| CONTACT: |
| Supreme Court of the Philippines Library Services, Padre Faura, Ermita, Manila, Philippines 1000 |
| (632) 8524-2706 |
| libraryservices.sc@judiciary.gov.ph |
[ VOL. V, September 25, 1986 ]
R.C.C. NO. 92
Thursday, September 25, 1986
At 10:05 a.m., the Presiding Officer, the Honorable Francisco A. Rodrigo, opened the session.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): The session is called to order.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Everybody will please rise to sing the National Anthem.
Everybody rose to sing the National Anthem.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Everybody will please remain standing for the Prayer to be led by the Honorable Teodoro C. Bacani.
Everybody remained standing for the Prayer.
BISHOP BACANI: Diyos na aming Ama, salamat po sa bagong araw na ito, isa pang araw upang makapaglingkod kami sa Iyo at sa aming kapwa tao. Iniaalay namin sa Iyo ang lahat ng aming iisipin, sasabihin at gagawin. Maging kalugud-lugod nawa kami sa Iyong paningin. Wala nawa kaming isipin, sabihin o gawing anuman na hindi namin maihaharap sa Iyo. Isugo Mo sa amin ang Iyong Espirito upang bigyan ng liwanag ang aming mga isip, punuin ng pag-ibig ang aming mga puso at palakasin ang aming mga katawan upang sa lahat ng bagay at pagkakataon ay malaman namin ang Iyong kalooban at masiglang isakatuparan ito.
Sa araw na ito, Ama, ibigay Mo sa amin bilang natatanging biyaya na malaman namin at isagawa ang tunay na makabubuti at makapagpapaunlad sa pamilyang Pilipino, na siyang pinakasaligan ng aming lipunan.
Ito'y hinihiling namin sa Iyo sa pamamagitan ni Kristong aming Panginoon. Amen.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): The Secretary-General will call the roll.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Abubakar Present * Natividad Present * Alonto Present * Nieva Present Aquino Absent Nolledo Present * Azcuna Present * Ople Present Bacani Present Padilla Present * Bengzon Present * Quesada Present Bennagen Present Rama Present Bernas Present Regalado Present Rosario Braid Present Reyes de los Present Calderon Present Rigos Present Castro de Present Rodrigo Present Colayco Present Romulo Present Concepcion Present Rosales Absent Davide Present Sarmiento Present Foz Present Suarez Present Garcia Present * Sumulong Present Gascon Present * Tadeo Present Guingona Present Tan Present * Jamir Present Tingson Present Laurel Absent Treñas Present Lerum Present * Uka Present Maambong Present * Villacorta Present Monsod
Present *
The Constitutional Commission is in receipt of official advice of absence of Honorable Villegas.
The President is absent.
The roll call shows 29 Members responded to the call.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): The Chair declares the presence of a quorum.
The Assistant Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. CALDERON: Mr. Presiding Officer, I move that we dispense with the reading of the Journal of yesterday's session.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
MR. CALDERON: Mr. Presiding Officer, I move that we approve the Journal of yesterday's session.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
MR. CALDERON: Mr. Presiding Officer, I move that we proceed to the Reference of Business.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
The Secretary-General will read the Reference of Business.
The Secretary-General read the following Communications, the Presiding Officer making the corresponding references:
Letter from Mr. Petronilo C. Joaquin of 39 Bagong Pook, San Pablo City, Laguna, suggesting, among others, that for the national colors, to change the navy blue to sky blue and then add another ray to the sun in our flag to give recognition and a feeling of belonging to our Muslim brothers.
(Communication No. 1006 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on General Provisions.
Letter from Mr. Carlos Sobrevinas of the Manphil Investment Corporation, 5th Floor, Alco Building, 391 Sen. Gil Puyat Avenue Ext., Makati, Metro Manila, suggesting that the pertinent provisions of the Bill of Rights regarding nonpayment of debts be amended in the sense that, if the amount of the loan or debts is P500,000 or over, and the loan becomes sour or unpaid, as long as there are indications or evidences showing that there was collusion or connivance between the borrower and the lender, the offense should be classified as punishable by imprisonment and fine depending on the amount of the loan/debt.
(Communication No. 1007 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Citizenship, Bill of Rights, Political Rights and Obligations and Human Rights.
Letter from Mr. Marcelino W. Macapobre of Bato, Toledo City, Cebu, suggesting, among others, that barangay captains and barangay councilors be paid for their services to their respective barangays.
(Communication No. 1008 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Local Governments.
Letter from Mr. Ruben Soliman of Lopez, Quezon, proposing, among others, the following: (1) that the Constitution be written in Filipino or Tagalog; (2) that all 18-year old citizens be required to secure their cedula: (3) that those who cannot read and write should not be allowed to vote; and (4) to allow the U.S. bases to continue up to 1991.
(Communication No. 1009 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Steering Committee.
Communication from Mr. Felicisimo Tupas, Executive Secretary, Holy Name Society of the Philippines, Archdiocese of Ozamis, seeking inclusion in the Constitution of a provision that would include religion as a required subject in the elementary and high school and to say the invocation in every flag ceremony.
(Communication No. 1010 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Human Resources.
Communication from Mr. Gregorio D. Guadalupe, transmitting Resolution No. 91 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Iloilo, proposing to the Constitutional Commission the redistricting of the Province of Iloilo by increasing the congressional districts therein from five (5) to six (6) with an average population of 288,843.43 per district, based on the 1980 population of the Philippines.
(Communication No. 1011 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on the Legislative.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): The Floor Leader is recognized.
(Article on Family Rights)
Continuation
PERIOD OF AMENDMENTS
MR. RAMA: I move that we continue consideration of the Article on Family Rights.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
The members of the committee are requested to take the center table.
MR. RAMA: We are now in the period of amendments. May I ask the chairman and the members of the committee to please take their seats in front.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I ask for a suspension of the session to allow those who wish to propose amendments to confer with the committee chairman?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the session is suspended.
It was 10:14 a.m.
At 10:36 a.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): The session is resumed.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Nieva, the committee chairman, be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Nieva is recognized.
MS. NIEVA: There are two possible formulations for Section 1 that the committee would be willing to accept.
The first is from Commissioner Davide that says: "THE STATE RECOGNIZES THE FILIPINO FAMILY AS THE FOUNDATION OF THE NATION. ACCORDINGLY IT SHALL STRENGTHEN ITS SOLIDARITY AND ACTIVELY PROMOTE ITS TOTAL DEVELOPMENT."
The alternative is the one presented by Commissioner Suarez: "THE STATE SHALL STRENGTHEN THE FAMILY AS A BASIC SOCIAL INSTITUTION AND SHALL PROMOTE AND PROTECT THE SOLIDARITY OF THE FAMILY."
I think the committee would agree to the Davide amendment which includes the Suarez amendment except for the additional phrase "PROMOTE ITS TOTAL DEVELOPMENT" which the committee would like to maintain.
So, the section would read: "THE STATE RECOGNIZES THE FILIPINO FAMILY AS THE FOUNDATION OF THE NATION. ACCORDINGLY IT SHALL STRENGTHEN ITS SOLIDARITY AND ACTIVELY PROMOTE ITS TOTAL DEVELOPMENT."
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Is there any comment on that?
The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: May I ask Commissioner Davide to explain and elaborate on that proposal?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: I suggested this proposal, Mr. Presiding Officer, to emphasize the indispensable role of the family consonant with what we have adopted in the Declaration of Principles which states to the effect that:
The State values the sanctity of family life and shall promote the family as a basic social institution.
The family referred to is the Filipino family and necessarily in the light of the concept mandated in the Declaration of Principles, it is in fact the foundation of society, the foundation of the nation. Without a strong family there cannot be a strong nation. So, necessarily the State shall have the duty then to strengthen the solidarity of the family, and as originally proposed by the committee, it should also actively promote its total development. The solidarity and strength of the family is also the solidarity and strength of the nation; hence, the proposal. And Commissioner Maambong is a coauthor of this, especially the word "SOLIDARITY."
MR. RAMA: Commissioner Ople would like to present another amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: Thank you very much, Mr. Presiding Officer.
I would like to present a proposed omnibus amendment on family rights and responsibilities.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Is this an amendment to the amendment?
MR. OPLE: It is an omnibus amendment to a prior amendment by Commissioner Davide.
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer, my amendment is on Section 1.
MR. OPLE: Yes, this is an omnibus amendment by substitution, so may I give way to Commissioner Davide and the committee with respect to that amendment on Section 1. But may I reserve the right, Mr. Presiding Officer, to rise afterwards in order to present this proposed omnibus amendment.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, do I understand from the committee that the acceptable proposal of Commissioner Davide, which is the main proposal, is the one accepted, because he has two proposals — one is the main and the other is the alternative proposal?
MS. NIEVA:Yes, the first proposal would also incorporate the amendment of Commissioner Suarez.
MR. MAAMBONG: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer, so what is acceptable now to the committee? Is it this alternative proposal?
MS. NIEVA: No, the first.
MR. MAAMBONG: And this would read: "THE STATE RECOGNIZES THE FILIPINO FAMILY AS THE FOUNDATION OF THE NATION. ACCORDINGLY IT SHALL STRENGTHEN ITS SOLIDARITY AND ACTIVELY PROMOTE ITS TOTAL DEVELOPMENT."
MS. NIEVA: Yes.
MR. MAAMBONG: I am glad that "SOLIDARITY" has been accepted. This was the point I raised last night in the period of sponsorship and debate, but I would just like to interject another concept in the Civil Code which describes the family.
Under Article 216, the Civil Code provides that the family is a basic total institution. I wonder if we can insert the words "AS A BASIC TOTAL INSTITUTION" to realign this provision with the Civil Code provision. I am not institutionalizing the Civil Code; I am just saying that I am trying to put in the concept as stated in the Civil Code so that we will have no misunderstanding later on that our Constitution goes against the concept already accepted by the Civil Code. So, probably, it would come in after the last word "DEVELOPMENT" — "ACTIVELY PROMOTE ITS TOTAL DEVELOPMENT AS A BASIC TOTAL INSTITUTION."
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: That particular precept or concept is already included in the Declaration of Principles. So, if I remember correctly, the particular provision of the Declaration of Principles is to this effect:
The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic social institution.
MR. MAAMBONG: In that case, Mr. Presiding Officer, I withdraw my proposal. But I just want to indicate that if Commissioner Davide is quoting it rightly, the Civil Code says: "basic total institution." It is marriage which is the social institution, while the family under the Civil Code is a total institution. I really do not know what the distinction is but that is the wording of the Civil Code.
