religious groups. He stated that the inclusion of the word "church" shall cover under the prohibition all churches including the Catholic church.

REMARKS OF MR. ABUBAKAR

Mr. Abubakar stated that to the Muslims the word "church" represents Christianity and the provision which uses "churches or religious denominations" may be considered by the Muslims as an encroachment on their religious concepts and rights.

He proposed a more acceptable phrase such as "religious denomination" which would apply to all sects in the Philippines.

Mr. Monsod accepted the amendment of Mr. Bacani, as amended, and restated Section 2(5), as amended, to wit:

REGISTER, AFTER SUFFICIENT PUBLICATION, POLITICAL PARTIES, ORGANIZATION OR COALITION AND ACCREDIT CITIZENS' ARMS OF THE COMELEC. RELIGIOUS DENOMINATIONS AND SECTS SHALL NOT BE REGISTERED. THOSE WHICH SEEK TO ACHIEVE THEIR GOAL THROUGH VIOLENCE OR REFUSE TO UPHOLD THIS CONSTITUTION SHALL LIKEWISE NOT BE REGISTERED.

In reply to Mr. Padilla's inquiry, Mr. Bacani agreed that "religious denominations" include the churches.

Mr. Abubakar, likewise, agreed to the term "religious denominations".

MR. DAVIDE'S AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT

Mr. Davide proposed an amendment to the amendment by inserting the word ORGANIZATIONS and a comma (,) before “denominations”

Mr. Bacani, however, did not accept the amendment on the ground that it would ban the lay organizations from participation, although, they do not represent the church.

Mr. Davide explained that his proposal intends to prevent undue influence from any religion, to which Mr. Bacani replied that it would be carrying the matter too far because even within the Catholic Church there may be religious organizations which do not agree on many points but are nevertheless Catholics although they do not represent the Catholic Church.

Thereupon, Mr. Davide withdrew his amendment.

RESTATEMENT OF THE AMENDMENT

Thereupon, Mr. Regalado restated the amendments, to wit:

1.	On page 2, line 24, after "Commission", place a period (.) and the sentence RELIGIOUS DENOMINATIONS AND SECTS SHALL NOT BE REGISTERED; and
2.	On the same page, lines 25 and 26, the sentence shall read: THOSE WHICH SEEK TO ACHIEVE THEIR GOALS THROUGH VIOLENCE, UNLAWFUL MEANS OR REFUSE TO UPHOLD THIS CONSTITUTION, SHALL NOT LIKEWISE BE REGISTERED.

SUGGESTION OF MR. MAAMBONG

At this juncture, Mr. Maambong suggested the substitution of the phrase "be not registered" with BE REFUSED REGISTRATION.

Mr. Regalado stated that the Committee would leave it to the Committee on Style.

MR. DE CASTRO'S AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT

On page 2, line 25, Mr. de Castro proposed to insert SUBVERSION after "violence".

Mr. Regalado stated that subversion is itself a crime and, therefore, included in unlawful means.

Mr. de Castro maintained, however, that it is very difficult to prove subversion as a crime.

Mr. Regalado accepted the amendment.

At this juncture, Mr. Gascon requested the Committee to reconsider its acceptance of the word "subversion" because it is a very subjective term.

Mr. de Castro stated that "subversion" has its own definition and was even used in the 1973 Constitution.   

Thereupon, the Chair ruled that the Body would vote first on the amendment of Mr. Bacani as modified by the Committee, to wit:

RELIGIOUS DENOMINATIONS AND SECTS SHALL NOT BE REGISTERED.

Submitted to a vote, and with 26 Members voting in favor and none against, the amendment was approved by the Body.

INQUIRY OF MR. VILLACORTA

In reply to Mr. Villacorta's query on whether the term "unlawful means" includes espousal of statehood and double allegiance, Mr. Regalado stated that there is no law that considers espousing statehood as a crime. He also stated that the double allegiance referred to by Mr. Ople is a matter of policy that should be the subject of legislation and could not be considered as unlawful means.

The Chair then stated that the Body would vote on the second sentence, to wit:

THOSE WHICH SEEK TO ACHIEVE THEIR GOALS THROUGH VIOLENCE OR UNLAWFUL MEANS OR REFUSE TO UPHOLD THIS CONSTITUTION SHALL LIKEWISE BE REFUSED REGISTRATION.

