Supreme Court E-Library
Information At Your Fingertips

  View printer friendly version

CALL TO ORDER

At 9:36 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. Rustico F. de los Reyes, Jr., to wit:

Lord, We have here a gathering of women and men given the awesome task of writing a new Constitution that will best serve the interests of our country now and in the years to come. We had so far three Constitutions before, drafted by patriotic and brilliant Filipinos who had invoked Your enlightenment and guidance. We are certain that they tried not to fail You and their people and that You had not denied them Your Divine Wisdom. But people are people, Almighty One, and their creations proved that only You are capable of perfection.

Our Faith in You, Almighty Father, gives us the courage to hope that while perfection cannot be ours, Your Wisdom will enable us to approximate the perfect Constitution needed by our country.

Your Wisdom is better than all the riches of the world, We pray that You cleanse our minds and hearts of greed and selfishness. Your Wisdom is the wellspring of insight that can only come from You. We pray that You open our minds to receive Your Counsel.

Lord Almighty, the events of the recent past in our country have left bitterness and deep hates in many of our people. Purge these bitterness and hate from their hearts because as You have said, only those who are pure in heart can ever hope to receive You.

We cannot hope to accomplish anything without You, Great Architect of the Universe, Creator of Heaven and Earth. We pray HELP US and stay with us every moment of the day and night that we spend in the performance of our sacred task. And when our work is done, Almighty One, breathe life into our new Constitution so that when we look back to this time, it will be not only with pride, but with profound gratitude to You who made it all possible.

We give Thee thanks, Almighty God, for all Your blessings.

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.	Rama, N. G.
Bacani, T. C.	Regalado, F. D.
Bengzon, J. F. S.	De los Reyes, R. F.
Bennagen, P. L	Rigos, C. A.
Bernas, J. G.	Rodrigo, F. A.
Rosario Braid, F.	Romulo, R. J.
Calderon, J. D.	Rosales, D. R.
De Castro, C. M.	Sarmiento, R. V.
Colayco, J. C.	Suarez, J. E.
Concepcion, R. R.	Sumulong, L. M.
Davide, H. G.	Tadeo, J. S. L.
Guingona, S. V. C.	Tan, C.
Jamir, A. M. K.	Tingson, G. J.
Monsod, C. S.	Treñas, E. B.
Nolledo, J. N.	Uka, L. L.
Padilla, A. B.	Villacorta, W. V.
Muñoz Palma, C.

With 33 Members present, the Chair declared the presence of a quorum.

The following Members appeared after the Roll Call:

Abubakar, Y. R.	Laurel, J. B.
Alonto, A. D.	Lerum, E. R.
Azcuna, A. S.	Maambong, R. E.
Brocka, L. O.	Natividad, T. C.
Foz, V. B.	Nieva, M. T. F.
Garcia, E. G.	Ople, B. F.
Gascon, J. L. M. C.	Quesada, M. L. M.

Mr. Villegas was on official mission.

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 297, first line of the fourth paragraphing right column, to change the words "instead of" to "he is for" and to add "but" after "Constitution" in the third line.

REFERENCE OF BUSINESS

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

REFERRAL TO COMMITTEES OF COMMUNICATIONS

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

Communication No. 228 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Resolution on the renegotiation and/or implementation of the Tripoli Agreement of the Knights of Columbus Council 8134, Cotabato City, suggesting that should any negotiation be held it should be free from foreign intervention

TO THE COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

Communication No. 229 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Ms. Erna-Leah C. Orante of 9 Zone 5, Dayangdang, Naga City, suggesting provisions to stop improper use of prime agricultural lands for residential, commercial and industrial purposes   

TO THE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY

Communication No. 230 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Mr. R.A.D. Baron of United Christians Community Organization (UNICO), Manila, proposing a provision in the bill of rights on the right to bear arms

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

Communication No. 231 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines signed by Mr. Vicente D. Millora, forwarding proposals of the Council for the Welfare of Children underscoring the need for principles or policies protecting the rights of the children, youth and mothers

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

Communication No. 232 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Mr. Jose L. Moya of 17 Sunset Drive, Horseshoe Village, Quezon City, enclosing a paper, entitled "A Memorandum to the Constitutional Commission on the Essential of Good Courts and Crime Prevention"

TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Communication No. 233 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from the Honorable Commissioner Ponciano L. Bennagen, transmitting a resolution of the Mountain Province Agricultural Consultation for ConCom to consider the indigenous Igorot concept on land

TO THE COMMITTEE ON GENERAL PROVISIONS

Communication No. 234 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Communication from Mr. Fulgencio S. Factoran, Jr., Deputy Executive Secretary, transmitting a letter of Mr. Dodong Proculo Samson of 166 Palaw Hills, Larena, Siquijor, suggesting a provision designating the two-meter radius around the flagpole of municipal and city halls as a place where any citizen may denounce graft and corruption and be immune from arrest

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

Communication No. 235 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from the Honorable Commissioner Ponciano L. Bennagen, transmitting resolutions from the National Association of Retirees, Bontoc, Mountain Province, proposing automatic increase of monthly pensions of retirees and the adoption of the jury system in our courts of law

TO THE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL JUSTICE

MOTION OF MR. BENGZON

On motion of Mr. Bengzon, there being no objection, the Body approved the removal from the Calendar of Business of Committee Reports Nos. 5, 6, 8, 9 and 118 which had been consolidated in Committee Report No. 26 and Committee Report No. 15 which had been consolidated in Committee Report No. 31.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS: COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 23 ON PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 486

On motion of Mr. Rama, there being no objection, the Body proceeded to the consideration of Committee Report No. 23 on Proposed Resolution No. 486, entitled:

Resolution to incorporate in the new Constitution an Article on the Bill of Rights.

Mr. Rama stated that the parliamentary status would be the Period of Amendments.   

AMENDMENT OF MR. ROMULO

Mr. Romulo proposed on Section 1, line 10, to delete the sentence "The right to life extends to the fertilized ovum" and, in lieu thereof, to place the sentence THE STATE SHALL PROTECT HUMAN LIFE FROM THE MOMENT OF CONCEPTION which could be transferred either to the Article on Declaration of Principles or the Article on Human Resources.

Mr. Romulo explained that the original proposal is objectionable as part of the Bill of Rights because it impinges on the rights of the minority who do not believe in the Catholic concept although the same purpose could be accomplished with the substitute sentence and its transposition to another article.

Mr. Davide proposed to amend the amendment to read as follows: THE STATE ACKNOWLEDGES AND SHALL PROTECT THE RIGHT TO LIFE OF THE HUMAN EMBRYO FROM THE FIRST MOMENT OF ITS CONCEPTION.

Mr. Romulo rejected the amendment, stating that it would extend to the embryo the "right to life" which only a person can have.

At this juncture, Mr. Suarez suggested that the Body consider first the proposed deletion and discuss later the merit of the proposal, to which Mr. Romulo agreed.

Mr. Bernas, on behalf of the Committee, accepted the proposed deletion but rejected the text of the substitute amendment.

Thereupon, Mr. Romulo withdrew his substitute amendment and reserved its submission to the proper Committee.

Thereafter, Mr. Romulo's proposal to delete the second sentence of Section 1 was submitted to a vote and with 30 Members voting in favor and none against, the same was approved by the Body.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. TREÑAS

Mr. Treñas proposed on Section 2, line 12, to add the clause AS DETERMINED BY THE PROPER COURT after "compensation".

Mr. Treñas explained that his proposal would clarify the interpretation of the pertinent Presidential Decree on the meaning of "just compensation" by having it determined in the same expropriation proceeding and not on the basis of the tax declaration.

Mr. Rodrigo objected on the ground that the proposal would eliminate extrajudicial agreement between the property owner and the government. He observed that the provision proposed by the Committee is the same as in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, and that he did not see any reason for changing it.

Mr. Bernas agreed with Mr. Rodrigo, adding that the phrase "just compensation" has a settled meaning in jurisprudence.

Mr. Treñas insisted on his proposal and requested for a vote.

MR. PADILLA'S AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT

Mr. Padilla explained that Mr. Treñas' proposal would apply where there is a dispute between the parties in which case, "just compensation" would be determined by the proper court. He adverted to the presidential decrees which provide that "just compensation" shall be limited to the declaration of the owner or of the assessor of the value of the property, whichever is lower. He supported the proposal of Mr. Treñas, stating that it was clear and reasonable, but to obviate the objection of Mr. Rodrigo, he offered a wording of Section 2, to read as follows:

"Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. IN CASE OF DISAGREEMENT AS TO THE AMOUNT OF JUST COMPENSATION, THE ISSUE SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE PROPER COURT."

Submitted to a vote, and with 8 Members voting in favor and 17 against, the amendment was lost.

AMENDMENT OF MR. RODRIGO

On Section 4, page 2, line 4, Mr. Rodrigo proposed to reinstate the word OR between the words "court" and "when". He contended that the deletion of the word “or” would hamper the intelligence service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines especially when threats to the government exist. He noted the need for preserving public safety, the security of the state and the stability of the government.

In response thereto, Mr. Bernas stated that the Committee would rather leave the provision as is, reasoning that although both the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions used the word "or", the latter has an additional provision which says that "Any evidence in violation of this and the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding". He explained that this provision is an added precaution for the protection of citizens when government becomes abusive. He maintained that the retention of the word "or" would allow the government to exercise general discretion which can be abused. On the matter of national security, Mr. Bernas stated that this can be handled by more advanced systems of surveillance and communications.