MR. DAVIDE: If I remember correctly, it is "social" also. Anyway, it really is the totality. It is the foundation of society. It is the foundation of the nation. But in any case, as an institution, it is recognized in the Declaration of Principles.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Since there is no proposed amendment to the amendment, is the body ready to vote on the amendment of Commissioner Davide? The chairman will please read the proposed amendment again.
MS. NIEVA: This is the way the first section would read then: "THE STATE RECOGNIZES THE FILIPINO FAMILY AS THE FOUNDATION OF THE NATION. ACCORDINGLY IT SHALL STRENGTHEN ITS SOLIDARITY AND ACTIVELY PROMOTE ITS TOTAL DEVELOPMENT."
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): As many as are in favor of the amendment, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (No Member raised his hand.)
As many as are abstaining, please raise their hand. (One Member raised his hand.)
The results show 23 votes in favor, none against and 1 abstention; the proposed amendment is approved.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, to amend Section 2, I ask that Commissioner Ople be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
Actually in the reservation that I made, I manifested the intention to submit an omnibus amendment which deals, of course, with the entire draft article including Sections 1 and 2. This proposal reads as follows, so that there is only one section: "SECTION 1. THE FAMILY EXISTS AS A MATTER OF NATURAL RIGHT WHICH SHALL BE RESPECTED BY THE STATE. MARRIAGE, AS A SACRAMENTAL RIGHT AND DUTY, IS THE FOUNDATION OF THE FAMILY.
"THE STATE SHALL RESPECT THE FAMILY AS AN AUTONOMOUS SOCIAL INSTITUTION, IN WHICH MAN AND WIFE ASSUME THE PRINCIPAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR DOMESTIC HARMONY, INTEGRITY AND DEVELOPMENT AND OF THE TUTELAGE OF CHILDREN ESPECIALLY IN CHARACTER AND CITIZENSHIP FORMATION.
"THE STATE SHALL DESIST FROM REGULATING FAMILY LIFE EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT ITS SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITIES RIPENING INTO PUBLIC INTEREST ARE INVOLVED.
"THE FAMILY HAS THE DUTY TO CARE FOR ITS ELDERLY MEMBERS BUT THE STATE MAY ALSO DO SO THROUGH JUST SCHEMES OF SOCIAL SECURITY."
May I take just a minute to explain this proposal, Mr. Presiding Officer?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): May the Chair propound a question, Commissioner Ople? This is an omnibus amendment. If this amendment should be approved, will it result in the deletion of the amendment proposed by Commissioner Davide which the body just approved?
MR. OPLE: Mr. Presiding Officer, I will abide by committee's recommendation on the final disposition of this amendment if it or any parts thereof prove acceptable. But may I now proceed, Mr. Presiding Officer, just to give a one-minute explanation of this proposal?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): The Gentleman may proceed.
MR. OPLE: Thank you.
In ancient as well as in modern times, the great issue between family and state has always been the freedom of the family from state regulation and interference. Thus, in totalitarian states, the family is mobilized to serve the purposes of the state, often resulting in direct intrusion into the privacy of the family and its co-optation into state programs as an institution.
In the present committee formulation of family rights, the family is literally handed over to the State for its ultimate disposition in the guise of caring for the family, the children and the elderly. This is also how state control of the family is presented and justified in totalitarian societies where the state's ubiquitous interference is a day-to-day reality and the family as an institution becomes subservient to its aims — not all of them legitimate, much less disinterested and noble.
And may I just say that one of the features of fascism in World War II was precisely this heavy-handed interference of the totalitarian rulers in the autonomy of the family. In the name of eugenics, the Hitler regime in Germany before World War II automatically claimed the so-called unfit members of a family so that they may be eliminated, especially those inheriting physical deformities and mental deformities, because they threatened the superiority of the Arian race on which a whole state philosophy was founded. We also know that there are totalitarian societies today where children are recruited into state-sponsored organizations so that they can spy on their own parents. I hope that we are not confronting today, with this article, the spectre of such an overwhelming state dominance of the family institution.
Mr. Presiding Officer, in the Christian or Muslim home where democracy exists, the most valued right of the family is the right to privacy and autonomy from all centers of political power. Between husband and wife, there is a sort of constitutional government. But between the parents and the children, there exists a line of authority; it is taken for granted that during the years of incompetence and maturation of the children, the parents command them. But this is different from the state commanding its citizens or the king commanding his subjects. In this context, the one commanding, that is, the father or the mother, is more keen in promoting the welfare of the one commanded. In the Filipino culture, parents will do almost everything and forego every benefit to themselves for the sake of their children.
In this Constitution, therefore, Mr. Presiding Officer, it is necessary that we shift the focus of our concern from an overpowering state protection and dominance because that is the consequence of protection. And dominance of the family towards the family's autonomy in the spirit of dignity and genuine liberty in turn becomes the essential climate of the total development of the family.
I request the committee's kind consideration of this proposal, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): What does the committee say?
BISHOP BACANI: May I reply on behalf of the committee, Mr. Presiding Officer.
First, let me say that we are really in basic sympathy with what is stated in the first part of the first sentence: "The State shall respect the family as an autonomous social institution." That is also what we want.
We regret to say we cannot agree that the article, as it is presented at present, fosters the dominance of the State over the family. And dominance is not a necessary consequence of protection. We are asking that the State defend the following and then we enumerate the rights. Since the family is a basic social institution, indeed as we say in Section 1, it is the foundation of the nation, then the State has the duty to protect it, just as it has the duty to protect even lesser institutions within the State.
Here, the understanding is, while this is asked of the State, the principle of subsidiarity that what can be accomplished by a lower body should not be arrogated to itself by a higher body should also be operative in this regard.
At present in the Philippines, we do not see state dominance of the family, at least on a big scale. But this article certainly does not aim to foster that state dominance. And so, we would agree that the family should become autonomous, not that it becomes a completely self-sufficient body in itself, but that the freedom and dignity of the family should be safeguarded, and that is what we are trying to do.
MR. OPLE: I want to thank Commissioner Bacani for that clarification. I would then like the Chair's consent so that this proposed omnibus amendment can be transformed into an amendment to Section 2. I will abide by the committee's discretion on what portions of this proposal can be retained or can be adopted in Section 2, especially in the light of Commissioner Bacani's manifestation and the manifestation earlier made to me by Commissioner Maria Teresa Nieva that the provision here concerning the autonomous character of the family will be acceptable to the committee.
BISHOP BACANI: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: May I propound a question regarding the first section of this omnibus amendment, Mr. Presiding Officer?
MR. OPLE: Yes, gladly.
BISHOP BACANI: I understand most of the sentences of the section, except the second sentence which states: "MARRIAGE AS A SACRAMENTAL RIGHT AND DUTY IS THE FOUNDATION OF THE FAMILY." I am just wondering. For me as a Catholic, these words "SACRAMENTAL RIGHT AND DUTY" have a definite connotation. But I suppose that is not what the Gentleman meant by "SACRAMENTAL" here.
MR. OPLE: This is, I suppose, a paraphrase of what Commissioner Gascon introduced yesterday in the draft article, "MARRIAGE AS THE FOUNDATION OF THE FAMILY," and I used "SACRAMENTAL RIGHT AND DUTY" in a layman's manner conveying the idea of some sanctity to the institution of marriage, at least, in the light of what I believe to be the position of most or numerous churches in the country concerning this.
MR. BENGZON: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: I would like to speak against the proposed amendment, Mr. Presiding Officer, specifically on the first paragraph, for example, which states that the family exists as a matter of natural right. Section 9 in the original section of the Declaration of Principles which we have already approved recognizes the sanctity of family life. We have approved that. It also protects and strengthens the family as a basic social institution. So, that concept is already embodied in this section, Mr. Presiding Officer.
Second, when it mentions marriage as a sacramental right and duty, it smacks of wordings and words in canon law, and as Commissioner Bacani states, this word "SACRAMENTAL" has a very specific religious meaning and even meanings of canon law.
MR. OPLE: It has now become "SACRED" from "SACRAMENTAL," Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. BENGZON: Nevertheless, I am against any concept that smacks of Catholic doctrine in the Constitution. That is precisely what I would like to stress, Mr. Presiding Officer.
The second paragraph is already recognized in the same Section 9 in the Declaration of Principles which says:
. . . The natural right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of moral character shall receive the aid and support of the government.
So, all these concepts that are embodied in the proposed section have already been approved and the more we say about them, in all likelihood, the more interpretations we are going to get.
I submit, Mr. Presiding Officer, that we should just limit ourselves to the principles and to the concepts and avoid the details because we are preparing a constitution. We are not making a municipal or city ordinance, Mr. Presiding Officer.
With respect to the last paragraph regarding the care of the elderly members, we have discussed this lengthily when we considered the Article on Social Justice and we precisely lumped together all the proposed sections on this matter of the elderly when we took up Section 11 of the Social Justice Article by merely inserting the word "elderly" when it comes to the consideration of the priority for the needs of the elderly and the underprivileged and the sick. So all these concepts, Mr. Presiding Officer, are already enshrined in the various articles that we have described.
MR. OPLE: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I reply briefly to the comment just made? I think the sense of this amendment does not in any manner reiterate or replicate what already appears in the Declaration of Principles. As a matter of fact, as I said earlier, this is intended to shift the focus from an overweening concern and protection of the State which we know translates also into dominance in the real world into one of family autonomy from the State. That is not one of those beaten tracks in this constitutional debate. When we shift the focus from one direction to another, we are actually innovating rather than replicating. And what I said earlier is correct: That the committee in manifestations made here and on the floor is willing to consider the adoption of at least a part of this omnibus proposal which is that the State shall respect the family as an autonomous social institution. Now, in yesterday's debate, we kept focusing on what the State could do to promote family solidarity and harmony in an active fashion. But we say in this autonomous social institution of the family that the man and wife assume the principal responsibility for harmony, integrity and development, and for the caring of the children, and that any role by the State is purely incidental and secondary. When it exceeds that limit of interference, then we have to be on guard because that can ripen into a threat to the autonomy of the family institution. And so I submit to the committee. I turn over this proposal to the committee for the possible adoption of the second sentence, at least, which treats of the obligation of the State to respect the family as an autonomous social institution. And if the Presiding Officer will be so kind as to grant a two-minute recess, maybe among the committee, Commissioner Davide and myself, we will be able to achieve a happy formulation.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): The Chair declares a suspension of the session.
MR. OPLE: Thank you very much.
It was 11:03 a.m.
At 11:13 a.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): The session is resumed.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Nieva be recognized for the revised formulation.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Nieva is recognized.