Submitted to a vote, and with 23 Members voting in favor and none against, the amendment was approved by the Body.

VOTING ON MR. DE CASTRO'S AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT

Thereupon, Mr. de Castro reiterated that his amendment to the amendment would be the insertion of the word SUBVERSION after "violence".

Submitted to a vote, and with 2 Members voting in favor and 24 against, the amendment was lost.

AMENDMENT OF MR. OPLE

On page 2, line 17, Mr. Ople proposed an amendment to delete the words "notice to" and in lieu thereof, to insert THE CONCURRENCE OF.

Mr. Ople observed that, in one part, the COMELEC is denying the President a semblance of participation in the deputation, but in another, it is calling on him to remove or discipline any officer or employee so deputized for violating the directives or orders of the COMELEC, which situation, he maintained, lacked symmetry not to mention the minimum courtesy owed to the Office of the President which has jurisdiction over the agencies to be deputized.

Mr. Ople then stated that this amendment was introduced jointly with Messrs. Rodrigo and Jamir.

In reply to Mr. de Castro's query on an instance where the President is a candidate himself, Mr. Ople maintained that in such case, his concurrence would still be necessary. He opined that nowhere in the history of Philippine elections did the President withhold consent to the deputation. He stated that should the President deny concurrence, he would be guaranteeing his defeat in that election.

Thereafter, submitted to a vote, and with 17 Members voting in favor and 7 against, Mr. Ople's amendment was approved by the Body.

AMENDMENT OF MRS. ROSARIO BRAID

On page 2, lines 22 and 23, Mrs. Rosario Braid proposed to amend the provision, to read:

REGISTER, AFTER SUFFICIENT PUBLICATION, POLITICAL PARTIES, ORGANIZATIONS OR COALITIONS WHICH, IN ADDITION TD OTHER REQUIREMENTS, MUST PRESENT THEIR PLATFORM OR PROGRAM OF GOVERNMENT.

Mrs. Rosario Braid explained that her proposal would make it mandatory for all parties, citizens or groups to define and present a program of government before they are accepted as registered political parties.

Mr. Monsod stated that the position of the Committee was that the proposal should really be the subject of legislation. He, however, stated that the Body could decide on the matter.

Submitted to a vote, and with 20 Members voting  in favor and 3 against, the amendment was approved by the Body.

AMENDMENT OF MR. PADILLA

On page 2, line 21, Mr. Padilla proposed an amendment to change the word "peaceful" to CREDIBLE.

MR. GASCON'S AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT

Mr. Gascon proposed an amendment to the amendment by retaining the word "peaceful" and inserting the word CREDIBLE after "peaceful".

Mr. Padilla accepted the amendment.

Submitted to a vote, and with 25 Members voting in favor and none against, the amendment was approved by the Body.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. DAVIDE

On page 2, line 26, after "Constitution", Mr. Davide proposed to insert the phrase OR WHOSE INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS DO NOT CONFORM TO DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES OR WHICH ARE SUPPORTED BY ANY FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, INSTITUTION OR ORGANIZATION.

In reply to Mr. Gascon’s query, Mr. Davide stated that "democratic principles" would be in line with the Preamble.

Mr. Gascon observed that if they will be accredited on the basis of their adherence to the Constitution, that would be sufficient ground for maintaining that they have democratic principles.

MODIFIED AMENDMENT OF MR. DAVIDE

On page 2, line 26, Mr. Davide proposed the insertion of the words AND ADHERE between the words "uphold" and "this".

On whether the proposed amendment would add to the meaning of Section 2(5), Mr. Davide explained that the word "uphold" may only be a state of mind while "adhere" would demand actual adherence to the Constitution.

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

On the same line, Mr. Davide proposed to add after the word "Constitution" the words OR WHICH ARE SUPPORTED BY ANY FOREIGN GOVERNMENT, INSTITUTION OR ORGANIZATION.

Mr. Ople informed that he would be proposing an amendment, coauthored by Mr. Garcia, Mrs. Rosario Braid, Messrs. Natividad, de los Reyes and Maambong, analogous to Mr. Davide's amendment in the sense that his proposal would deal with financial contributions to political parties, organizations or candidates from foreign governments and institutions related to election, and which act would constitute an interference that could be a ground for the deregistration of a political party. He then inquired whether Mr. Davide would be willing to coauthor his proposed amendment.