REMARKS OF MR. REGALADO

Mr. Regalado expressed his support for the retention of the 1935 Constitutional provision which gives the alternative "or" to be resorted to only in extreme cases. He contended that the word "or" in the 1935 Constitution meant that intrusion to privacy of communications could be made either by court order or even without court order when public safety or order requires it. He maintained that this could not be abused inasmuch as there are safeguards such as Republic Act 4200 passed by Congress in 1965 which requires a court order even in matters involving public order and safety and which states the circumstances under which the government could proceed without a court order. Mr. Regalado explained that under the law, the application for a court order is similar to an application for the issuance of a search warrant such that before communications are intercepted, the corresponding documents have to be presented and deposited in court within 24 hours with the proper certification. He stated that failure to follow this procedure would make the intercepted documents inadmissible as evidence in court proceedings. He stressed that this requirement for issuance of a court order would remove the possibility of oppressive intrusion into the privacy of communication.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. SUAREZ

Mr. Suarez observed that Mr. Rodrigo's suggestion would involve two methods: (1) a lawful order of the court; or (2) when public safety or order requires it.

On the scope of communications and correspondence in Section 4, Mr. Rodrigo confirmed that these refer to letters, telegrams, messages and wireless transmitted through the government communications systems, although some of these letters and messages are delivered by private messengerial services.

As to whether the government could take advantage of this constitutional provision by either abusing or safeguarding the privacy of communication and correspondence, Mr. Rodrigo replied that legislations have been enacted precisely to safeguard this right and prevent abuses by the government. He maintained that removing the word "or" would prevent even the Legislature from enacting into laws such safeguards, inasmuch as the provision will allow the government to look into private communications when public safety and national security require it.

Mr. Rodrigo affirmed that the privacy of communication must be preserved as a sacred principle in the Constitution, the violation of which would harm private citizens, although, he maintained that the security of the State must prevail over personal convenience.   

On the suggestion that the State can go to court and secure a lawful order under the proposed provision, Mr. Rodrigo pointed out that this will take time and it may be too late to prevent an untoward incident such as what had recently happened at the Manila Hotel.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

At this juncture, the Chair suspended the session

It was 10:22 a.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 10:38 a.m., the session was resumed.

AMENDMENT OF MR. RODRIGO

Upon resumption of session, Mr. Rodrigo restated his amendment on page 2, line 4, to insert the word OR between "court" and "when".

Submitted to a vote, and with 24 Members voting in favor and 11 against, the amendment was approved by the Body.

AMENDMENT OF MR. DAVIDE

As proposed by Mr. Davide and accepted by the Sponsor, the Body approved an amendment on page 2, line 4, to place a comma (,) after the word "court"; and to add the words AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW after "otherwise" on line 5.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. NOLLEDO

On page 3, after Section 9, Mr. Nolledo proposed insert a new provision to read as follows:

SECTION 10. FOREIGNERS PERSECUTED BECAUSE OF THEIR STRUGGLE IN DEFENSE OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE LIBERATION OF THEIR COUNTRY SHALL BE GIVEN ASYLUM IN THE PHILIPPINES AND THEIR EXTRADITION SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED.

Mr. Nolledo explained his proposal by adverting to similar provisions in the Constitutions of the Federal Republic of Germany, Italy and Mexico, stating that its purpose is to show solidarity with freedom fighters who may be persecuted in their countries and denied the basic freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

He stated that Mr. Lorenzo Tañada, a staunch defender of human rights, sent a letter urging the Members of the Commission to embody this pro vision in the Bill of Rights to manifest its firm belief that the freedoms guaranteed therein are universal in nature and that violations of human rights any where in the world should be condemned.   

INQUIRY OF MR. SUAREZ

In reply to Mr. Suarez' query on whether he would accept an amendment to exclude crimes arising from nonpolitical offenses, Mr. Nolledo stated that it is a basic principle in international law that the right of asylum refers only to political offenses.

INQUIRY OF MR. OPLE

In reply to Mr. Ople's query on whether the proposal would legitimize the extension of Philippine hospitality to leaders of failed revolutions whose asylum in the Philippines could arouse indignation and reprisal from friendly countries in the region, Mr. Nolledo maintained that the possibility of reprisals should be considered incidental and unimportant in relation to the constitutional mandate to the President to grant asylum to foreigners involved in the defense of human rights in the liberation of their country. He also stated that even in the absence of this provision in the Constitution, the President is bound by the provisions of the Declaration of Human Rights to give protection to freedom fighters.

Mr. Ople stated that, although he was not opposed to the resolution, it is the responsibility of the Commission to look into the possibility of serious consequences arising from its action, in reply to which Mr. Nolledo expressed willingness to consider amendments aimed at giving flexibility to the implementation of the proposal.

INQUIRY OF MR. RODRIGO

In reply to Mr. Rodrigo's query on whether the Bill of Rights would indeed be the proper place for the proposal, Mr. Nolledo informed that similar provisions appear under the Bill of Rights of other Constitutions of the world, notably those of Germany, Italy and Mexico.

Mr. Rodrigo, however, suggested that the proposal could be better placed under the Declaration of Principles since the Bill of Rights has reference only to the protection of rights of residents and not of those who intend to seek asylum.

INQUIRY OF MR. AZCUNA

Responding to Mr. Azcuna's observations, Mr. Nolledo agreed that his proposal would grant the right of asylum to all who would like to seek temporary shelter from political persecution. He stressed, however, that the provision contemplates temporary asylum until such time that asylum is extended by other states.

On the matter of reciprocity, Mr. Nolledo stated that while he agrees in principle, its application can be nullified by a dictator of the country to which the foreigner seeking asylum belongs.

Mr. Nolledo agreed that his proposal would constitutionalize an international law rule that refugees should not be brought back to the borders or shores where their lives would be in danger.

At this juncture, Mr. Romulo interposed the observation that whether or not someone is a freedom fighter in his country is never a black and white question and that he was appalled by the suggestion that the request for asylum could override national interest.   

INQUIRY OF MS. AQUINO

In reply to Ms. Aquino's query whether he would agree to his proposal being located in some other pertinent provisions of the Constitution and that discussion on its merits undertaken thereat, Mr. Nolledo maintained that his proposal should appear in the Bill of Rights.

Mr. Garcia, as coauthor of the proposal, agreed that the proposal could be placed in the Declaration of Principles.

Thereupon, Mr. Nolledo withdrew his proposal.

INQUIRY OF MR. MAAMBONG

Mr. Maambong manifested that although Mr. Nolledo had temporarily withdrawn his amendment for possible transfer to the Declaration of Principles, it would be timely to mention the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and be clarified on certain points.

He then read portions of the book The New Constitution and Human Rights, which postulates that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not a treaty but a resolution approved by the General Assembly on December 10, 1949. As such, "it imposes no legal obligation on member states, it merely serves as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations in promoting respect for, and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms."

On whether the Philippines has ratified this Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Mr. Nolledo stated that he had no knowledge of it.

POINT OF ORDER

At this juncture, Mr. Guingona raised a point of order, stating that the discussions should be deferred to the time when the Body considers the proposal under the Article on the Declaration of Principles.

The Chair ruled that the point was well taken.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. TINGSON

On Section 21, lines 12 to 14, Mr. Tingson proposed the deletion of the sentence "If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one who is competent and independent", explaining that the intent of the sentence sought to be deleted is already covered by Section 24 as well as the first sentence of Section 21. He pointed out that the phrase "one who is competent and independent" need not be spelled out in the Constitution.

Mr. Bernas did not accept the proposed amendment on the ground that it was precisely inserted to strengthen the position of the victims of human rights violations.

Additionally, Mr. Sarmiento stated that the provision was based on the experiences of human rights lawyers which they encountered in the past regime.

Mr. Tingson maintained that it is not necessary to insert detailed explanations in the Constitution because it would be a precedent for other provision of similar nature, in reply to which, Mr. Sarmiento explained that the words "competent and independent" were inserted in specific terms to prevent abuses.

MR. REGALADO'S PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT

Mr Regalado proposed the insertion of the word EFFECTIVE between the words "have" and "counsel" on line 12 and the deletion of the sentence following it until line 14. He explained that the word "effective" covers independence of mind, integrity and desire to work for the interest of a client.

Mr. Tingson accepted the amendment to his amendment.

MS. AQUINO'S PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT

On line 12, Ms. Aquino proposed the addition of the phrase OF HIS OWN CHOICE after the word "counsel".

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

The Chair suspended the session.

It was 11:15 a.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 11:20 a.m., the session was resumed.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. TINGSON AS AMENDED

Mr. Tingson restated his proposed amendment, as amended, to add the phrase PREFERABLY OF HIS CHOICE after the word "counsel" on line 12; and to delete the sentence following it on lines 12 to 14.

Mr. Sarmiento expressed reservation on the ground that a detainee, who has been subjected to mental harassment, mental torture, coercion and the like, could not think clearly and independently and he would not be able to make the right choice. He stated that the words "competent and independent" stemmed from bitter and painful experience.

At this juncture, Mr. de Castro took exception to Mr. Sarmiento's statement that detainees had been harassed, badly treated and tortured. He pointed out that it is a general statement and an unfair accusation of the members of the police force and the military who offered their lives in the performance of their duties.