MS. NIEVA: Section 2 shall now read as follows: "MARRIAGE IS THE FOUNDATION OF THE FAMILY AND SHALL BE PROTECTED BY THE STATE. THE STATE SHALL RESPECT THE FAMILY AS AN AUTONOMOUS SOCIAL INSTITUTION."
MR. BENGZON: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: This is just a clarificatory question because there are a lot of Commissioners who have some misgivings about the last phrase of the first sentence: "MARRIAGE IS THE FOUNDATION OF THE FAMILY AND SHALL BE PROTECTED BY THE STATE." Is that the wording?
BISHOP BACANI: Yes.
MR. BENGZON: Will this in any way preclude Congress from approving a law on divorce?
MS. NIEVA: We discussed that yesterday and I think we reiterated that it does not.
MR. BENGZON: It does not.
MS. NIEVA: No.
MR. BENGZON: So, even if this section or this sentence is approved, Congress will still have every right to pass a divorce law under certain circumstances as it may deem fit.
MS. NIEVA: That is right, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. BENGZON: Thank you.
MR. OPLE: Mr. Presiding Officer, I just wanted to be able to report that after a conference with the committee and taking account of the advice and contributions from Commissioners Davide, Rigos, Bengzon and Padilla who is absent but whose amendment was taken into account, the committee has accepted this reformulation upon which they have just reported. But I wish Commissioner Nieva had also referred to the last sentence to substitute for letter (d) in the committee formulation which reads: "THE FAMILY HAS THE DUTY TO CARE FOR ITS ELDERLY MEMBERS BUT THE STATE MAY ALSO DO SO THROUGH HUMANE SCHEMES OF SOCIAL SECURITY."
BISHOP BACANI: That will have to be subject to slight formulation perhaps, but the basic sense is maintained.
MR. OPLE: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): What is the status now? May I ask the committee?
MR. BENGZON: We are ready to vote on that, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: The formulation now is: "MARRIAGE IS THE FOUNDATION OF THE FAMILY AND SHALL BE PROTECTED BY THE STATE." Is that correct?
BISHOP BACANI: Yes.
MR. MAAMBONG: May I introduce an amendment? After the word "MARRIAGE," we say: "MARRIAGE AS AN INVIOLABLE SOCIAL INSTITUTION IS THE FOUNDATION OF THE FAMILY AND SHALL BE PROTECTED BY THE STATE."
I am introducing this amendment to realign it again with Article 52 of the New Civil Code which says that "marriage is not a mere contract but an inviolable social institution."
MR. OPLE: I accept the amendment and I hope the committee does the same, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MS. NIEVA: We accept, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. BENGZON: With the same interpretation as articulated earlier on the basis of my question.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Is the body ready to vote?
As many as are in favor of the amendment, as amended, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (No Member raised his hand.)
The results show 18 votes in favor and none against; the proposed amendment is approved.
BISHOP BACANI: Mr. Presiding Officer, we have also accepted the amendment of Commissioner Ople which can now fall under Section 3 to the effect that "THE STATE SHALL RESPECT THE FAMILY AS AN AUTONOMOUS SOCIAL INSTITUTION."
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Is there any comment?
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: This is just a matter of sectioning. Can we not place it as paragraph 2 of Section 2 instead of making it a separate section?
BISHOP BACANI: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer, we can do that.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Will the committee please read the sentence again?
BISHOP BACANI: So, the sentence now reads: "THE STATE SHALL RESPECT THE FAMILY AS AN AUTONOMOUS SOCIAL INSTITUTION."
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): As many as are in favor of that amendment, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (No Member raised his hand.)
The results show 18 votes in favor and none against; the proposed amendment, which is now paragraph 2 of Section 2, is approved.
The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: Commissioner Bacani wishes to be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: I wish to propose three amendments from the committee side, Mr. Presiding Officer. Let me read the first one. This is subject to transfer to any part of this committee report: "THE STATE SHALL PROTECT THE FAMILY FROM POPULATION POLICIES IMPOSED AS A CONDITION FOR FOREIGN AID OR LOANS."
Let me explain this: The important word here is the word "IMPOSED." It is not that population policies are being excluded; population policies are admissible under this provision but there are certain population policies which can be imposed, and which seems to have been imposed already upon the Philippines by foreign interest as a condition for foreign aid or loans. Hence, it is being proposed here by myself as a form of protection for Filipino families.
Let me mention one specific case. At present it was reported to me that the drug Depo-Provera is being tested or is being used for 1,000 women in Cavite. This is a contraceptive, but this has not been approved for use in the United States of America.
And now, when we are asked to reduce our population as a condition for foreign aid and such means are used, then I think the State should protect its women from such impositions.
So, that is the rationale for this amendment, Mr. Presiding Officer.
REV. RIGOS: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Rigos is recognized.
REV. RIGOS: This is a good idea but this imposition as a condition for foreign aid or loans does not have to be constitutionalized. This can be a matter of government policy or, at best, of legislation, but not in the Constitution. So, for that reason, I believe this should not be included in the Article on Family Rights.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Rosario Braid is recognized.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: In the Article on General Provisions, we have a section referring to population policy and I was wondering if we could defer discussion on this until we consider said article because that is where we will discuss this. So, there will be no need to harmonize anymore. And since this is a provision there, maybe we can defer discussion when we reach it.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): What does Commissioner Bacani wish to say?
BISHOP BACANI: Mr. Presiding Officer, the provision in the Article on General Provisions, according to the present formulation, states: "THE STATE SHALL FORMULATE POPULATION POLICIES MOST CONDUCIVE TO THE GENERAL WELFARE."
That is the statement there. This one is a protection of the family from an imposition which derogates from the sovereignty of the Filipino people and Filipino women in particular.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Mr. Presiding Officer, if we do that we might also include such negative aspects as pornography, drug abuse, et cetera. In other words, by including that, we would also have to include other negative social forces. So, my position is that maybe this should be in the Article on General Provisions.
BISHOP BACANI: Yes, we will agree on that.
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: I really would like to second the proposal to defer because in the proposed Section 13 of the proposed Article on General Provisions we have a second sentence:
. . . It shall, however, be the right and duty of parents to determine the number of their children and, in the exercise of this right and duty, they shall not be compelled to use means of birth limitation that shall be against their informed conscience and religious convictions.
MR. OPLE: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: Yes, I also stand up to endorse the motion of Commissioner Rosario Braid, so that this can be deferred until we come to the appropriate sections in the General Provisions. I just want to point out that the draft Article on Family Rights seems to be an important constitutional statement of the values we associate with the family, and the matter treated in this proposed amendment of Commissioner Bacani seems to be a departure from that. It speaks actually of a power that is already lodged in the executive. We do not even need a law. If the President of the Philippines decides today to prohibit such forms of impositions, this is within her executive prerogative to do so.
Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Does Commissioner Bacani have any objection to this suggestion that consideration of this be deferred?
MR. SARMIENTO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
BISHOP BACANI: Yes, I am agreeable to that, Mr. Presiding Officer. It will be deferred anyway.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I just address one question?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
May I address one question to Commissioner Bacani? Is the Gentleman proposing this amendment? Can we not say that this amendment is covered by the intendment of Sections 1 and 2 — the Davide amendment and the Ople amendment — that it is the obligation of the State to protect the family?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Sarmiento, the consideration of the proposed amendment is deferred anyway. So, should we not defer also discussion of it?
MR. SARMIENTO: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): The Floor Leader is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: We will now proceed to the next section in our article.
MR. RAMA: May I ask that Commissioner Bacani be recognized.
MS. NIEVA: The next section reads:
. . . The right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood.
That is no longer Section 2 then. It should be Section 3:
The State shall defend the following: The right of spouses to found a family in accordance with their religious convictions and the demands of responsible parenthood.
MR. OPLE: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I put a question to the committee concerning this first line?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: Thank you.
Has there ever been any doubt regarding the right of spouses especially under the marriage institution acknowledged now in Section 1 to be the foundation of the family, so that there is a need for a constitutional acknowledgment of such a right?
MS. NIEVA: I think we are referring here to the limitations of the right of the family — of founding a family — in the sense that there are states like, let us say, Singapore that first decreed that the parents should have no more than two children. That type of limitation of the family that we are referring to is an encroachment of the State on the rights of the family such as in China where they say there should be only one child.
MR. OPLE: Would this give power to the State and the Congress to pass laws that would limit the size of the family?
MS. NIEVA: Yes, that would impose the state power to say that you may have only so many and no more.
MR. OPLE: Would this then render unconstitutional some existing laws?
MR. BENGZON: May I offer an example, Mr. Presiding Officer?
MR. OPLE: Yes. I thank Commissioner Bengzon for coming to my aid.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: Suppose Congress passes a law that if a family has more than four children, only the first four children will be entitled to a deduction on income tax and anything beyond four children will be declared unconstitutional. Is that an unconstitutional law?
MS. NIEVA: I am not an expert in constitutional law, so maybe the lawyers can help.
MR. OPLE: In addition to this, I will just point out that such a law already exists — that beyond four children, a taxpayer may not claim any further deductions.
There is another law, the Maternity Benefit Law, according to which after four children a woman worker may no longer claim maternity benefits from the Social Security System.
We can think of two laws already existing that precisely militate in order to put a limit to family size in terms of incentives and disincentives. So that under this first line that has been read, it appears that these two laws — and there might be more that we cannot recall immediately on the floor — become unconstitutional?
BISHOP BACANI: We cannot answer that very directly now. But if they can be demonstrated to be coercive rather than simply persuasive, then they would be unconstitutional.
MR. OPLE: The violation of these two laws entails the deprivation of rights and benefits that are normally inhered in the positions of these workers and taxpayers. Therefore, they are coercive in character and by the standard just stated by the committee, they then become unconstitutional.
BISHOP BACANI: I do not know whether I would necessarily agree with the Gentleman's judgment that they are coercive. That is why I cannot pronounce on their unconstitutionality very categorically.
MR. OPLE: There is a sanction for violations which I have stated, the deprivation of certain benefits normally inhering in citizenship, but these are taken away if the family size exceeds the legal limit of four.
BISHOP BACANI: The difficulty is, not being a lawyer, I do not know whether the granting of tax exemptions is a favor that is given by the State or it is a right that an individual can demand under all circumstances.
MR. OPLE: I will not press the point, but I think this sheds some light on the highly significant character of this otherwise innocent-looking provision.
Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. BENGZON: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I follow up on the points raised by Commissioner Ople?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: The discussion that has just taken place is a small example of the problems that can be created by this provision because it may be coercive from the viewpoint of one particular family and the laws which are existing now, for example, may be coercive from the viewpoint of one or several existing families. And yet with another group of families, it may just be persuasive.