In reply, Mr. Davide expressed willingness to be a coauthor thereof but pointed out that Mr. Ople's amendment refers to deregistration while his proposal refers to the registration itself for which reason, both amendments could be considered independently.

In reply to the queries of Mr. Gascon, Mr. Davide underscored the necessity of considering his proposed amendment in spite of Mr. Ople's proposed amendment because the latter proposal refers to deregistration on the ground of accepting contributions for election purposes. He explained that his proposal refers to the first stage while Mr. Ople's proposal refers to a political party which had been registered but whose registration is cancelled because of the acceptance of contributions.

In reply to Mr. Monsod's query whether the phrase "for election or other purposes" has been included in his proposal and if so, whether said proposal would make Mr. Ople's amendment irrelevant on the basis of the principle that the power to register includes the power to deregister, Mr. Davide stated that the phrase referred to could be accommodated in his proposal.

In reply to the queries of Mrs. Rosario Braid, Mr. Davide explained that training and orientation programs for political parties supported by a foreign government are allowed provided they are done prior to the registration. He pointed out, however, that if the training aims to influence a political party and the trainor interferes in the political affairs of the country, then it could be banned.

In reply to Mr. Rodrigo's query, Mr. Davide stated that a political party supported by organizations, like the Movement for Free Philippines and the Ninoy Aquino Movement whose members include Filipinos and Americans as well, would not be covered by the prohibition considering that these organizations are basically Filipino.

On Mr. Gascon's query whether a political party which sought assistance from an international organization to which it is affiliated would be covered by the prohibition, Mr. Davide explained that it would depend on how the assistance was used. He stated that it would all depend on the perception of the COMELEC whether the purpose for which it was used was political or not.

On the clarification sought by Mr. Ople, Mr. Davide affirmed that his amendment would have no incompatibility and no mutual exclusivity with the amendment which Mr. Ople would propose and it would depend on the action of the Committee on Style to determine any redundancy.

On Mr. Gascon's query with respect to labor organizations which are at present receiving foreign support and which would later wish to register, Mr. Davide stated that he does not know of any labor organization receiving support from outside sources. He pointed out, however, that if indeed there are labor organizations receiving foreign support for labor purposes or to upgrade the organization itself, they would not be covered by his proposal. He stressed the need of examining and studying the platforms and programs of government of these labor organizations that are receiving foreign support. If it is perceived that it is the intention of the foreign organization or institution to promote the political aspirations of these organizations, Mr. Davide opined that such an act would be political in nature.    

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT

Mr. Padilla proposed the deletion of the words "institution or organization". Explaining his proposal, he recalled that Republic Act No. 1700 on anti-subversion mentioned the support of an alien power while PD No. 885, the Revised Anti-Subversion Act, mentioned open or covert assistance of a foreign power. However, he pointed out that PD No. 1736 included open or covert support from a foreign source and this widened the grounds for subversion because the term "foreign source" would include any institution or organization. He opined that what the Body should be careful about is that no political party should be supported by a foreign government.

Mr. Davide accepted Mr. Padilla's amendment to his amendment.

Submitted to a vote, and there being no objection, the Body approved Mr. Davide's amendment, as amended by Mr. Padilla.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. OPLE

Mr. Ople proposed, jointly with Mr. Garcia, Mrs. Rosario Braid, Messrs. Natividad, de los Reyes and Maambong, an amendment to add two new paragraphs immediately after Section 2(5) which would read:

THE COMMISSION MAY DEREGISTER ANY POLITICAL PARTY DETERMINED TO HAVE COMMITTED THE ACTS PROHIBITED IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING SECTION.

FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO POLITICAL PARTIES AND ORGANIZATIONS OR CANDIDATES FROM FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS AND INSTITUTIONS RELATED TO ELECTIONS CONSTITUTE AN ACT OF INTERFERENCE IN NATIONAL AFFAIRS AND MAY BE AN ADDITIONAL GROUND FOR THE DEREGISTRATION OF A POLITICAL PARTY IN ADDITION TO OTHER PENALTIES THAT MAY BE PRESCRIBED BY LAW.

In explaining his proposed amendment, Mr. Ople pointed out that the institutions referred to should be read within the context of foreign governments because there are instances when a foreign government attempts to conceal the governmental source in the guise of institutions or organizations funded by such foreign government in sometimes open and at other times clandestine way.