By way of rejoinder, Mr. Sarmiento cited Mr. Nolledo who was a victim of repression during the Marcos regime, to which Mr. de Castro replied that Mr. Nolledo's case was an exception which could not justify the general accusation.   

Mr. Tingson pointed out that the retention of the words "competent and independent" insinuates the idea that there are incompetent and non-independent lawyers. On the contention that a detained person is incapable of selecting his own counsel, he stated that the detainee has his family, relatives and friends who could help him make the choice.

In reply to Ms. Aquino's query on the status of his proposed amendment, Mr. Tingson stated that he was not withdrawing his proposed amendment and he asked that it be submitted to a vote.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

On request of Ms. Aquino, the Chair suspended the session.

It was 11:27 a.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 11:31 a.m., the session was resumed.

MODIFIED AMENDMENT OF MR. TINGSON

Mr. Tingson proposed a modified amendment: 1) to insert the words COMPETENT AND INDEPENDENT, between the words "have" and "counsel" on line 12; 2) after "counsel" on line 12 to add the phrase PREFERABLY OF HIS OWN CHOICE; and 3) to delete the sentence beginning with the word "If" on line 12 up to and including the word "independent" on line 14.

Mr. Bernas did not accept the deletion of the words "If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one".

On Mr. Tingson's suggestion to add the word FREE, Mr. Bernas underscored the necessity of emphasizing the obligation of the State to provide a person with a counsel.

Ms. Aquino observed that the amended version of Mr. Tingson's proposal does not distinguish between de parte and de officio counsels. On the amendment incorporating the words "preferably of his own choice", she stated that this would reassert the freedom to choose and to refuse which pertains in the first place, to the detainee. She, however, suggested that if the intention is to give muscle to the duty of the State, the amendment should rightfully belong to Section 24.

Thereupon, as proposed by Mr. Tingson, and as modified and accepted by the Committee, the Body approved the following amendments:

1) on page 4, line 12, between the words "have" and "counsel", insert the words COMPETENT AND INDEPENDENT, and between the word "counsel" and the period (.), insert the phrase PREFERABLY OF HIS OWN CHOICE; and

2) on line 13, put a period (.) after the word "one" and delete the words "who is" as well as the words "competent and independent" on line 14.

AMENDMENT OF MR. TREÑAS

On page 4, line 21, after the word "proceeding", Mr. Treñas proposed to insert the phrase AGAINST THE PARTY WHOSE RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED.

He explained that the proposal would make it clear that a confession would be inadmissible in a proceeding against the person whose rights were violated but would be admissible against the person who violated such right.

In reply to Mr. Suarez' query, Mr. Treñas affirmed that the confession would be admissible only against the person who made the confession and not against third persons.

Mr. Suarez opined that the proposal was unnecessary and would only complicate the provision.

Thereupon, Mr. Padilla proposed an amendment to the amendment, on line 20, after the word "inadmissible", by inserting the phrase IN EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM, and by deleting the word "for" as well as the words "any purpose in any proceeding" on line 21. He explained that admissibility only refers to the one who made the confession and not to others who were implicated, such that if one was made to confess by force, threat or intimidation, such confession would not be admissible.

Mr. Bernas opined that Mr. Treñas' proposal and the amendment of Mr. Padilla were unnecessary because the admissibility of evidence against other parties implicated would be governed by the existing rules on evidence.

But Mr. Padilla maintained that it is necessary to clarify that such confession would be inadmissible against the person who was forced to confess.

At this juncture, Mr. Azcuna proposed further amendment to Mr. Treñas' amendment, on line 21, after the word “proceeding”, by inserting instead the phrase EXCEPT TO PUNISH ANY VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW.

Mr. Treñas stated that he would rather accept the proposed amendment of Mr. Padilla which consists of the insertion of the phrase IN EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM after "inadmissible" on line 20, and the deletion of the word "for" on the same line and the words "any purpose in any proceeding" on line 21.  

Submitted to a vote, and with 20 Members voting in favor and 17 against, the proposed amendment as amended was approved by the Body.

AMENDMENT OF MR. DAVIDE

Thereafter, on the same page, lines 22 and 23, Mr. Davide proposed to delete the entire sentence and in lieu thereof to substitute the sentence PENAL AND CIVIL SANCTIONS FOR THE VIOLATIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE PROVIDED BY LAW, as modified by the Committee.

The Sponsor accepted the proposed amendment.

In reply to Mr. Suarez' query, Mr. Davide explained that "civil sanctions" would include imposition of moral, exemplary and other damages as well as administrative penalties on the violator. He also affirmed that said sanctions are different from the compensations provided for in the succeeding paragraph.

Mr. Padilla, however, maintained that said provision on penal and civil sanctions should not be included in the Bill of Rights but in other Articles like Social Justice or Human Resources, in reply to which Mr. Bernas underscored that although it does not belong to the Bill of Rights, the same should be placed therein to establish the connection with the other provisions of Section 21.

Submitted to a vote, and with 26 Members voting in favor and 3 against, the proposed amendment was approved by the Body.

AMENDMENTS OF MR. DE LOS REYES

On the same page, line 17, Mr. de los Reyes proposed to insert a comma (,) after the word "Secret", to delete the words "detention places and" and in lieu thereof to insert the conjunction "and", after the word "incommunicado" to insert the words AND OTHER SIMILAR FORMS OF.

Mr. Sarmiento observed that the words proposed to be inserted were redundant because “incommunicado” already refers to solitary detention.

On Mr. Bernas' observation that the words “detention places” were deleted, Mr. de los Reyes opined that "detention places" are embraced in the word "detention" because no one could be detained but in a place, such as safehouse. Mr. Bernas pointed out that a place may be secret but not the detention, and that what the provision prohibits are secret places.

In view thereof, the Sponsor did not accept the proposed amendment.

At this juncture, Mr. Davide proposed an amendment to Mr. de los Reyes' amendment, so that the sentence on lines 17 and 18 would read as follows: SECRET DETENTION PLACES, SOLITARY, INCOMMUNICADO, OR OTHER SIMILAR FORMS OF DETENTION ARE PROHIBITED.

On Mr. Natividad's contention that solitary confinement should not be prohibited in view of the fact that some prisoners run amuck and in order to save the lives of other inmates, they have to be placed in solitary confinement, Mr. Davide explained the distinction between the provisions of Sections 21 and 22, stating that the former refers to a detention without conviction, while the latter refers to solitary confinement in the execution of a sentence.

On Mr. Rodrigo's observation that the phrase "similar forms of detention" is unnecessary because there is no other kind of solitary detention, Mr. Davide stated that it is possible that the military may still develop other forms of secret detention similar to an incommunicado status.

In this connection, Mr. Garcia cited the practice of sensory deprivation in Colombia whereby people were blindfolded for several days until they lose sensory perception of the activities around them.

Mr. Padilla stated that although he had no objection to the substance of the proposal, he was objecting to putting it in the Bill of Rights.

Submitted to a vote, and with 38 Members voting in favor and none against, the same was approved by the Body.

On Section 21, Mr. de los Reyes also proposed to add a new paragraph between lines 23 and 24 to read as follows: NO PERSON SHALL BE SUBJECTED TO TORTURE OR TO CRUEL, DEGRADING OR INHUMAN TREATMENT to be followed by the amendment previously approved.

Mr. Davide, however, proposed to amend the amendment by adding the words NOR SHALL ANY CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT BE INFLICTED after "prohibited" in the amendment just approved.   

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

At this juncture, the Chair suspended the session.

It was 12:10 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

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

Upon resumption, Mr. Bernas accepted the proposal to be inserted after "counsel" on line 14.

Mr. de los Reyes accepted the Committee's suggestion.

Thereupon, Mr. de Castro proposed to add ANY OTHER MEANS WHICH VITIATES FREE WILL after "intimidation" .

Mr. Bernas accepted the proposal so that the new paragraph after "counsel" on line 14 would read: NO TORTURE, FORCE, VIOLENCE, THREAT, INTIMIDATION OR ANY OTHER MEANS WHICH VITIATES THE FREE WILL SHALL BE USED.

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

AMENDMENT OF MR. DE LOS REYES TO MR. DAVIDE'S AMENDMENT

Likewise, Mr. de los Reyes, with the permission of Mr. Davide, proposed to amend the latter's approved amendment on lines 24, 25 and 26 of Section 21 so that the same would read as follows: PENAL AND CIVIL SANCTIONS FOR VIOLATIONS OF THIS SECTION AS WELL AS COMPENSATION FOR AND REHABILITATION OF VICTIMS OF TORTURES OR SIMILAR PRACTICES, AND OF THEIR FAMILIES, SHALL BE PROVIDED BY LAW.

Mr. Bernas accepted the amendment, and in reply to Mr. Suarez' query, he stated that the offenders or perpetrators of victims of tortures or similar practices would be limited to government or public officials and not to private individuals.

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

AMENDMENT OF MR. PADILLA

Mr. Padilla proposed, on Section 21, to adopt the wording in the 1973 Constitution which reads ANY PERSON UNDER INVESTIGATION FOR THE COMMISSION OF AN OFFENSE SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT AND TO HAVE COUNSEL so as to stress the rights of the person under investigation rather than the duty of the investigating officer.

Mr. Colayco explained that the Committee changed the wording of the 1973 Constitution to make it a positive obligation on the part of the investigating officer to inform the accused of his rights.

Mr. Padilla maintained that since the provision is included in the Bill of Rights, then the right of the accused must be stressed to make it mandatory for the investigating official to inform the accused of his right.