So, the problem that will be created is: who is to determine whether or not laws passed by Congress that would take away privileges or perhaps even rights are constitutional? In the case of the Internal Revenue Code, for example, the matter of deductions claimed by the head of the family by virtue of law becomes a right or is a right. Therefore, if we are going to take away that particular right from the head of the family from claiming additional deductions for his fifth child, then we are going to create now a problem as to whether that is constitutional or not and, therefore, there will be enormous litigations that will be invited.
MR. COLAYCO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Is Commissioner Bengzon through?
MR. BENGZON: I just want to emphasize that point and I want to find out what Commissioner Bacani could say insofar as that point is concerned, since it might be best to leave the matter by itself.
MR. COLAYCO: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I react to the comments of Commissioner Bengzon?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Colayco is recognized.
MR. COLAYCO: Under Section 13 of the proposed Article on the Declaration of Principles and State Policies and Family Rights and Duties, we have a provision, a portion of which says:
. . . It shall, however, be the right and duty of parents to determine the number of their children and, in the exercise of this right and duty, they shall not be compelled to use means of birth limitation . . .
So, this section recognizes the right of parents to determine the number of their children. Therefore, when a law is passed, as I think it has been passed, reducing or limiting the right of a parent to claim exemption for children in excess of a certain number, it would be subject to attack as discriminatory, to say the least. Unfortunately, no one has yet raised this question to the Supreme Court. But, personally, I think it would be subject to attack on that ground.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Thank you very much.
Are we ready to vote on this proposed amendment?
MR. RAMA: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer, we are ready to vote.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Please read the proposed amendment again.
MS. NIEVA: "THE RIGHT OF SPOUSES TO FOUND A FAMILY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS AND THE DEMANDS OF RESPONSIBLE PARENTHOOD."
That is the statement.
VOTING
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): As many as are in favor, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (No Member raised his hand.)
As many as are abstaining, please raise their hand. (Four Members raised their hand.)
The results show 14 votes in favor, none against, and 4 abstentions; the proposed amendment is approved.
The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Sarmiento be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I comment on Section 3(b), Mr. Presiding Officer. This is actually the product of three resolutions filed by three or several Commissioners, one resolution on children was filed by Commissioner Rigos, another resolution was filed by Commissioners Villacorta, Aquino, Nieva, Uka, Quesada, Tan, Monsod, this Representation and Rosario Braid, and another resolution was filed by this Representation.
To us this provision, Mr. Presiding Officer, is important because we have at present in our midst rampant child prostitution, child labor, child abuse and child neglect. A study showed that in our country today 69 out of 100 children below seven years old are malnourished; 454 out of 1,000 babies die before they are one year old; one out of 100 school children is severely malnourished; six to eight million are underweight; and less than 10 percent of Filipino children are believed to have completed primary immunization. Another study showed that roughly 30 percent of school age children from six to 14 years old are not studying; only 66 percent of those who enroll in Grade I complete their elementary schooling; and only 22 percent of those who enroll in Grade I get to finish high school.
Aside from this data we have studies that show that many of our children or youth are already working by selling sampaguitas, watching cars, barking for jeepneys, and also contracting or working in companies but receiving below minimum wages.
So, with this brief explanation, Mr. Presiding Officer, the Commissioners I mentioned express support for this provision in Section 3, paragraph (b).
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): This is a committee amendment, too.
MR. SARMIENTO: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: We are still on paragraph (b) of Section 3, as worded in the document?
MS. NIEVA: That is right. I think there have been several amendments, the Gentleman's being prominent among them.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, I have the following amendments: Before "cruelty" insert the word "ABUSE" then delete the word "and" before "exploitation"; after "exploitation" insert the following: "IMPROPER INFLUENCES, HAZARDS, OR CONDITIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES PREJUDICIAL TO THEIR PHYSICAL, MENTAL, SOCIAL, AND MORAL DEVELOPMENT."
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): What does the committee say?
BISHOP BACANI: We are agreeable with the thrust but maybe we can diminish the number of words. It seems that it is a little too long if we put it that way.
May we have a suspension of session, Mr. Presiding Officer?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): The session is suspended.
It was 11:41 a.m.
At 11:44 a.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): The session is resumed.
Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: Mr. Presiding Officer, after a conference with Commissioners Davide and Villacorta, we have agreed on this formulation: "THE RIGHT OF CHILDREN TO ASSISTANCE, INCLUDING PROPER CARE AND NUTRITION, AND SPECIAL PROTECTION FROM ALL FORMS OF NEGLECT, ABUSE, CRUELTY, EXPLOITATION AND OTHER CONDITIONS PREJUDICIAL TO THEIR DEVELOPMENT."
Commissioner Villacorta will give the names of the cosponsors of this amendment.
MR. VILLACORTA: Mr. Presiding Officer, just for the record.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Villacorta is recognized.
MR. VILLACORTA: The cosponsors are Commissioners Maambong, Romulo, Ople, Sarmiento, Rigos and Rosario Braid.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): I think the body is ready to vote.
As many as are in favor of this amendment, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (No Member raised his hand.)
As many as are abstaining, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
The results show 14 votes in favor, none against and 3 abstentions; the proposed amendment is approved.
The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: May I ask that Commissioner Bacani be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: May I turn the microphone over to Commissioner Nieva.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Nieva is recognized.
MS. NIEVA: Paragraph (e) under former Section 2 reads as follows: "The right of family wage earners to a decent family living wage."
Yesterday, there was some discussion as to the meaning of "family living wage." We explained that this meant a wage that would enable a family to live a dignified life, have its basic needs fulfilled and have the necessary social services rendered to the family.
MR. BENGZON: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: What happens in a situation if the head of a family, because of difficulty in getting a job or because of his lack of qualification, accepts an allowance from an employer that is not considered a family living wage? Is the employer liable for this or can the head of the family demand and sue for back wages for the period he was not paid the family living wage after accepting below standard allowance against his employer?
BISHOP BACANI: Mr. Presiding Officer, this provision expresses a right we must acknowledge that under present Philippine conditions is not always enforceable. But we must realize that each family is entitled to that share of the fruits of production that will allow them at least to live a decent human life as a family.
In that case, the employer cannot be sued and yet the State must work towards those conditions which will enable a family living wage to be paid.
At present, we were told during one of our public hearings in the Committee on Labor, only 10 percent of the firms pay the minimum wage, which is way below the family living wage. For Metro Manila and for a family of five, it is more than P5,000 according to the latest Center for Research and Communications report. But the State should work towards the conditions which will enable the family living wage to be paid without necessarily making the employer suable when the conditions in his business do not allow that.
MR. BENGZON: Following up that same example, if at a certain point in time the business of the employer improves and he is, therefore, now able to give an increase and does so, will the worker have the right to claim for back wages under this particular article? In other words, can the worker now come around and say, "Well, now you have the ability to pay a decent living wage and I appreciate the fact that you are now paying me a decent living family wage, may I now claim for back wages. When I joined you, you were unable to pay a family living wage. I sacrificed and joined up with you. Now that you are able to pay, I want my back wages." Can he do that?
BISHOP BACANI: No, that is not the contemplation of this. In other words, it will have no retroactive effect. If he was deprived of the wage not through the fault of the employer, then the employer will not be liable to pay him the back wages when he becomes able, when the business becomes viable.
MR. BENGZON: During that period that this worker is not receiving a family living wage through no fault of his employer, can he go to the Ministry of Social Services and demand that the State make up the difference between what he receives from his employer and what he believes to be a family living wage?
BISHOP BACANI: Given the conditions that he and the members of his family have also tried to work and have not been able to get enough in order to be able to support themselves decently, then they can go for help to the State, and the State will be obliged to help them together with other sectors of society to the extent that it can.
MR. BENGZON: If there is no budget, no money provided for in the budget of the Ministry of Social Services, for example, for that purpose, what happens?
MS. NIEVA: I think we can apply the same reasoning to the other provisions that we have for health, for education and for all the other services that we have pledged. The State will promote to extend to all its citizens. But all of these are all subject to availability of funds.
MR. BENGZON: I was about to say what the Commissioner just said. In other words, the bottom line is that everything is subject to availability of funds of the State.
MS. NIEVA: I think that has been the presumption all along in all our discussions on all the services that we have asked the State to define.
MR. BENGZON: We have to make that clear in the record, Mr. Presiding Officer, because we do not want the people to really expect this and then go to the State and demand for it. And if the State cannot give it, then they go to the streets. I think we have to be very clear about this. We do not want people to go to the streets and conduct demonstrations and rallies simply because they feel that they have a right to this under the Constitution and the State is not giving them that particular right. We have to be very clear about the fact that although this is something that we wish, it is a hope. Am I correct?
MS. NIEVA: It is a goal that we should aim for, too.
MR. BENGZON: It is a hope and it is a goal subject to the availability of the State to provide these particular services and benefits.
MS. NIEVA: I think there is no quarrel with that.
MR. BENGZON: Thank you.
BISHOP BACANI: And the other sectors of society also should enter into the picture.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Rosario Braid is recognized.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: On the same section, would this corresponding right to a decent family wage be coupled with obligations of the family to nurture and instill in the family members values of discipline, of productivity in order that when they compete in the labor market, they would not be just making demands, but they are able to provide adequate services for the wages that they get?
MS. NIEVA: Yes, certainly, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: So my whole point is that I just want to read this into the record — these rights must be accompanied by obligations.
MS. NIEVA: By responsibilities, yes.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: As I said earlier, there is some need to realign, to reorient certain family values towards needed values particularly for the marketplace and those values of discipline, productivity, quality consciousness and independence.
MS. NIEVA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I think we all agree that when we are speaking of rights, there will be corresponding duties that are expected from the parties concerned. And regarding the values that we have mentioned, certainly, we think this is part of the educational aspect of the role of the parents in rearing and educating their children.
MR. OPLE: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: hank you very much.
Since we are in the period of amendments, I presume, I would like to propose the addition of a phrase to the text of Section 2(c) so that it will read: "The right of the family to a decent family living wage OR INCOME." The reason for this, Mr. Presiding Officer, is that about 60 percent of our work force are not in the wage system; they are outside the wage system. The bulk of these are unpaid family labor; those farmers who earn the equivalent of a wage but we do not call that a wage, which is the income from the farm after all the expenses are deducted. They comprise about 60 percent of the total labor force. So that if we adhere to the term "living wage," we would cover only about 40 percent of the families of the Philippines. Therefore, if we assume that the family living wage is already reaffirmed as part of the text of Section 2(c), I suggest that we add "OR INCOME."
BISHOP BACANI: That is a very welcome amendment, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. OPLE: Thank you very much, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): What is the amendment again?
MS. NIEVA: ". . . the right of the family to a decent family living wage OR INCOME."