Mr. Regalado requested Mr. Ople to reconcile his amendment with that of Mr. Davide since the latter's amendment deleted the words "institution or organization".

Mr. Ople modified his amendment by substituting the word "institutions" with the words THEIR AGENCIES, to which Mr. Davide agreed considering that his amendment refers to the act of registration while Mr. Ople's amendment refers to deregistration.

Mr. Monsod suggested the substitution of the word "deregister" to CANCEL REGISTRATION, which Mr. Ople accepted.

Mr. Davide proposed to amend the proposal by rewriting the original amendment so that it would read: ACCEPTANCE OF FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS FOR ELECTION PURPOSES FROM FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS AND INSTITUTIONS BY POLITICAL PARTIES, ORGANIZATIONS OR CANDIDATES CONSTITUTES AN ACT OF INTERFERENCE IN NATIONAL AFFAIRS AND SHALL BE AN ADDITIONAL GROUND FOR THE CANCELLATION OF THE REGISTRATION IN ADDITION TO OTHER PENALTIES THAT MAY BE PRESCRIBED BY LAW.

Mr. Ople accepted Mr. Davide's amendment to his amendment.

Thereupon, Mr. Ople restated his proposed amendment, as follows: THE COMMISSION MAY CANCEL THE REGISTRATION OF ANY POLITICAL PARTY DETERMINED TO HAVE COMMITTED THE ACTS PROHIBITED IN THIS PARAGRAPH.

Mr. Monsod then suggested that after "political party", the words OR ORGANIZATION be inserted, to which Mr. Ople agreed.

There being no objection, the proposed amendment of Mr. Ople as modified by the Committee was approved by the Body.

AMENDMENT OF MR. DAVIDE

On the proposal of Mr. Ople, Mr. Davide proposed to insert the words ACCEPTANCE OF before the word "financial", pointing out that what is evil is the acceptance but not the offer, in reply to which, Mr. Ople stated that there would be a problem on syntax.

Thereupon, Mr. Monsod proposed to delete the phrase "constitute an act of interference in national affairs", to which Mr. Ople replied that although it would solve the problem of syntax, it would, however, remove an important principle that financial contribution is an act of interference in national affairs, which principle should be clearly embodied in the Constitution.

To accommodate Mr. Davide's proposal, Mr. Ople rephrased his proposal to read as follows:

SECTION ___.FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO POLITICAL PARTIES AND ORGANIZATIONS OF CANDIDATES FROM FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS AND THEIR AGENCIES RELATED TO ELECTIONS CONSTITUTE AN ACT OF INTERFERENCE IN NATIONAL AFFAIRS AND WHEN ACCEPTED SHALL BE AN ADDITIONAL GROUND FOR THE CANCELLATION OF A POLITICAL PARTY, IN ADDITION TO OTHER PENALTIES THAT MAY BE PRESCRIBED BY LAW.

There being no objection, the proposed amendment, as amended, was approved by the Body.

AMENDMENT OF MR. OPLE

Thereafter, Mr. Ople proposed to insert a new Section 4, to read as follows:

A FREE AND OPEN PARTY SYSTEM SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO EVOLVE ACCORDING TO THE FREE CHOICE OF THE PEOPLE, SUBJECT ONLY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ARTICLE.

On Mrs. Rosario Braid's suggestion to insert the prefix MULTI before the word "party" in order that the desire to establish a multi-party system would be more manifest, Mr. Ople stated that the proposal would preclude the possibility of people choosing a two-party system.

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

At this juncture, Mr. Gascon insisted on the term "multi-party system", which proposal was not accepted by the Committee on the ground that it would be improper to mandate a choice of multi-party system, since in a free society, even a two-party system can evolve.

Submitted to a vote, and with 6 Members voting in favor and 13 against, the proposed amendment to the amendment was lost.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. VILLACORTA

Thereafter, on the new Section 5, Mr. Villacorta proposed to add the phrase THOSE WHICH ESPOUSE ALLEGIANCE TO FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS as one of the grounds for disqualification for registration. He explained that there might be political groups which might not receive financial support from other governments but espouse allegiance to foreign governments.

At this juncture, Mr. Gascon observed that one of the preceding provisions requires political parties to uphold and take their oath of allegiance to the Philippine Constitution, for which reason the proposal would be unnecessary, in reply to which, Mr. Villacorta pointed out that there might be groups which pledge allegiance to the Philippine Constitution but because of some freedom guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, might espouse allegiance to foreign governments.