Ms. Aquino concurred with Mr. Padilla's observation that a positive statement of the right necessarily carries with it the duty on the part of the investigating official.

The Committee did not accept the proposal. Submitted to a vote, and with 22 Members voting in favor and 14 against, the amendment was approved by the Body.

At this juncture, Mr. Bernas requested the Members to submit their proposals in writing so that they could be consolidated.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

At 12:28 p.m., the Chair suspended the session.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 2:47 p.m., the session was resumed.

AMENDMENT OF MR. MONSOD

On line 29, Section 22, Mr. Monsod proposed after the word "inflicted" to change the period (.) to a comma (,), and thereafter to add the following phrase:

UNLESS FOR COMPELLING REASONS INVOLVING HEINOUS CRIMES, THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY IMPOSES THE DEATH PENALTY.

Mr. Romulo supported the amendment by citing the example of the State of California which abolished the death penalty. He explained that the people, through initiative, returned the death penalty but the State Supreme Court on a technicality declared the initiative unconstitutional, because of which the people filed a recall now pending against four of the justices. Mr. Romulo stated that the incident illustrates that at some point the people as a rule should prevail and that eventually they may want to return the death penalty.   

INQUIRY OF MR. SUAREZ

As to whether organized dope trafficking can be considered a heinous crime which would preclude the application of the principle behind the abolition of death penalty, Mr. Monsod concurred. He also cited the example of organized Murder, Incorporated whose crimes may be considered heinous. Mr. Monsod pointed out that many impassioned and meritorious arguments on the subject of death penalty have been heard on the floor. He noted that in contemporary society, people recognize the sanctity of human life and adhere to the belief that only God can give and take life. Nevertheless, he stressed that the voice of the people is the voice of God and that the Body cannot presume to have the wisdom of the ages. He stated that it would be entirely possible in the future that circumstances may arise which cannot be anticipated at this time. He admitted that judging from the arguments, the matter of death penalty is far from settled and though he personally maintains that it should be abolished, the National Assembly, in its wisdom and as representative of the people, should be allowed "to still impose the death penalty for the common good" in specific cases.

Mr. Monsod confirmed that rape resulting in the death of the victim would be considered a heinous crime more specifically, if the rapist is a person in authority which is an aggravating circumstance because of the abuse of his position and authority.

INQUIRY OF MR. BERNAS

As to whether it is the purpose of the proponent that upon the adoption of this specific constitutional provision, existing death penalties in the statute books are deemed abolished, Mr. Monsod replied that the death penalty would be abolished upon ratification of the Constitution. He added that he did not propose the deletion of the next sentence inasmuch as a favorable law which may eventually be passed should benefit those who have been imposed the death penalty. He stated that if the National Assembly decides to reimpose the death penalty in specific cases, it should be prospective.

INQUIRY OF MR. NATIVIDAD

As to whether the Body would impose the death penalty for heinous crimes, Mr. Monsod stated that it should give that power to the National Assembly.

Mr. Natividad noted that because of a heinous crime the death penalty shall be imposed on the offender, which penalty would also be a heinous crime. He said that the Body has just banned torture but death, in itself, can be considered to be the highest form of torture. He pointed out that inasmuch as the Body is outraged by torture, it should view death or execution as more outrageous than torture.

He recalled that as a Member of Congress, he wrote the law on the Dangerous Drugs Act which punishes anyone manufacturing heroin with the death penalty in order to deter drug addiction. He noted that instead of deterring crimes connected with drug addiction, drug-related incidents have increased such that there now exists a command in the Constabulary to deal with drug addiction. He mentioned that in England 150 years ago, death penalty was supposed to be a deterrent against certain crimes such as pickpocketing, which crime did not abate at all.

By way of a rejoinder, Mr. Monsod stated that arguments for and against the death penalty had been exhausted and the Body had time to reflect on the issue. He pointed out that there is no conclusion that death penalty is a heinous crime or that it can be the most heinous crime of all. He maintained that there is a preponderance of reason at this time to abolish the death penalty but conditions and situations might change, which eventuality should not be foreclosed.

AMENDMENT OF MR. RODRIGO

On Section 22, line 28, after "punishment", Mr. Rodrigo proposed to delete the comma (,) and, in lieu thereof, to put the word INFLICTED followed by a period (.); and to delete the rest of the section.

Mr. Rodrigo concurred with Mr. Bernas' statement that the issue is whether or not to provide for death penalty in the Constitution or leave it to the discretion of the Legislature. He stated his personal belief that this matter should be left to the discretion of the Legislative. He noted that there are many provisions in the Revised Penal Code which impose the death penalty. He then adverted to a statement of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines made in connection with a proposed bill at the Batasang Pambansa to the effect that the Church does not have an official stand on whether it is for or against the death penalty. He mentioned that the two St. Thomases were not in agreement on this matter — St. Thomas Aquinas favoring the death penalty, and St. Thomas More opposing it.

Mr. Bacani stated that the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines supported the abolition of the death penalty in accordance with Mr. Monsod's amendment.

Mr. Monsod, however, did not accept Mr. Rodrigo's amendment to his amendment.

Mr. Regalado argued in support of Mr. Rodrigo's amendment, stating that there are enough procedural and substantial safeguards against unjust imposition of the death penalty, to wit:

A. Procedural safeguards:
	1)	The accused always enjoys the presumption of innocence;
	2)	He is always entitled to a counsel de officio both in the trial and in the appellate stages;
	3)	Despite the imposition of the death penalty, the court still requires that evidence be presented, and even if the accused has pleaded guilty, the court still requires the prosecution to introduce evidence to justify such imposition; and
	4)	There is automatic review of the death penalty imposed by the trial courts.
B. Substantive safeguards:
	1)	The death penalty cannot be imposed
		a)	if the accused at the time of the sentence is over 70 years of age;
		b)	if the vote of 10 justices are not obtained to affirm the death penalty; and
		c)	if a minor is below 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the offense;
	2)	Even if the Supreme Court itself imposes the death penalty, it cannot be carried out in cases where the President grants amnesty, pardon or commutation of the sentence;
	3)	The death penalty cannot be carried out on a woman until after the lapse of three years from the finality of judgment, or if the woman is pregnant; or the convict is insane at the time the penalty is to be carried out; and
	4)	Execution of the death penalty does not immediately follow after the Supreme Court has affirmed its imposition, because the records of the case may be remanded to the court of origin and the trial court, for valid reasons, can order that the death penalty be not carried out in the meantime.

Mr. Regalado then cited some statistics showing the number of cases decided by the Supreme Court involving capital punishment. He opined that there is nothing to fear considering that all the cases go through all the stages of refining and processing to avoid the possibility of error.

Recalling Mr. Ople's statement that those who voted for the waiver of the claim over Sabah are not less patriotic than those who insisted on maintaining the claim, Mr. Regalado stated that those who stand for the retention of the death penalty are not as bloodthirsty as those who are for the abolition thereof would picture them to be.

Responding thereto, Mr. Bernas stated that Mr. Regalado's comments showed clearly the tremendous reluctance of Philippine society to impose the death penalty. He maintained that the abolition of the death penalty by the Constitution would facilitate everything for the judges and the legislators.

In reply to the Chair's request for clarification of the thrust of the amendment to the amendment, Mr. Rodrigo stated that it is to leave the issue to the Legislature than include it in the Constitution.

RESTATEMENT OF MR. RODRIGO'S AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT

Thereupon, Mr. Rodrigo restated his amendment on page 4, line 28, to remove the comma (,) after the word "punishment", to put the word INFLICTED and a period (.) in lieu thereof; and to delete the rest of the section.

Submitted to a vote, 18 Members voted in favor and 19 voted against.

NOMINAL VOTING ON MR. RODRIGO'S AMENDMENT

Thereupon, Mr. Rodrigo moved for nominal voting.

Upon direction of the Chair, the Secretary-General of the Commission called the Roll for nominal voting. Thereafter, a second roll call was made.

RESULT OF THE VOTING

The result of the voting was as follows: 

In favor:
Azcuna	Regalado
Bengzon	Rigos
De Castro	Rodrigo
Guingona	Romulo
Jamir	Sumulong
Nieva	Tingson
Padilla	Treñas
Muñoz Palma	Uka
Rama
Against:
Abubakar	Lerum
Aquino	Maambong
Bacani	Monsod
Bernas	Natividad
Rosario Braid	Nolledo
Brocka	Ople
Davide	Quesada
Foz	De los Reyes
Garcia	Suarez
Gascon	Tan
Laurel
Abstention:
Concepcion

With 17 votes in favor, 21 against and 1 abstention, the amendment of Mr. Rodrigo was lost.

RESTATEMENT OF MR. MONSOD'S AMENDMENT

Thereupon, Mr. Monsod restated his amendment on page 4, line 29, after "inflicted" to add the words UNLESS FOR COMPELLING REASONS INVOLVING HEINOUS CRIMES THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY PROVIDES FOR THE DEATH PENALTY.

INQUIRY OF MR. DE CASTRO

In reply to Mr. de Castro's query on the effect of his proposal, Mr. Monsod stated that if the National Assembly does not pass any law concerning the death penalty, the same cannot be imposed.