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Is there any objection to the Ople amendment which the committee has accepted? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the amendment is approved.
MR. RAMA: We are now ready to vote on the whole Section 2(c).
BISHOP BACANI: Let me read Section 2(c), Mr. Presiding Officer. It says: "The State shall defend the right of the family to a family living wage OR INCOME."
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): As many as are in favor, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (No Member raised his hand.)
As many as are abstaining, please raise their hand. (One Member raised his hand.)
The results show 19 votes in favor, none against and one abstention; Section 2(c), as amended, is approved.
MS. NIEVA: The next provision is as follows: "The right of the elderly to family care, according to Filipino tradition."
MR. OPLE: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: There was an agreement between the committee and those who conferred with them at the beginning to accept a reformulation of this section.
BISHOP BACANI: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer. We will have to reformulate it because the way it was phrased was that it is the duty of the family but now it is the right of the elderly to family care.
MR. OPLE: Yes. With the indulgence of the committee, may I refresh their memory about this accepted statement in Section 2(d): "THE FAMILY HAS THE DUTY TO CARE FOR ITS ELDERLY MEMBERS BUT THE STATE MAY ALSO DO SO THROUGH JUST SCHEMES OF SOCIAL SECURITY."
BISHOP BACANI: Yes. Our difficulty stems from the reconciliation of right and duty in one sentence.
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: May I propose to have it as Section 4?
MS. NIEVA: As a separate section? Yes, then we could put it in that formulation.
MR. OPLE: Yes, I agree, Mr. Presiding Officer.
May I just say a few words; this takes a few seconds to explain. There are already eight million members of the Social Security System in the private sector and 1.2 million government retirees in the GSIS. The main purpose of social security is precisely to allow workers in the twilight of their lives, after retirement, to retire in comparative dignity and well-being through benefits that they have paid for throughout their working lives. And so, I think when we speak of the duty of the family to care for the elderly, we also should recognize that the State is already doing this through a social security system in both the private and the public sectors.
Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): May the Chair ask for a clarification? So this proposed amendment will be Section 4; Section 2(d) is deleted to give way to this Section 4. Is that correct?
BISHOP BACANI: As of now, we want to retain Section 2(d) and then have Section 4. But may we have a suspension of the session, Mr. Presiding Officer, to confer with Commissioner Ople?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): The session is suspended.
It was 12:02 a.m.
At 12:04 a.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): The session is resumed.
BISHOP BACANI: So the text, as amended by Commissioner Ople and as it is now put under Section 4, is: "THE FAMILY HAS THE DUTY TO CARE FOR ITS ELDERLY MEMBERS BUT THE STATE MAY ALSO DO SO THROUGH JUST SCHEMES OF SOCIAL SECURITY."
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Will the result of this be the deletion of paragraph (d)?
MS. NIEVA: Yes, that automatically results in the deletion of Section 2(d).
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): As many as are in favor, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (No Member raised his hand.)
The results show 20 votes in favor and none against; the amendment is approved.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I ask that Commissioner Nieva be recognized to read the last proposed section.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Nieva is recognized.
MS. NIEVA: We have an amendment and copies were distributed a while ago. It says, "The right of families and family association to participate in the planning and implementation of policies and programs that affect them."
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Will this come under Section 2?
MS. NIEVA: This would be a separate section. The rationale behind this is that we have provided throughout the Constitution for the right of people's organizations in expressing or defending or in formulating policies and programs that have a direct bearing on their welfare.
We feel that the families should be heard by public authorities in the planning or formulation and implementation of whatever policies may be planned and whatever programs may be effected that directly affect their welfare for good or for ill. We think that the families should have a voice in the same way that we have given voice to the other sectors of society.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Nieva, will this be a new section or a subsection under Section 2?
MS. NIEVA: It would be under Section 2.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: This is a formulation of the committee, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MS. NIEVA: It is an amendment that we are proposing, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. BENGZON: All right. Just for clarification: This recognizes the right of the families to express themselves, to present position papers, to appear in public hearings and to request that they be heard by Congress or by the executive department of government when it comes to policies or proposed laws that would affect the right of families and their associations. Is this not correct? This is the whole crux of this section.
MS. NIEVA: The rights of the families, yes.
MR. BENGZON: Yes, this is a recognition of the right of the families to be heard.
MS. NIEVA: And to be consulted.
MR. BENGZON: I see. Therefore, if the State or Congress or the various agencies of the government do not formulate mechanisms that would implement this, then this would further give the families their right to present themselves to these agencies.
MS. NIEVA: Yes.
MR. BENGZON: Thank you.
MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner de Castro is recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: May I just ask a question of the committee? Section 16 of the Article on Social Justice states, and I quote:
The right of the people and their organizations to effective and reasonable participation at all levels of social, political and economic decision-making shall not be abridged. The State shall by law facilitate the establishment of adequate consultation mechanisms.
What is the difference now of this section with the proposal?
MS. NIEVA: We believe that Section 16 is a much wider provision; it covers all sort of people's aggrupations and organizations. In this proposal, we are speaking of family rights; we have narrowed its scope.
MR. DE CASTRO: Are "members of the families" not people?
MS. NIEVA: Yes, they are and in the same way that in education we provided that there should be consultation mechanisms between parents, teachers and the different organizations. So we are also asking here that the families be at least consulted and heard in the formulation of public policies that definitely will have a bearing on their welfare.
MR. DE CASTRO: If that is the case, then I propose the right of children and the youth, as well as youth associations, to participate in the planning and implementation of policies and programs that affect them. Is that also a different formulation? Because these are children now, this is the youth, unlike people, families and family associations.
MS. NIEVA: I think the needs of the families are very specific, and so we think we are referring here to "families" as the group or the sector of the families whose right is to be heard. We are agreed that the family is really the foundation of the society.
MR. DE CASTRO: Are the rights of people not also specific? It is specifically stated here, "the right of the people and their organizations."
MS. NIEVA: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer. I see no contradiction whatsoever.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Rosario Braid is recognized.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: I am very much in favor of this provision, but may I just ask a question of whether in terms of operationalization, I expect this would be through family associations rather than families themselves? Is that correct?
MS. NIEVA: Yes. Generally, they will do it through associations but we are not precluding individual families from taking advantage of their rights as citizens to be heard.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: In our approved provision in the Article on Declaration of Principles where we say that the State shall promote nongovernmental organizations and community-based associations, we also refer to "family organizations." I just want to mention that because we want to make sure that the Style Committee would not look at this as surplusage, but that this provision supports the provisions on the Article on Social Justice which are really similar when we talk of "peoples' organizations."
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that we vote on that provision.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): As many as are in favor, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
The results show 8 votes in favor and 7 against; the amendment is approved.
Let me just clarify. Therefore, this amendment that was just approved will be subsection (d) of Section 2.
MS. NIEVA: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I propose another amendment which reads: "THE RIGHT OF THE YOUTH AND YOUTH ASSOCIATIONS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICIES AND PROGRAMS THAT AFFECT THEM."
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): What does the committee say?
MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I explain. The "youth" is different from "families."
BISHOP BACANI: Is Commissioner de Castro very serious about this?
MR. DE CASTRO: I am serious about this because we are differentiating "people." My next amendment is the right of the children and children's association. Mr. Presiding Officer, we are making a mockery of our Constitution. Imagine "families" are not "people."
BISHOP BACANI: That is not the implication.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): What does the committee say? Does Commissioner de Castro insist on his amendment?
BISHOP BACANI: We do not accept the amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): So the committee does not accept the amendment.
Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: May I have a few minutes to explain my proposal?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): All right, Commissioner de Castro may proceed.
MR. DE CASTRO: If the families and family associations have a right to participate in the planning and implementation of policies, the more the youth has the right to participate because they are the hope of the fatherland; the youth, not the family. So why should we not allow our youth to participate in the planning and implementation of policies that affect them? The families may be old but they are no longer the hope of the fatherland.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Rosario Braid is recognized.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: We already have in the Declaration of Principles the participation of the youth. In the section on youth in the Article on Declaration of Principles, we have specifically included the rights of youth to participate and to be involved in policies and programs. So that will take care of Commissioner de Castro's concern.
MR. DE CASTRO: This is a declaration of principle, Mr. Presiding Officer. We would like to implant the right of the youth, the hope of the fatherland, on this. The next amendment will be on the children.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, maybe I got lost along the way, but are we discussing the Article on Family Rights?
BISHOP BACANI: That is it; that is what we are about to say.
MR. MAAMBONG: That is just what I wanted to find out. The youth is going into the picture now and we are supposed to discuss family rights.
Thank you.
MR. DE CASTRO: The youth is part of the family, Mr. Presiding Officer.
BISHOP BACANI: So, as the youth is part of the family, it is, therefore, included.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Are we ready to vote on this amendment?
BISHOP BACANI: Yes, we are ready for a vote, Mr. Presiding Officer. We do not accept the amendment.
MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Presiding Officer, I withdraw my amendment. I would just like to show that we are making a mockery of our Constitution by differentiating families from people.
MS. NIEVA: We are sorry, Mr. Presiding Officer. We firmly believe in the rightness of our proposal here. We know that the Gentleman is not serious at all in recommending that, so we said we do not accept.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): All right. The amendment was withdrawn. Mr. Floor Leader, are we ready to suspend the session now?
MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Presiding Officer, I have one more question please.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Yes, Commissioner de Castro may proceed.
MR. DE CASTRO: I would like to make a little clarification. The Committee on Sponsorship is given the right to correct, harmonize and avoid inaccuracies. This morning we approved the provision: "The State recognizes the Filipino family."
Will the Sponsorship Committee or the Style Committee remove "family"? We are talking here of the Filipino Constitution. We are talking here neither of the Chinese family nor of the Korean family. Certainly, we are talking of the Filipino family. Will the Committee on Style remove the word "family" in this case?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): The Committee on Style, of which I am the chairman, can change only the phraseology but not the substance.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
Because even the thought of Section 1, which we approved this morning, is the same as the first sentence of Section 9 of the Article on Declaration of Principles which we approved three days ago. I would just like to ask whether the Sponsorship Committee or the Committee on Style can eliminate those which are inaccurate or inconsistent.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): The functions of the Committees on Sponsorship and Style are in our Rules and every Member has a copy of the Rules.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I move that we close the period of amendments.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Is there any objection?
BISHOP BACANI: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): What is the pleasure of Bishop Bacani?
BISHOP BACANI: There are still two amendments that have been submitted. May I just read them? Both of them are about mothers.
MR. RAMA: I withdraw my motion to close the period of amendments, subject to the reservation of two proposed amendments.
BISHOP BACANI: Thank you.