The Sponsor did not accept the proposed amendment on the ground that those who refuse to uphold the Constitution include those who espouse allegiance to another country.

In view thereof, Mr. Villacorta opined that those who espouse violence should not also be mentioned.

Submitted to a vote, and with 8 Members voting in favor and 13 against, the proposed amendment was lost.

AMENDMENT OF MR. MAAMBONG

As proposed by Mr. Maambong and accepted by the Sponsor, on page 2, line 28, the Body approved the deletion of the words "or exclusion"; and on line 29, the insertion of the words IN OR EXCLUSION before the word "from".

AMENDMENT OF MR. REGALADO

As proposed by Mr. Regalado and accepted by the Sponsor, the Body approved on page 2, line 27, between the word "own" and the comma (,) to insert the word INITIATIVE.

AMENDMENT OF MR. DE LOS REYES

As proposed by Mr. de los Reyes with Messrs. Nolledo, Natividad, Sumulong, Tadeo, Gascon, Garcia, Maambong, Ople and Mrs. Rosario Braid, and as accepted by the Sponsor and approved by the Body, on page 3, line 2, after the word "spending", insert the phrase INCLUDING LIMITATIONS OF PLACES WHERE PROPAGANDA MATERIALS SHALL BE POSTED.

AMENDMENT OF MR. PADILLA

As proposed by Mr. Padilla and accepted by the Sponsor, the Body approved, on page 4, lines 8 and 9, to delete the phrase "including rates, reasonable free space, and time allotments" and in lieu thereof to insert the phrase TO ENSURE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY, EQUAL TIME, EQUAL SPACE AND RIGHT TO REPLY INCLUDING REASONABLE, EQUAL RATES THEREFOR.

AMENDMENT OF MR. DAVIDE

As proposed by Mr. Davide and accepted by the Sponsor, the Body approved, on page 3, line 1, to change the word "legislature" to NATIONAL ASSEMBLY.

Mr. Davide also proposed on the same page, line 3, after the word "malpractices" to add the words POLITICAL OPPORTUNISM, which the Sponsor did not accept on the ground that all references to "turncoatism" were deleted because it is not applicable in a multi-party system.   

On why the term "nuisance candidacy" was not deleted, Mr. Monsod explained that "nuisance candidacy" is different from "political opportunism". He, however, stated that a guest candidate of another party is not prohibited under the provision.

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

AMENDMENT OF MR. MAAMBONG

As proposed by Mr. Maambong, and accepted by the Sponsor, the Body approved 1) on page 3, lines 9 to 10, delete the words "Batasang Pambansa" and in lieu thereof, insert NATIONAL ASSEMBLY; and 2) on the same page, line 11, change the first "and" to OR.

Mr. Maambong also proposed on page 4, lines 17 and 18, to delete the comma (,) after "laws" and the words "rules and regulations".

He explained that no administrative body or department of government can promulgate rules and regulations which impose penalties, in reply to which Mr. Regalado stated that the Commission on Elections may adopt such rules and regulations as may be authorized by the Legislature.

On Mr. Maambong's query if jurisprudence supports the imposition of penalties by means of rules and regulations, Mr. Concepcion, to whom the Chair referred the query, stated that the penalties being imposed are provided by the law itself and not by rules and regulations.

Mr. Regalado concurred with Mr. Concepcion's stand.

With this understanding, Mr. Maambong withdrew his proposal.

QUESTION OF QUORUM

At this juncture, Mr. de Castro inquired on the presence of a quorum.

The Chair stated that there were still 25 Members present.

TERMINATION OF THE PERIOD OF AMENDMENTS

Thereupon, the Chair closed the period of amendments.

APPROVAL ON SECOND READING OF PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 521

Thereafter, submitted to a vote, and with 25 Members voting in favor and none against, the Chair declared Proposed Resolution No. 521 approved on Second Reading, as amended.

MOTION OF MR. GASCON

On motion of Mr. Gascon, there being no objection, the Body scheduled for consideration as the first item in the next day's session the unfinished business on the motion for reconsideration of Resolution No. 322.

ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION

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

It was 9:08 p.m.   

I hereby certify to the correctness of the foregoing.

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

ATTESTED:

(SGD.) CECILIA MUÑOZ PALMA
              President

Approved on July 17, 1986