INQUIRY OF MR. BENGZON

On the effect of the amendment on convicts sentenced to death, Mr. Monsod agreed that their penalties would be commuted to life imprisonment or reclusion perpetua. On the other hand, if a new law is passed by the National Assembly increasing the penalty for crimes punishable with life imprisonment to death, on whether those already found guilty of these crimes would suffer the death penalty, Mr. Monsod stated that penal laws are prospective in character.   

INQUIRY OF MR. REGALADO

On the observation of Mr. Regalado that only the President could commute a final sentence imposed by the court, Mr. Bernas stated that the intention is that, upon ratification of the Constitution, the death penalties already imposed would be automatically commuted without need of any action by the President.

Mr. Regalado then suggested that the word "commute" be changed to "reduce" in order to avoid invasion on the presidential prerogative.

INQUIRY OF MR. MAAMBONG

On the effect of the approval of the amendment, Mr. Bernas stated that with its approval, the death penalty would be erased from the statutes.

As to the effect of the amendment where the penalty range is reclusion temporal to death, Mr. Bernas stated that the judge would have to reduce the degrees and ranges which, however, could not go as far as death.

On the observation that since the death penalty is presently imposed on certain penal offenses, the intent of the Legislature when it formulated the laws would remain with the penalty of death, Mr. Bernas explained that with the acceptance of the amendment, all penal offenses punishable by death would no longer carry the death penalty.

INQUIRY OF MR. TINGSON

In reply to Mr. Tingson's query, Mr. Monsod stated that the proposal confirms the belief that God gives life and only God can take it away. He explained that the reason for the exceptions is that even natural and moral laws admit exceptions, one being that people act in the name of God.

INQUIRY OF MR. REGALADO

Mr. Regalado, on a follow-up to Mr. Maambong's query, expressed concern over the interregnum that would follow between ratification of the Constitution and the enactment of an enabling law. He explained, for instance, that in the crime of murder which carries a penalty ranging from reclusion temporal as the minimum period, reclusion perpetua as the medium period, and death as the maximum period, if the death penalty were abolished, the range would then consist of two periods but considering that reclusion perpetua is an indivisible penalty, the problem would be how to determine the medium period, which determination would create an interregnum.

In reply, Mr. Bernas stated that it is a matter which the judges and the Legislature should address.

Mr. Davide opined that the Committee could propose in the Transitory Provisions a provision which would take care of the matter.

Thereupon, Mr. Monsod manifested for the record Messrs. de los Reyes and Suarez' coauthorship of the amendment.

APPROVAL OF MR. MONSOD'S AMENDMENT

Submitted to a vote and with 23 Members voting in favor and 12 against, the Body approved Mr. Monsod's amendment.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. OPLE

Mr. Ople, jointly with Messrs. Romulo, Villacorta, Garcia, Brocka, Maambong, de los Reyes, Rigos and Natividad, proposed the addition of a new Section following Section 22, to read:

IN THE CASE OF GRAVE ABUSES COMMITTED AGAINST THE RIGHT TO LIFE WHETHER BY MEMBERS OF THE MILITARY OR POLICE OR THEIR ADVERSARY, THE PRINCIPLE OF COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY SHALL APPLY AND THE STATE MUST COMPENSATE THE VICTIMS.

Explaining the proposed amendment, Mr. Ople stated that, while the Body has expressed concern over the death penalty, there are other imminent forms of death penalty being experienced by millions of people in many embattled areas of the country. He then cited instances of institutionalized brutality either from the military or their adversaries, mass disappearances, salvagings and extrajudicial executions which have become routinary.

Mr. Ople underscored the great clamor for the Commission to address this issue. He observed that such abuses against ordinary citizens occur because the troops who commit them are convinced that this approach is sanctioned by their superiors or is part of an unwritten policy. He stressed that the pressure of legal reform must be directed to the appropriate levels in the chain of command of both the AFP and their adversary.

Mr. Ople stated that the adoption of his amendment would mean: 1) that the responsibility of the armed rebels or their commanders is acknowledged on the same plane as their government counterparts; 2) that their legal accountability could not be excused on the basis of revolutionary exigencies alone; 3) that the victims and the State could run after them when times become propitious; and 4) it would provide a basis for legal symmetry in the approach of the Presidential Commission on Human Rights to human rights violations, regardless of who commits them instead of permitting the much criticized situation where only the brutalities committed by the government are subject to inquiry while the brutalities committed outside the purview of government and of the courts remain unexamined.

INQUIRY OF MR. BENGZON

In reply to Mr. Bengzon's queries, Mr. Ople affirmed that the term "adversary forces" would refer to rebels, either from the NPA, MNLF or even the so-called Lost Command. He stated that the intention to compensate the families of victims of adversary forces would maintain the symmetry with compensation by the State of victims of AFP brutalities.

In justifying State compensation for the victims of non-governmental institutionalized brutality, Mr. Ople referred to the responsibility of the State for the protection of life and property which had been denied to these victims.

Mr. Bengzon argued that the government could not be summarily accused of negligence in the protection of the life and property of its citizens because the intention of these adversary forces, as part of their tactic, is to kill citizens, civilian or military, in reply to which Mr. Ople reiterated that the State is responsible for the protection of its citizens.

Finally, Mr. Bengzon opined that it would be unjust and unfair to make the State liable for the victims of its adversaries.

INQUIRY OF MR. GUINGONA

In reply to Mr. Guingona's inquiry, Mr. Ople stated that the amendment speaks of the application of command responsibility as a principle which is already supported by accumulated military rules and regulations and administrative and legal jurisprudence.

MR. GUINGONA'S PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT

Mr. Guingona proposed to add after the word "victims" the clause OF GOVERNMENT FORCES OR OF MILITARY OR POLICE FORCES OF THE GOVERNMENT. He explained that this would remove the compensation aspect for victims of non-governmental forces.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

The Chair suspended the session.

It was 3:56 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 4:05 p.m., the session was resumed.

Upon resumption of session, Mr. Guingona restated his proposal to amend Mr. Ople's amendment, to read: IN THE CASE OF GRAVE ABUSES COMMITTED AGAINST THE RIGHT TO LIFE BY MEMBERS OF THE MILITARY OR POLICE FORCES OR THEIR ADVERSARY, THE PRESUMPTION OF COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY SHALL APPLY, AND THE STATE MUST COMPENSATE THE VICTIMS OF GOVERNMENT FORCES.

Mr. Ople accepted the amendment to his amendment which was coauthored by Messrs. Guingona, Bengzon and Regalado.

REMARKS OF MR. PADILLA

Thereupon, speaking against Mr. Ople's amendment, Mr. Padilla stated that the Revised Penal Code does not recognize any criminal liability based on command responsibility except when conspiracy (Article 8) is established or he is a principal by inducement under Article 17, No. 2 — those who directly order or induce others to commit the crime. He observed that the proposal would make the State compensate the victims even if it is not the accused in the case.

He also noted that the proposal only covers abuses committed against life but not other crimes such as rape, robbery with rape, and kidnapping with ransom. He added that the presumption of responsibility would be contrary to the presumption of innocence guaranteed by the Constitution.   

INQUIRY OF MR. RODRIGO

In reply to Mr. Rodrigo's inquiry, the Chair stated that the Body was considering the proposed amendment of Mr. Ople, as amended, which the latter restated, to wit:

IN THE CASE OF GRAVE ABUSES COMMITTED AGAINST THE RIGHT TO LIFE BY MEMBERS OF THE MILITARY OR POLICE FORCES AND THEIR ADVERSARY, THERE SHALL BE A PRESUMPTION OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR THOSE IN HIGHER AUTHORITY AND THE STATE MUST COMPENSATE THE VICTIMS OF THE GOVERNMENT FORCES.

INQUIRY OF MR. DE CASTRO

In reply to Mr. de Castro's query on the degree of responsibility, Mr. Ople stated that the available evidence would determine how high the responsibility would go, like in the case of the Escalante Massacre where the majority report absolved General Ramos of any responsibility.

Mr. de Castro, however, pointed out that command responsibility holds a commander responsible for any act or omission of his unit, such that said responsibility could reach the President, being the Commander-in-Chief. He stated that if the higher authority would not accept responsibility, there would be no one to compensate the victims, in reply to which, Mr. Ople underscored that the proposal provides that the State must compensate said victims, but only after the presumption of responsibility for those in higher authority has been established. Mr. Ople opined that a comma (,) would distinguish in the proposal the condition from the action by the State.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. RODRIGO

In reply to Mr. Rodrigo's suggestion that the principle of command responsibility be included in the Declaration of Principles and not in the Bill of Rights, Mr. Ople stated that it is appropriate to include it in the Bill of Rights to follow Section 22 which exalts the value of human life by abolishing the death penalty with certain exceptions.

Considering that the presumption of command responsibility would apply to both the military and its adversary, Mr. Rodrigo opined that it would be unfair to the military because it is difficult to identify the commanders of the enemy, in reply to which, Mr. Ople stated that although the courts presently do not have direct access to the rebels, the constitutional rights of the aggrieved and their families remain intact and due compensation would be secured at a more propitious time. He also stressed that this proposal would serve notice to the adversary of government that the Constitution is not insensitive to the violations they commit.

Furthermore, Mr. Rodrigo observed that, with the admission that there would be no equal treatment of cases involving the commanders of the military and the commanders of the adversary, there is no equal protection of the law.