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer, by reservations, would it include some of my proposed amendments?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): There are only two reservations.
MR. RAMA: There are two reservations. May we ask the body if there are other reservations?
MR. DAVIDE: I would like to make my own reservation. I have some proposals.
BISHOP BACANI: Mr. Presiding Officer, I forgot about the proposals of Commissioner Davide on which we will confer with him after lunch.
MR. RAMA: On the reservation made by Commissioner Davide, that would be an amendment to the motion.
BISHOP BACANI: So it will be Commissioners Rosario Braid, Bacani, Sarmiento and Davide.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): So the motion is to close the period of amendments which goes with the reservations already just mentioned?
MR. RAMA: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
BISHOP BACANI: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I move for a suspension of the session until two-thirty this afternoon.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the session is suspended until two-thirty this afternoon.
It was 12:21 p.m.
At 2:47 a.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): The session is resumed.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I move that we resume consideration of the Article on Family Rights.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the body will resume consideration of the Article on Family Rights.
MR. RAMA: I ask that the chairman and the committee members take their seats in front.
Mr. Presiding Officer, there are two or three reservations for amendment after the period of amendments has been closed.
I ask that Commissioner Bacani be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: Does the honorable Floor Leader want me to read the three suggestions one after the other?
MR. RAMA: Yes, please.
BISHOP BACANI: I shall first read the suggestion of Commissioner Davide which I am glad to coauthor with him. It states: "ALL CHILDREN REGARDLESS OF FILIATIONS SHALL ENJOY THE SAME SOCIAL PROTECTION."
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: I just want to ask what this means in the context of the equal protection of the laws. What is social protection, Mr. Presiding Officer?
BISHOP BACANI: May we first ask Commissioner Davide and then I will respond?
MR. DAVIDE: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: "REGARDLESS OF FILIATIONS" simply means that we do not consider the particular status of the child whether he is illegitimate, natural or legitimate. In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the language is very clear — whether born out of wedlock or in wedlock.
As a matter of fact, our Civil Code already guarantees certain basic rights, property rights. Of course, the distribution or allocation is different among the legitimate child and illegitimate child and the acknowledged natural child. In this particular respect as proposed, it is only equal social protection; meaning to say, that the State must afford equal social protection to the children. We are not talking about property protection but merely social protection, so that we should not penalize a child simply because he happens to be a natural child or an illegitimate child. That particular status is not of a child's own choosing. In other words, for the mistakes of the parents, the child should not be penalized by means of social inequilibrium. So we now mandate that, perhaps, to provide a climate where people will not make any distinction for social protection between those who are victims of the indiscretion of parents, they should be accorded an equal social opportunity or protection.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: Will the Gentleman give examples of lack of social protection other than property allocations under the Civil Code? What are the types of social protection that the State must enact?
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer, we cannot for the moment imagine this social protection, but definitely we could say that perhaps the State may provide for opportunities where a child who is legitimate may not consider another who is illegitimate as lower in category to his own category. It is just trying to establish a degree of social norm where, for purposes of the mantle of social protection, no discrimination should be made against those who may be of a status lower than that of a legitimate child.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Monsod may proceed.
MR. MONSOD: I still do not know what social protection means.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, point of information.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: Although I am against this provision, there is a case wherein social discrimination is on the part of an institution or a school or private person and not on the part of the State. For instance, there are certain schools here who demand a birth certificate of a child once he enrolls. If the birth certificate shows that he is an illegitimate son or daughter, he is not enrolled in that school. That could be a social discrimination but then we cannot demand that of a private institution. What is contemplated in this proposal is social equality from the State. Is that not correct?
MR. DAVIDE: That is partly correct; as a matter of fact, I would even say that in the matter we have contemplated, we now guarantee rights to children to quality education and, therefore, no educational institution can even require legitimate filiation as a condition precedent to his admission. This is practically, in effect, embodied but we want to broaden the scope of social protection. In education, that is one already, and I would say again that for an educational institution to require legitimate paternity or the status of being a legitimate child as a condition to admission is in itself already a discrimination which cannot be tolerated under the Article on Education.
MR. RAMA: Despite the fact that I have mentioned that case, Mr. Presiding Officer, I am against this provision because I do not think it is proper to be placed in the Constitution.
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer, I would say that even in the Constitution of Italy, there is a very clear provision regarding equality, not only, perhaps, in social protection but even in property relations.
MS. NIEVA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I think I have about at least a dozen constitutions where the children are protected, whether they are specifically stated born in or out of wedlock, not only in terms of social protection but legal protection so that they cannot be just ignored by their parents and that they must be supported and given an education, and so forth.
MR. MONSOD: Yes. But, Mr. Presiding Officer, that is already contained in the Civil Code; that is also covered by the Bill of Rights. I think it might just open the door to all kinds of interpretation on what kind of protection should be given and it might impair other rights. We must be careful in putting in the Constitution provisions like this that probably will create more injustice than solve them. And if they are adequately covered in other sections and in the implementing laws of the country, I think this could be a dangerous provision that can be used by the State in order to interfere and intervene with private rights.
MR. ABUBAKAR: Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. NOLLEDO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Abubakar is recognized.
MR. ABUBAKAR: I think the enumeration of all these has no place in the Constitution. A constitution drafted by any government or state is supposed to provide for the limitation of powers and the powers of government. Now we are going into wedlock; to mention even this particular phrase in the Constitution, would it not affect the dignity of the State or the Filipino? This can be settled by jurisprudence and by legislative measures but to enshrine this in the Constitution, especially the inclusion of a phrase "out of wedlock," would place us in an embarrassing position when people read our Constitution. I do not think I have read any constitution of any country in the world with this particular phraseology touching even the morality of its people. Let the Constitution, as all constitutions do, define provisions of the power and limitations of government. This can be taken in ordinary legislation. The moral of the government is not part of the Constitution or the moral of the people. We should not include this; otherwise, we will be adopting a constitution with so many provisos that, perhaps, we can even include therein certain actuations which are immoral as this provision seems to indicate. We should concentrate on the powers and limitations of government.
REV. RIGOS: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Rigos is recognized.
REV. RIGOS: This morning we approved Section 2(b) in the old formulation which states:
The right of children to assistance and special protection from all forms of neglect, abuse, cruelty . . .
We approved that this morning. Maybe it would be enough to put into the record that the special protection being suggested now as belonging to the children is already included in the sense of the sentence approved this morning. So if the committee agrees that such an interpretation can be acceptable, the present proposal may not be necessary anymore.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Nolledo is recognized.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
I would like to ask some clarificatory questions of Commissioner Davide.
MR. DAVIDE: Gladly, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. NOLLEDO: Will the Commissioner agree with me that the social protection he is contemplating may cover a rule against unjust discrimination in employment in the government, employment in the private sector and in pursuing education?
MR. DAVIDE: It can.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thus, if the government has a rule that only legitimate children should be employed, that rule will go against his proposal?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. NOLLEDO: It is also applicable in the same manner in the case of employment in the private sector where certain companies will adopt a policy that only legitimate children should be employed?
MR. DAVIDE: That is correct, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. NOLLEDO: In the case of education, certain schools may reject enrollees who are illegitimate children. And if we adopt the Commissioner's proposal, this will go against that rule.
MR. DAVIDE: That is correct, Mr. Presiding Officer. Precisely we would like to avoid discriminations simply because of the misfortune of a child, which misfortune is not of his own making.
MR. NOLLEDO: Then in that regard, it seems to me — correct me if I am wrong — that with respect to employment, we have adopted the rule that there should be no unjust discrimination in employment under existing labor laws. Would that rule cover the Commissioner's proposal?
MR. DAVIDE: That would be now covered but we must realize that when we adopted the provision on labor in the Article on Declaration of Principles, as well as on Social Justice, it did not embody the provision of the existing 1973 Constitution regarding discrimination on the grounds of sex, race, creed or political status or conditions. In other words, as approved, the provision on labor does not enumerate anymore the bases for possible discriminations, unlike the provision of Section 6 of the Article on Declaration of Principles of the 1973 Constitution where we have the enumerations. And so, this will now in effect remedy the situation but relating more specifically to children.
MR. NOLLEDO: Mr. Presiding Officer, with respect to education, the rule that everybody should have equal access to education is likewise covered by his proposal?
MR. DAVIDE: As a matter of fact, this particular proposal is necessary to supplement or amplify that particular provision on education.
MR. NOLLEDO: Would it be appropriate to say that social protection is earned and should not be imposed by legal mandate?
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer, it is not that it may not be imposed but we are framing a Constitution to provide for a directive policy or directive principles of state policy. There is no harm in making it as a directive principle or a state policy, especially if it would affect lives of citizens who, I would like to state again, are not responsible for a misfortune in life.
MR. NOLLEDO: Will the Gentleman be amenable to a suggestion in his proposal to state clearly that there should be no unjust discrimination against children because of their filiation?
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer, "discrimination" may be enough because if we say "unjust discrimination," it might allow some kind of discrimination.
MR. NOLLEDO: We can delete the word "unjust." I am recommending this to make it more specific. Then we can mention the areas where discrimination may take place, like employment and education.
MR. DAVIDE: I would be very willing to accept the proposal.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: The reason that seems to be established by Commissioner Nolledo is that this kind of provision will prevent the government from putting as a qualification for employment that people must be legitimate children. I do not think that is a proper basis for putting a constitutional provision on the speculation that government is going to put these restrictions on employment, a provision in the Constitution to preempt such possibility. I think it is kind of foolish to think that the government will put a condition on employment that the people must be legitimate children.
Second, we are putting into the Constitution a very convenient cause of action for people to invoke the Constitution for not getting a job or not being admitted into any association because he happens to be illegitimate. It is a convenient excuse for him to say, "It was because I was illegitimate that I was discriminated against."
Third, I do not think we should put sections in the Constitution on the ground that no harm will be done by putting them there. If that is the reason we are going to put sections in the Constitution, our Constitution is going to be 2,000 pages long because I can think of a lot of no-harm provisions. No harm putting it there, as an excuse; I do not think this is the kind of constitution we like to write.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Guingona is recognized.
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
May I just ask for clarification? Regarding the expression "social protection," does this refer to protection under the law?
BISHOP BACANI: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. GUINGONA: Against discrimination whether just or unjust?
BISHOP BACANI: Yes, all discrimination.
MR. GUINGONA: Therefore, would this provision also include nondiscrimination, as far as the law is concerned, with respect to inheritance? In other words, under the Civil Code, an illegitimate child would be entitled to less share than the legitimate child and because of this proposal that would become unconstitutional?