In view thereof, Mr. Ople rephrased his proposed amendment to read as follows: IN THE CASE OF GRAVE ABUSES COMMITTED AGAINST THE RIGHT TO LIFE BY THE MEMBERS OF THE MILITARY OR POLICE FORCES OR THEIR ADVERSARY, THERE SHALL BE A PRESUMPTION OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR THOSE IN HIGHER AUTHORITY. THE STATE MUST COMPENSATE THE VICTIMS OF THE GOVERNMENT FORCES,

Finally, Mr. Ople explained that the higher courts would decide whom the State would compensate upon filing of civil complaints or upon representation by the State.

OBJECTION OF MR. DAVIDE

Speaking against the proposed amendment, Mr. Davide pointed out that 1) it would clutter the courts with cases for compensation, making the courts unable to attend to other vital governmental functions; 2) it would enthrone the presumption of guilt rather than the presumption of innocence as embodied in the Bill of Rights; 3) it would make the State liable for acts of atrocity of the military while rewarding the enemy for acts committed against the State; and 4) it would make the President and the Legislature responsible for deaths resulting from the declaration of martial law because of invasion or insurrection.

He also noted that although it has noble objectives, the proposal would endanger the stability of the State and society.   

OBJECTION OF MR. MONSOD

Likewise, Mr. Monsod expressed his opposition to the proposed amendment on the ground that while there is no one in the Constitutional Commission who is not pro-human rights, care should be taken that the Constitution does not become anti-State with ponderous safeguards of doubtful value.

He also stated that victims of "loot commands" or insurgents could also claim that they were victims of government forces, which would result in innumerable unfounded suits.

As a rejoinder, Mr. Ople noted that although the death penalty had been abolished, certain forms of death penalty continue to exist such as salvagings and massacre, which likewise have to be addressed to the Constitutional Commission. He stressed that his proposal would be a shield or protection for people experiencing such atrocities.

MR. SUAREZ' AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT

Thereafter, Mr. Suarez proposed to delete the first sentence of the proposed amendment, and to modify the second sentence to read as follows: THE STATE SHALL COMPENSATE THE VICTIMS OF MILITARY ATROCITIES IN THE MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW.

With Mr. Ople's nonacceptance, Mr. Suarez did not insist on his proposal.

VOTING ON MR. OPLE'S AMENDMENT, AS AMENDED

Thereupon, Mr. Ople restated his proposed amendment, as amended, to wit:

SECTION___ IN THE CASE OF GRAVE ABUSES COMMITTED AGAINST THE RIGHT TO LIFE BY MEMBERS OF THE MILITARY OR POLICE FORCES OR THEIR ADVERSARY, THERE SHALL BE A PRESUMPTION OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR THOSE IN HIGHER AUTHORITY. THE STATE MUST COMPENSATE THE VICTIMS OF THE GOVERNMENT FORCES.

Submitted to a vote, and with 9 Members voting in favor and 22 against, the amendment was lost.

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS OF MRS. ROSARIO BRAID

Mrs. Rosario Braid proposed, on Section 22, line 30, to substitute "reclusion perpetua" with LIFE IMPRISONMENT.

Mr. Bernas stated that the Constitution being a legal document, the Committee prefers the use of a technical term well understood in Philippine jurisprudence.

Thereupon, Mrs. Rosario Braid desisted from pursuing her amendment.

On Section 6, line 13, Mrs. Rosario Braid proposed to insert ADEQUATE AND BALANCED between "to" and "information"; on line 14, to change "matters" to BASIC NEEDS; and on line 18, to add the sentence THE RIGHT TO COMMUNICATE SHALL BE PROTECTED AT ALL TIMES.

Mr. Bernas, likewise, rejected the proposals on the ground that they contain concepts which are difficult to understand, besides, they are already covered by the phrase "matters of public concern".

Submitted to a vote and with 7 Members voting in favor and 17 against, the amendments were lost.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. FOZ

Mr. Foz proposed to substitute the entire Section 9 with the following:

SECTION 9.   THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ENJOY FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND PRESS AND TO PEACEABLY ASSEMBLE AND PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES SMALL NOT BE ABRIDGED.

Mr. Foz explained that the proposal would give social dimension to the exercise of the freedom of speech and of the press and emphasize that the people could enjoy these freedoms for the common good or interest of the community.

Mr. Bernas rejected the proposal on the ground that it does not add anything to what is already provided for by the provision sought to be amended. He added that the provision, which is also found in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions has been the subject of extensive jurisprudence, explaining what freedom of speech and of the press means and its consequent limitations. He explained further that by limiting the protection to the people, the protection for entities like publishing companies would be removed.   

Mr. Foz maintained that by putting emphasis on "people" the provision would serve as a reminder to publishers that whenever they write an opinion it has to be expressed to achieve public good.

In addition thereto, Mrs. Rosario Braid proposed to include the sentence THE STATE SHALL PROTECT THIS FREEDOM TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF STRUCTURES THAT ENABLE ACCESS TO INFORMATION WHICH PROMOTES SOCIAL AND POLITICAL PARTICIPATION after Mr. Foz' proposed amendment.

She explained that her proposal would enable people with little access to knowledge and information to maximize their exercise of these freedoms.

Mr. Bernas, Likewise, rejected the proposal.

Thereupon, Mr. Foz suggested that the Body first vote on his amendment and then on Mrs. Rosario Braid's proposal.

At this juncture, Mr. Padilla commented that the original provision which is expressed in a negative way is far stronger and more emphatic than a positive statement as proposed by Mr. Foz. He added that "people" was not mentioned in the first clause which provides for freedom of speech and of the press because of its very extensive connotation.

Mr. Laurel also commented that the old provision has been interpreted and emphasized in many court rulings and is already understood clearly in American and Philippine jurisprudence.

Thereafter, Mr. de Castro suggested that the Body vote on the two amendments as one whole.

Mr. Foz insisted on separate votes.

The Chair ruled for a separate voting.

Mr. Foz' amendment was submitted to a vote, and with 10 Members voting in favor and 15 against, the same was lost.

Mrs. Rosario Braid's amendment was then submitted to a vote and with 11 Members voting in favor and 17 against, the same was lost.

AMENDMENT OF MR. VILLACORTA

As proposed by Mr. Villacorta and accepted by the Sponsor, the Body approved, on Section 6, line 16, the amendment inserting the phrase AS WELL AS GOVERNMENT RESEARCH DATA USED AS BASIS FOR POLICY DEVELOPMENT between "decisions" and "shall".

AMENDMENT OF MR. DE LOS REYES

As proposed by Mr. de los Reyes and accepted by the Sponsor, the Body approved the deletion of the entire Section 10 which reads as follows:

SECTION 10. NO LAW GRANTING A TITLE OF ROYALTY OR NOBILITY SHALL BE ENACTED.

Mr. de los Reyes stated that the provision is not a right and should not be included in the Bill of Rights.

Mr. Bernas stated that the acceptance of the Committee is without prejudice to transferring the same provision to the Article on General Provisions.

AMENDMENT OF MR. LERUM

On Section 7, page 2, line 19, Mr. Lerum proposed to insert the phrase WHETHER EMPLOYED BY THE STATE OR PRIVATE ESTABLISHMENTS between the words "people" and "to".

Reacting to the amendment, Mr. Rodrigo maintained that as phrased in the provision, the right to self-organization would belong to all people but if modified it would be limited only to those employed.

Mr. Lerum reasoned that under the 1935 Bill of Rights, the right to form associations or organizations was granted to all persons, whether they are employed in the government or in the private sector and the same provision allowed unions in government-owned or controlled corporations as well as in certain industries in the private sector. He stated that under this Constitutional provision, government employees were able to form associations or unions such as the Philippine Government Employees Associations, unions in the GSIS, SSS, DBP and other government-owned or controlled corporations and certain private workers organized unions of supervisory employees and unions of security guards. He noted that after the approval of the 1973 Constitution and in spite of an expressed recognition of the right of workers to organize under the Labor Code, the right of government workers as well as the right of private workers to self-organization were abolished and, thenceforth, workers have fought this abolition.

He stated that in every tripartite conference, workers have been insisting on the return of these rights but nothing ever came out of this effort until the Constitutional Commission approved a provision which states:

NOTWITHSTANDING ANY PROVISION OF THIS ARTICLE, THE RIGHT TO SELF-ORGANIZATION SHALL NOT BE DENIED TO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES.

Nevertheless, he stressed the need for a corresponding provision which would cover the private sector, specifically the security guards and supervisory employees.

He stated his willingness to accept any wording that would give absolute recognition to employees in the private sector, without exception, to organize.

Mr. Bernas, though admitting that the sense of the amendment was acceptable, took note of the points raised by Mr. Rodrigo. He suggested to rephrase the amendment, to read:

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE WHETHER UNEMPLOYED OR EMPLOYED BY STATE OR PRIVATE ESTABLISHMENTS. . .

MR. DE LOS REYES' AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT

Mr. de los Reyes proposed the phrase INCLUDING THOSE EMPLOYED IN GOVERNMENT AND PRIVATE FIRMS which would cover all people in lieu of "whether employed by the state or private establishments", which amendment was accepted by Mr. Lerum.

Mr. Rodrigo informed that there was a similar provision under the Article on the Civil Service.

Mr. Lerum reiterated his willingness to accept any amendment as long as the right of the people in the private sector is given equal recognition. He stated that unless there is an expressed provision in the Constitution, the two provisions in the Labor Code to this effect would have to be brought up before the Supreme Court to be declared illegal. He stressed that a provision in the Constitution would do away with the Labor Code provisions.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

The Chair suspended the session.

It was 5:14 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 5:29 p.m., the session was resumed with the Honorable Jose F. S. Bengzon, Jr. presiding.

Thereafter, Mr. Lerum restated the amendment, to wit:

"The right of the people INCLUDING THOSE EMPLOYED IN THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTORS to form associations, unions, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged."

He adverted to Articles 245 and 246 of the Labor Code which will be abolished should the provision be incorporated in the Constitution.

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

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. GUINGONA

On Section 16, Mr. Guingona proposed to add after the sentence ending with "bodies" the following provision, to wit:

THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OR CONGRESS SHALL FIX BY LAW THE PERIOD WITHIN WHICH DECISIONS OF QUASI-JUDICIAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES MUST BE DECIDED OR RESOLVED FROM THE DATE OF SUBMISSION.

Mr. Guingona explained that the amendment is complimentary to the provision that was approved in the Article on the Judiciary.

Mr. de Castro pointed out that the Common Provisions in the Article on the Constitutional Commissions contain a provision which states that these bodies shall decide cases within 60 days from submission thereof and in view of this it will not be necessary for the National Assembly to pass a law limiting the period within which decisions on cases shall be made.

Mr. Guingona replied that there are other quasi-judicial or administrative bodies which are not covered by this specific provision and which do not have a mandatory period for rendering decisions.

Responding thereto, Mr. Bernas stated that not all quasi-judicial or administrative bodies are covered by the provisions contained in the Constitution.

Submitted to a vote, and with 2 Members voting in favor and 27 against, the amendment was lost.

INQUIRY OF MRS. QUESADA

In reply to Mrs. Quesada's query relative to Section 16, Mr. Bernas affirmed that the cases contained therein include administrative cases.

Mrs. Quesada observed that many government employees have not been able to invoke this particular provision of the Bill of Rights and that there are many pending administrative cases which have not been disposed of.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. DE LOS REYES

On page 3, Mr. de los Reyes proposed the deletion of Section 17 on the ground that it is already covered in Section 1 and, therefore, self-delimiting. He stated that, while Section 17 is limited to criminal offenses and to substantial due process, Section 1 is all-embracing in that it includes all rights, including criminal offenses and substantive and procedural due process.

Responding thereto, Mr. Bernas stated that, although he agreed with Mr. de los Reyes that Section 17 is adequately covered by Section 1, it would not be timely to delete this because the country has just experienced a period where very little respect was given for due process in criminal proceedings. He stressed that it is not a question of substance but of timeliness.

AMENDMENT OF MR. DE LOS REYES

As proposed by Mr. De los Reyes and accepted by the sponsor, the Body approved an amendment on page 3, to transpose Section 17 to line 25 as the first sentence of Section 19 thereof.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. TADEO

On page 2, line 11, Mr. Tadeo proposed to delete the word "or" between "court" and "when".

In reply, Mr. Bernas stated that this is a provision of the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions and he would want a discussion on the matter before acting on the proposal.

INQUIRY OF MR. RODRIGO

On the query of Mr. Rodrigo regarding the effect of the amendment if approved, Mr. Bernas agreed that passports may not be cancelled unless ordered by the court.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

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

It was 5:45 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 5:48 p.m., the session was resumed.

MODIFIED AMENDMENT OF MR. TADEO

Upon resumption of session, Mr. Bernas read the modified amendment of Mr. Tadeo on page 2, to read as follows:

SECTION 5. THE LIBERTY OF ABODE AND OF CHANGING THE SAME WITHIN THE LIMITS PR SCRIBED BY LAW, SHALL NOT BE IMPAIRED EXCEPT UPON LAWFUL ORDER OF THE COURT. NEITHER SHALL THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL BE IMPAIRED EXCEPT IN THE INTEREST OF NATIONAL SECURITY, PUBLIC SAFETY, OR PUBLIC HEALTH AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW.

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

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. PADILLA

On Section 18, Mr. Padilla observed that the clause "except those charged with capital offense when evidence of guilt is strong" has been deleted by the Committee, although such phrase was in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions. He contended that there is a difference between capital punishment and capital offense.

Mr. Padilla pointed out that, on the assumption that the Legislature would not reinstate capital punishment and if said clause appearing in the previous Constitutions would not likewise be reinstated, it would seem that every accused person before conviction would be entitled to bail even if he is charged with a capital offense.

In this connection, Mr. Padilla proposed the restoration of the clause so that a person accused of rape, murder, treason, and similar offenses where the evidence of guilt is strong, may be denied the right to bail by the court. He then expressed the view that if said clause would not be reinstated, it would mean that all accused, no matter how grave the felony is, would be entitled to bail as a matter of right.

Responding thereto, Mr. Bernas stated that with the abolition of the death penalty, the Committee intends to make bail available to all types of crimes by sufficient sureties. He opined that an offense no longer punishable by death, ceases to be a capital offense.   

MR. REGALADO'S AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT

Mr. Regalado observed that with the abolition of the death penalty, the highest penalty that could be imposed is reclusion perpetua.

In the case of a recidivist, Mr. Regalado inquired whether such person would still be allowed to roam freely under bail of P50,000, to which Mr. Bernas replied that it was not the intention of the Committee to fix the bail at P50,000 because the meaning of sufficient sureties would have to be changed by legislation.

Mr. Regalado then proposed to amend the amendment to read: ALL PERSONS EXCEPT THOSE CHARGED WITH OFFENSES PUNISHABLE BY RECLUSION PERPETUA WHEN EVIDENCE OF GUILT IS STRONG SHALL BEFORE CONVICTION, BE BAILABLE . .

He explained that his proposal would protect society against moral perverts, as well as avoid the possibility of equating capital offense with an offense punishable by death.

Mr. Padilla stated that although he agrees with the idea, the problem lies in the fact that by limiting the penalty to reclusion perpetua, persons charged with murder may still claim the right to bail even when the evidence of guilt is strong.

Mr. Regalado pointed out that the present penalty for murder is reclusion temporal in its maximum period if he has a mitigating circumstance but no aggravating circumstance, or it could be reclusion perpetua if he has neither mitigating or aggravating circumstances. In this regard, he stressed that it does not rule out a range of penalty, the maximum of which is reclusion perpetua.

SUGGESTION OF MR. MAAMBONG

At this juncture, Mr. Maambong suggested the use of the term "imposable penalty" of reclusion perpetua, to which the Chair replied that the words "may be punishable" already cover such contingency and that the proposal had already been accepted by Mr. Padilla.

Mr. Padilla stated that the word "punishable" would be more accurate than the word "imposable" considering that the former refers to a penalty prescribed by law while the latter refers to a penalty that may be imposed by the court and what is usually followed is the penalty prescribed by law.   

In reply to Mr. Davide's inquiry as to what would happen in the event there would be a law that would restore the death penalty in certain cases, Mr. Bernas affirmed that the particular offense on which the penalty of death is imposed should not be bailable except when the evidence of guilt is not strong.

MR. AZCUNA'S PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT

Mr. Azcuna proposed the substitution of the term "reclusion perpetua" to EXCEPT THOSE OFFENSES PUNISHABLE WITH THE HIGHEST PENALTY, explaining that his amendment would include reclusion perpetua in the absence of a death penalty and on the other hand, it would include death penalty if such a penalty is provided. He pointed out that heinous crimes might be provided with a single penalty of death, in which case, it would be bailable.

Replying thereto, Mr. Regalado stated that heinous crimes are included in Section 22 such that the proposed amendment would properly belong to said section, to which Mr. Azcuna replied that the provision on bail would become faulty because it would make a crime punishable by a single death penalty bailable.

Mr. Bernas clarified that Mr. Azcuna's proposal contemplates a situation where the Legislature would prescribe a single death penalty while that of Mr. Regalado refers to crimes that are bailable, in which case, a crime punishable by a single death penalty, it being excluded among the exceptions, would become bailable whereas a lower crime would not be bailable.

Mr. Bernas stressed that even if a crime were to be given a single imposable penalty, that crime would be nonbailable.

Mr. Azcuna stated that the life of the law has not been logic but experience.

Mr. Padilla pointed out that the word "heinous" is not found in the Penal Code because crimes are classified into grave, less grave and light.

Mr. Rodrigo opined that when a crime is punishable by death, it would mean that it could be punished either by reclusion temporal, reclusion perpetua or death; on the other hand, when a crime is punishable with death, the only penalty is death, to which Mr. Azcuna replied that in Malaysia, drug trafficking is punishable by a single mandatory penalty of death and that there will come a time when the National Assembly may adopt such form of penalty.

APPROVAL OF MR. PADILLA'S AMENDMENT, AS AMENDED BY MR. REGALADO

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

INQUIRY OF MR. SUAREZ

In reply to Mr. Suarez' inquiry, Mr. Bernas explained that the phrase "as provided by law" would authorize the Legislature to determine when recognizance is an adequate substitute for bail.

AMENDMENT OF MR. NOLLEDO

Before presenting his proposed amendment, Mr. Nolledo stated that his proposal was covered by Resolution No. 191 which was rejected in the Committee on the ground that it was already covered by due process. He pointed out that due process consists of two parts, namely, one which talks of jurisdiction, previous notice, hearing and judgment and the other, which is substantive due process. He pointed out that the amendment assumes that one who espouses certain political beliefs and aspires for the realization thereof must do so through peaceful and lawful means. He stressed that the amendment would fully uphold the freedom that should be guaranteed to every citizen in a democratic society.