BISHOP BACANI: I think the idea here is to enable the child to get the minimum protection that he would need in order to live a life of dignity, and when it comes to inheritance, he should receive a part of the inheritance also which would allow him to live with dignity. But it would not necessarily mean that he would have to have the same inheritance as the legitimate children.
MR. GUINGONA: But then, if he would not have the same inheritance there will be discrimination. And we are talking of discrimination which, according to the interpellation, could be either unjust or just.
BISHOP BACANI: Yes, we may have to revise that. Commissioner Davide said that all discrimination is unjust; yet, I think, if the discrimination does not amount to any injustice at all, then it would not be discrimination in the sense we ordinarily use it, but a differentiation in treatment which is not necessarily unjust.
MR. GUINGONA: So now, we have two interpretations, Mr. Presiding Officer. One is that it could be any kind of discrimination; the other interpretation is that it must be an unjust discrimination. I am a little confused.
BISHOP BACANI: Yes, I think that would have to be the sense of it because we are only looking for social protection that would insure for this particular person, the illegitimate child in this instance, a life of human dignity.
MR. GUINGONA: But would not the social protection that is referred to here already be covered under the Bill of Rights when we speak of equal protection of the laws? Therefore, a child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, would be entitled to equal protection of the laws? Why do we have to still go into specifics? If we go into specifics about illegitimate children, we may have to go into specifics about other classes of people. I think the equal protection of the laws already covers sufficiently the protection that we envision. That is why I ask the question, Mr. Presiding Officer. I thought the Gentleman might have a larger or a broader concept of protection, but the way I look at it, the protection that he is envisioning is already covered sufficiently by the equal protection clause under the Bill of Rights.
BISHOP BACANI: It may not always be covered. There were some instances mentioned which are not at all imaginary.
MR. GUINGONA: Will the Gentleman give an example, Mr. Presiding Officer?
BISHOP BACANI: The discriminations that are possible, for example, are the ones regarding the school.
MR. GUINGONA: The school may require for admission the submission of birth certificates only to determine the citizenship of the student, especially if the student has a foreign surname.
Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Rama is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I think we should go back to the original provision in the Article on Human Rights. The controversies arose from the fact that the provision, particularly the phrase "social protection," has been given a meaning wider than that contemplated in the provision in the Article on Human Rights.
In the Universal Declaration of Human Rights under Article 25 from which this provision was borrowed, as confirmed by Commissioner Nieva, the provision reads: "Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance." I would like to mark the words "special care and assistance." The next sentence: "All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection." In other words, the same social protection refers to special care and assistance. This is subsection 2 of Article 25 which is the origin of this provision now under consideration.
In other words, if we widen the meaning of social protection, then it creates a lot of controversies and disputes and some aberrations probably. But if we stick to the meaning, as found in the original provision in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, perhaps that provision would have logic and reason and validity to be placed in the Constitution.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Tan is recognized.
SR. TAN: Mr. Presiding Officer, I would like to express my stand against the proposed resolution for two reasons. As expressed, I find it superfluous; as not expressed, I find it nebulous. And I question very much the example Commissioner Rama gave about schools not accepting illegitimate children because never in my experience have we not accepted illegitimate children.
MR. RAMA: May I answer, Mr. Presiding Officer? I have been alluded to.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Yes, Commissioner Rama may proceed.
MR. RAMA: I know for a fact that there are schools, particularly Catholic schools, that would not admit illegitimate children and there is a very valid reason. The reason is this: We have this very embarrassing situation where the illegitimate and the legitimate children of the same father are enrolled in the same school because normally, the second wife or the live-in wife would like to enrol also her children in the same school. This is very embarrassing during the graduation exercises. So I do not blame the schools for adopting this policy.
MR. COLAYCO: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I ask Commissioner Rama some questions?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Although I believe that we have sufficiently discussed the matter, Commissioner Rama may accede to some questions.
Commissioner Colayco is recognized.
MR. COLAYCO: I do not wish to imply that I do not take the Gentleman's words as truthful. Will he mention one school where this is practiced?
MR. RAMA: I would not like to mention schools because it might not be fair. But I know for a fact that there are schools, if we make just a cursory investigation, that require the children to present their certificate of birth for purposes of verifying that the legitimate and the illegitimate children of the same father are not in the same school.
MR. COLAYCO: I can mention a particular school where this is not done although it involved an illegitimate son of a former President of the Philippines.
MR. RAMA: Is that so?
MR. COLAYCO: Yes.
MR. RAMA: Could he mention that school and the President?
MR. COLAYCO: Ateneo de Manila. (Laughter)
The widow of the President raised a howl when she learned that the illegitimate son of her husband, the former President, was admitted to that school. But the school stood pat saying that this was a democratic country and that everybody was free to come and be admitted.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): The Chair believes that the matter has been sufficiently discussed and that the body should now vote on the amendment.
BISHOP BACANI: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MS. NIEVA: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. UKA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Uka is recognized.
MR. UKA: May I say a few words? What is an illegitimate child? Is he one who was born out of wedlock?
BISHOP BACANI: Yes.
MR. UKA: What about the children of Adam and Eve? Adam and Eve were never married. They were looking for a priest or a minister and they could not locate one. Why are we very much against illegitimate children? In fact, when Jesus said, "Suffer little children and forbid them not to come unto Me." He did not say "suffer little legitimate children." It is not the fault of the child when two people romantically interlock themselves and then create a child. We cannot choose our parents, neither can we choose our relatives. There were also many illegitimate children of the world who became very great men and women. Why do we put the stamp of illegitimacy on children and punish them as such? I think we should be more sober and reasonable for it is not their fault.
I also want to say, in connection with this, that we should be much kinder towards children. We should not apply the term "illegitimate" to them. I am also against this so-called "birth control." If Adam and Eve practiced birth control or if our parents practiced birth control, there would be no great Senator Rodrigo sitting up there; no great Floor Leader like Commissioner Rama; (Laughter and applause) nobody even to clap for me and no Commissioner Uka to speak on the floor on this subject and all of us will not be here today. We should be reasonable.
Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Are we now ready to vote, Mr. Floor Leader?
MR. RAMA: We are ready to vote, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. GUINGONA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Guingona is recognized.
MR. GUINGONA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I do not think that those who are speaking against the proposal are blaming the illegitimate children. What we are saying is that the provision refers to the protection by the State and as far as we can see, there is no discrimination if we accept the replies during the interpellation. There is no discrimination that has been pointed out. If there is any discrimination at all, it is a discrimination that is found in society and this is something that the State is not supposed to control or supposed to protect against in accordance with the proposed provision.
We realize that the illegitimate children are the victims and they are not to blame for their status. But I am afraid that this kind of provision, in accordance with the reply given to me, might even extend to the matter of inheritance. This kind of provision might be an encouragement to illegitimacy.
Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
BISHOP BACANI: Mr. Presiding Officer, this is not an encouragement to illegitimacy but only a protection against neglect.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: If we are thinking of adding protection in the provision, I would just like to indicate that under our present laws, especially in the Civil Code, there are already provisions not only in the law on succession but also in specific provisions of the Civil Code and I would like to point them out.
Article 359 of the Civil Code specifically provides, and I quote:
The government promotes the full growth of the faculties of every child. For this purpose, the government will establish, whenever possible:
(1) Schools in every barrio, municipality and city where optional religious instruction shall be taught as part of the curriculum at the option of the parent or guardian;
(2) Puericulture and similar centers;
(3) Councils for the Protection of Children; and
(4) Juvenile courts.
Also, Article 360 provides:
The Council for the Protection of Children shall look after the welfare of children in the municipality.
It then enumerates no less than seven functions. Article 361 even mentions the creation of juvenile courts.
So I feel that there are ample protection already embodied in our laws.
Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. NOLLEDO: Mr. Presiding Officer, I would like to amend the proposal of Commissioner Davide, if he is amenable.
MR. DAVIDE: May we have the amendment, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. NOLLEDO: My amendment is, in effect, an amendment by substitution, Mr. Presiding Officer. The amendment reads as follows: "THERE SHALL BE NO DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ALL CHILDREN WHETHER BORN IN OR OUT OF WEDLOCK."
MR. DAVIDE: May I leave it to the committee, having accepted my proposal.
BISHOP BACANI: Mr. Presiding Officer, the meaning that is given by Commissioner Nolledo seems to be wider than that intended by the committee. Let me just confer with Commissioner Nieva.
MR. NOLLEDO: A similar provision, Mr. Presiding Officer, is found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
BISHOP BACANI: We would prefer to stay with this provision as we had interpreted it during the interpellations, especially in the interpellation of Commissioner Guingona, because we did point out that there is what we might call discrimination that is not necessarily unjust, a differentiated treatment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): The committee does not accept the amendment.
BISHOP BACANI: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Does Commissioner Nolledo insist on his amendment?
MR. NOLLEDO: Mr. Presiding Officer, I think Commissioner Davide is amenable if I use the term "SOCIAL DISCRIMINATION." So that it will read: "THERE SHALL BE NO SOCIAL DISCRIMINATION AGAINST CHILDREN WHETHER BORN IN OR OUT OF WEDLOCK."
MR. DAVIDE: I am acceptable to that because we limit really the mantle of protection to social protection.
BISHOP BACANI: Yes, if the sense is according to the meaning of the interpellation of Commissioner Guingona, we would accept the amendment.
MR. NOLLEDO: It is in accordance with the observations of Commissioner Guingona.
BISHOP BACANI: Yes.
MR. NOLLEDO: Mr. Presiding Officer, I would like to impress upon the Members of the Commission that the provision in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is substantially the same as the original proposal recommended by Commissioner Davide. It reads: "ALL CHILDREN WHETHER BORN IN OR OUT OF WEDLOCK SHALL ENJOY THE SAME SOCIAL PROTECTION."
We cannot deny, Mr. Presiding Officer, that there is really discrimination against illegitimate children everywhere in all sectors of society. We would like to raise the level or status of an illegitimate child whose existence in the world is not his fault. We would like to destroy that attitudinal discrimination being practiced everywhere in the world dictated by human frailty and weakness. I think we would be giving protection to a child as we did give protection to even an unborn child.
Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): May I know the stand of the committee on this?
BISHOP BACANI: We accept the amendment in the sense that has just been explained, Mr. Presiding Officer, and in the light of the responses to the interpellation of Commissioner Guingona.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
BISHOP BACANI: Will the Gentleman kindly restate his amendment.
MR. NOLLEDO: "THERE SHALL BE NO SOCIAL DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ALL CHILDREN WHETHER BORN IN OR OUT OF WEDLOCK."
MR. MONSOD: May I just ask a clarification, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: Is this provision applicable to the government or to everybody?