Thereupon, Mr. Nolledo proposed to add in Section 17, which formed part of Section 19, the following: NOR SHALL ANY PERSON BE DETAINED MERELY BY REASON OF HIS POLITICAL BELIEFS AND ASPIRATIONS.

Mr. Bernas did not accept the proposed amendment on the ground that it is covered 1) by the due process clause; 2) by Section 9 which provides freedom of speech and of expression; and 3) if in spite of all that, he is still detained, he could avail of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus which in every instance gives the person the right to immediate liberty on the basis of the Constitutional philosophy that the government could only act if it has the authority to act.

Mr. Nolledo maintained that his amendment is not covered by due process and if it were covered by the freedom of the press, the provision is preventive in nature.

Submitted to a vote, and with 19 Members voting in favor and 10 against, the amendment was approved by the Body.

AMENDMENT OF MR. BROCKA

As proposed by Mr. Brocka and accepted by the Sponsor, the Body approved the amendment on Section 9, line 20, to insert after the word "speech" the word EXPRESSION.

AMENDMENT OF MR. DE LOS REYES

As proposed by Mr. de los Reyes and accepted by the Sponsor, the Body approved the amendment on Section 18, line 23, to insert a new sentence before the word "Excessive" to read as follows: THE RIGHT TO BAIL SHALL NOT BE IMPAIRED EVEN WHEN THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS SUSPENDED.

In reply to the query of Mr. Rodrigo, Mr. Bernas adverted to a jurisprudence during martial law that says that the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus also suspends the right to bail.

Commenting on Mr. Bernas' reply, Mr. de Castro pointed out that there were several instances, when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus was suspended, that persons arrested were not charged and, therefore, could not have been bailed. Mr. Bernas stated that the remedy would be to narrow the scope of the writ of habeas corpus which could be done in the provisions of the Executive Department.   

On the scope of the suspension of the writ under the Executive Department, Mr. Maambong, reading the relevant portion, stated that "the suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or for offenses inherent in or directly connected with invasion".

Mr. de Castro informed that he had some reservations on said provision just read, which reservation remains valid until the Body shall have approved such provision.

Submitted to a vote and with 33 Members voting in favor and 2 against, the amendment was approved by the Body.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. PADILLA

Before presenting his amendment, Mr. Padilla recalled that during his interpellation on Section 15, he noticed that the phrase "or imminent danger thereof" was deleted on the ground that the provision contemplates only actual invasion and actual rebellion. In the light of the decision to limit the authority of the President, as Commander-in-Chief, in suspending the writ of habeas corpus, Mr. Padilla proposed the reinsertion of the phrase "or imminent danger thereof" in order to be consistent with the provision on the writ of habeas corpus.

In reply, Mr. Bernas pointed out that the Committee deleted the phrase "imminent danger thereof" because it is the source of a multitude of evil and irresistible temptations.

Mr. Padilla maintained that the phrase was contained in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions but had not caused a multitude of confusion.

Speaking in favor of the amendment, Mr. De Castro stated that if Section 15 speaks only of actual invasion or rebellion, and not just an imminent danger thereof, there would be no more writ of habeas corpus to suspend because the situation would be one of actual shooting.

REMARKS OF MR. CONCEPCION

Mr. Concepcion stated that the deletion of the phrase “imminent danger thereof” was based on the fact that the President could call on the Armed Forces to suppress invasion, rebellion or insurrection, which dispenses the need for suspending the writ of habeas corpus.

He noted that the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus and to declare martial law dates back to the American Governor-General who was granted such power by the United States Congress, which power was also claimed by President Quezon.

In connection therewith, Mr. Ople adverted to the fact that preparatory to the invasion when Japanese troops were to be transported to the Philippines, President Quezon's Chief of Staff saw the need to suspend the writ of habeas corpus in order to immobilize the troops that were already in the country. He said that in such situation, the President need not wait for the Japanese troops to land in the Philippines before suspending the writ of habeas corpus.

Mr. de Castro recalled that President Quezon began ordering the arrest of Japanese agents only when troops were already landing in the Philippines, whereas the writ of habeas corpus could have been suspended at the time when he knew of the coming of Japanese troops.

REMARKS OF MR. BROCKA

Reacting thereto, Mr. Brocka pointed out the danger of abusing the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, like in the past regime when because the President wanted to perpetuate himself in power, certain bombings and public disorder were staged to make it appear that an imminent danger of rebellion was existing.

REMARKS OF MR. REGALADO

Mr. Regalado observed that although the phrase "imminent danger thereof" was found in the Article on the Executive of the 1935 Constitution, the same was restored in the proposed Bill of Rights.

On the matter of invasion, Mr. Regalado underscored that according to the Hague Convention, invasion does not necessarily require physical invasion of the shores of a country but starts from the belligerent act directed towards invasion.

REJOINDER OF MR. PADILLA

By way of rejoinder, Mr. Padilla stated that the phrase was found in both the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, and now certain limitations are provided to avoid abuse, such as the 60-day duration of martial law, the concurrence of Congress and review by the Supreme Court, in which case the dangers would be minimal.

VOTING ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT

Thereupon, Mr. Padilla restated his proposed amendment on page 3, line 15, to reinsert the phrase OR IMMINENT DANGER THEREOF between "rebellion" and "when".

Submitted to a vote, and with 16 Members voting in favor and 20 against, the proposed amendment was lost.

AMENDMENT OF MR. DE LOS REYES

On page 4, line 6, Mr. de los Reyes proposed to delete the period (.) after "fiable" and to insert the phrase OR WHEN HE HAS WAIVED IN WRITING HIS PRESENCE.

He explained that if the person wants a speedy trial and he cannot attend the trial because of sickness, the trial could proceed even without his presence when he has waived his presence in writing. Mr. Suarez then stated that the proposal was unnecessary because the situation would be covered by the Rules of Court, in reply to which Mr. de los Reyes observed that there are judges who, for one reason or another, order the confiscation of bail bond even if the accused has waived his presence in writing and that there is nothing in the Rules of Court that covers such situation.

However, Mr. Colayco pointed out that even if the person waives his presence in writing, the court may still order him to appear for identification, in reply to which Mr. de los Reyes stated that in certain cases in the Sandiganbayan, the accused was allowed to waive his identification.

Mr. de los Reyes did not insist on his amendment on the understanding that an accused can waive his presence in writing except for purposes of identification and during arraignment and promulgation of judgment.

Thereafter, Mr. de los Reyes proposed a new Section to read as follows:

SECTION____. VICTIMS OF CRIMES AND THEIR RELATIVES ARE ENTITLED TO A SPEEDY INVESTIGATION AND SOLUTION OF THE CRIMES COMMITTED AGAINST THEM AND AN EXPEDITIOUS PROSECUTION OF THE CRIMINAL OFFENDERS. THEY SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO POLICE PROTECTION AGAINST THREAT TO THEIR LIVES AND SAFETY AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE.

He observed that more concern were given in protecting outlaws rather than victims of crimes, in reply to which Mr. Bernas stated that Section 16 already provides for the right of both the accused and the victim for a speedy disposition of their cases.

Mr. de los Reyes maintained that Section 19 only provides for the right of the accused for a speedy trial, in reply to which Mr. Bernas stated that the victim or complainant could appeal under Section 16.

Furthermore, Mr. Rodrigo inquired if there would be enough policemen to protect all complainants.

At this juncture, the Chair submitted the proposed amendment to a vote, and with 12 Members voting in favor and 19 against, the same was lost.

INQUIRY OF MR. TINGSON

In reply to Mr. Tingson's query on the meaning of Section 23, Mr. Bernas stated that the section refers to two kinds of double jeopardy: first, when a person is prosecuted twice for the same offense in the same court and against the same party; and the second, refers to an act which may be a violation of both the statute and ordinance, in which case, a person should answer for the offense either under the statute or under the ordinance.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. MAAMBONG

Mr. Maambong manifested that together with Messrs. Ople, de los Reyes and Natividad, he had filed Proposed Resolution No. 482 for the purpose of alleviating the plight of prisoners who may be suffering from cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment because of the conditions prevailing in prison.   

Thereupon, he proposed to add the sentence BELIEFS FOR VIOLATIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE PROVIDED BY LAW precisely to prevent prisoners from languishing in jails under cruel, inhuman and degrading conditions.

Mr. Bernas opined that the relief sought by Mr. Maambong could not be attained under the Section because said Section refers to the release of prisoner from detention because the law under which he was convicted was declared unconstitutional. He suggested that Mr. Maambong present his proposal on the matter in another Section.

Thereupon, Mr. Maambong made a reservation to present his proposal at the proper time.

OBSERVATION OF MR. BERNAS

Mr. Bernas agreed with Mr. Suarez' observation on Section 15 that the suspension of the privilege of writ of habeas corpus is subject to the conditions, limitations and requirements provided under the Article on the Executive.

TERMINATION OF THE PERIOD OF AMENDMENTS

The Chair declared the period of amendments closed, subject to the reservations previously made by Messrs. Maambong and Bernas.

APPROVAL ON SECOND READING OR PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 486, AS AMENDED

Thereupon, submitted to a vote, and with 35 Members voting in favor and none against, the Chair declared Proposed Resolution No. 486 approved on Second Reading, as amended.

ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION

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

It was 7:20 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 19, 1986