MR. NOLLEDO: It is applicable to everybody. It is a notice to the whole world.
MR. MONSOD: How do we enforce it?
MR. NOLLEDO: As I said, we are raising the level of the status of the illegitimate child. For example, discrimination can take place in employment even in the government. We do not expect the government to pass a law that will discriminate against illegitimate children. Even in offices of the government I know as a fact that if one is illegitimate, the employer raises a quizzical eyebrow about his status. Discrimination will always exist everywhere. We do not need any law that will implement it.
MR. MONSOD: Therefore, this constitutional provision will prohibit people from raising their eyebrows?
MR. NOLLEDO: No, Mr. Presiding Officer, that is only a metaphor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): All right, I think we are ready to vote. The committee has accepted the amendment.
MR. GUINGONA: Mr. Presiding Officer, with allusion to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, this is a document which has no binding effect as far as other states are concerned. It does not mean that simply because we find the rights included there we would have to include all the rights. As a matter of fact, there is one right here that was proposed yesterday, the right of asylum, but this body turned it down.
In other words, I do not think the argument that simply because it is found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights this should necessarily be included in our Constitution. Besides, with respect to the question of Commissioner Monsod, if we are going to prohibit discrimination and it is not only the State that is affected, would there be sanctions? Are we going to penalize, fine or imprison a person who allegedly looks down upon an illegitimate child? Would that be covered by this particular provision where any appearance of discrimination could be subject even to penal sanctions?
MR. RAMA: May I ask that Commissioner Jamir be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Jamir is recognized.
MR. JAMIR: I want to raise a point of order, Mr. Presiding Officer.
Under Section 33 of our Rules, we have this provision:
No Member shall occupy more than fifteen minutes in debate on any question or speak more than once on any question without leave of the Constitutional Commission. . .
I would like to raise that point of order so that our debates may be shortened, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Yes. We are in the period of amendments. As a matter of fact, there is a specific rule regarding discussions on the period of amendments. But the attitude of the Chair has always been liberal, although I have been looking at the time and we have been enforcing the three-minute rule.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Natividad is recognized.
MR. NATIVIDAD: I have not violated the Rules yet. So I just want to ask one question that is in my mind.
If we approve this matter now pending. I would like to ask Commissioner Nolledo if this would not bring about or make possible the passage of a disclosure act, whereby people are asked whether they are legitimate or not.
MR. NOLLEDO: It will not, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. NATIVIDAD: In the application for jobs or anything of this matter? What is the intendment of the amendment?
MR. NOLLEDO: It will not, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Are we ready to vote?
MR. RAMA: The body is ready to vote, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. MAAMBONG: Just a parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Presiding Officer. The original proposed amendment reads: "CHILDREN REGARDLESS OF FILIATION SHALL ENJOY EQUAL PROTECTION."
Now, there is an amendment by Commissioner Nolledo which varies with the whole nature of the proposed amendment, and it now reads: "THERE SHALL BE NO DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ALL CHILDREN WHETHER BORN IN OR OUT OF WEDLOCK."
Just to keep the parliamentary situation in its proper place, I would like to know from Commissioner Davide if he is accepting this entire amendment to his proposed amendment.
BISHOP BACANI: The wording says: "THERE SHALL BE NO SOCIAL DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ALL CHILDREN WHETHER BORN IN OR OUT OF WEDLOCK."
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer, I agree with the position of the committee that it will not, in any way, affect the previous provision that has been approved by the body.
MR. RAMA: The body is now ready to vote, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): I think the proposed amendment is clear.
As many as are in favor, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
The results show 7 votes in favor and 16 against; the proposed amendment, as amended, is lost.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: This is also an amendment submitted by Commissioner Davide and it says: "GIFTED CHILDREN AND THE PHYSICALLY AND MENTALLY HANDICAPPED SHALL RECEIVE SPECIAL STATE ATTENTION." We would like to throw that to the body, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): The Chair would like to know if this is a committee amendment.
BISHOP BACANI: No, this is not a committee amendment, Mr. Presiding Officer. This is an amendment by Commissioner Davide.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Does the committee accept the amendment?
BISHOP BACANI: We would like to throw it to the floor for decision, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Tingson is recognized.
MR. TINGSON: Mr. Presiding Officer, this amendment that we have just defeated and the one that is now being proposed, I do not think there is a Commissioner here who would say this is a bad idea. And I am one of those. Certainly, we desire to give our children the best in life. There is no question about that. Most of us here are parents and we are all in favor of proposals like these.
I join, however, the expression already articulated here that perhaps provisions like these are best expressed and articulated by legislation — legislation that will be based on the principles and policies that we are writing in the Constitution.
Therefore, personally, Mr. Presiding Officer, although I like the idea very much, I would vote against it because I am convinced that this provision properly belongs to Congress later on.
MR. SARMIENTO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
May I just invite the attention of Commissioner Davide to a provision in the Article on Education. We have this provision which reads:
Scholarships, grants-in-aid or other forms of incentives shall be provided to deserving science students, scientists, inventors, technologists, and especially gifted citizens.
Would Commissioner Davide not agree with me that his proposed amendment is covered by this particular section?
MR. DAVIDE: Let me ask this way. Does the Commissioner believe that it is covered?
MR. SARMIENTO: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. DAVIDE: Is it also the thinking of the committee that that is covered, whether directly or indirectly? In other words, it could be implemented by virtue of the Article on Education.
BISHOP BACANI: It can be but, I think, with special reference then to science students.
MR. DAVIDE: To gifted children.
BISHOP BACANI: Yes.
MR. DAVIDE: Now, with the admission of the committee and Commissioner Sarmiento, on the interpretation of the Article on Education, I am prepared to withdraw and I am withdrawing the proposed amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): So, the proposed amendment is withdrawn.
The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: May I ask Commissioner Bacani to state the last amendment.
BISHOP BACANI: The last one as submitted by Commissioners Sarmiento, Davide, Bacani, and Rosario Braid states: "THE STATE SHALL PROVIDE SPECIAL PROTECTION AND CARE TO MOTHERS DURING PREGNANCY AND MATERNITY AND SHALL RECOGNIZE THE SOCIAL VALUE OF THE WORK IN THE HOME."
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Is this a committee amendment?
BISHOP BACANI: It is accepted by the committee, Mr. Presiding Officer, but it is not a committee amendment.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): So, it is an amendment accepted by the committee.
Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: Mr. Presiding Officer, this is a new provision. The Article on Social Justice refers to working mothers. That provision is limited to working mothers.
This provision is all-embracing to cover nonworking mothers. Mothers have a special place in our hearts. It is but important that we give importance to mothers especially during pregnancy and after maternity. That is the thrust of this provision, Mr. Presiding Officer.
BISHOP BACANI: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I also add a comment to the latter part of this proposed provision.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: It states: "AND SHALL RECOGNIZE THE SOCIAL VALUE OF THEIR WORK IN THE HOME." This has been requested by women and some Members of the Commission and the idea of recognizing the social value of their work in the home is that, in the estimate, for example, of the GNP, we will take it into consideration so that it will not be said that they are only working in the home.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Tingson is recognized.
MR. TINGSON: Mr. Presiding Officer, only yesterday we finally approved the Article on the Declaration of Principles. Section 9 says:
The State recognizes the sanctity of family life and shall protect and strengthen the family as a basic social institution. The State shall equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from the moment of conception.
This means that if we protect the life of the unborn, naturally the mother's life is similarly protected. Furthermore, it says:
The natural right and duty of parents in the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency in the development of moral character shall receive the aid and support of the government.
Section 10 states:
The State recognizes the vital role of the youth in nation-building and shall promote their physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual, and social well-being.
For this purpose, the State shall inculcate in the youth nationalism, patriotism and involvement in the affairs of the nation.
Mr. Presiding Officer, similarly, I would say, with due respect to my friend who is proposing this, a very knowledgeable young Commissioner and perhaps a future leader of our country, that that is already covered in the provisions mentioned. With due respect to the Commissioner, I would also vote against that not because we are against the idea, but because it would unnecessarily lengthen our Constitution.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Just one question to the committee or the proponent.
Is this a demandable right?
BISHOP BACANI: Yes, when there is a case of neglect of the mothers during pregnancy and maternity. If the Gentleman means that by demandable right we can ask the State to give this to us or to see to it that this is given to us, I believe it can be demanded.
MR. MAAMBONG: In other words, against whom will you demand this right, Mr. Presiding Officer?
BISHOP BACANI: Against the State.
MR. MAAMBONG: In other words, we can file an action against the State if the mother who is pregnant, for example, is not taken care of. I can just imagine the effect of this. Every mother in this country will be filing a case against the State and I do not think the government can absorb this kind of burden, Mr. Presiding Officer.
BISHOP BACANI: I think that that is not the sense. The idea is to make the state aware of the importance of protecting them during the time of pregnancy.
May I ask the help of Commissioner Sarmiento who is the proponent of this particular paragraph.
MR. SARMIENTO: I am claiming no exclusive paternity to this provision. This provision is sponsored by seven other Commissioners. I personally believe that this will be demandable right. We have many mothers in the rural areas who die because of sufferings during and after the period of delivery. There are no hospitals, no doctors in these rural areas and because of that the mortality rate of mothers is very high. So, the purpose of this provision is indeed to give recognition and protection to mothers.
MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Presiding Officer, I just want to be clarified on whether this is really a demandable right in the legal sense of the word or it is merely an aspiration. Because if we say it is a demandable right, I fear for the government because as of now, as pointed out by the Commissioner, there are so many pregnant women in our countryside who can ill afford to go to the hospital and they are dying everyday. I should know because I come from a barangay. And if this is a demandable right as stated by the Commissioner, how can the government absorb this burden if all these pregnant women who are not taken care of will go to court and file a case on the basis not of an ordinary law but of a constitutional precept? That is my problem.
MR. SARMIENTO: Considering the situation of our country, what we can say is that at this point in time, that principle is an aspiration. It is a goal that we wish to achieve.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you for that more truthful answer, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. GUINGONA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Guingona is recognized.
MR. GUINGONA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I would have no serious objection or reservation with respect to the first part, especially if we pass in the Article on General Provisions the proposed provision that this government cannot be sued without its consent. But I was wondering with regard to the second part which says: "AND SHALL RECOGNIZE THE SOCIAL VALUE OF THEIR WORK AT HOME." Aside from including the woman-hour to the GNP, how else could the State recognize the social value, Mr. Presiding Officer?
BISHOP BACANI: By way of promoting this scheme on the role of women in the home. For example, it will work towards conditions that will enable the woman, if she so desires, to stay in the home and perform her maternal function rather than be forced to work outside the home.
MR. GUINGONA: But is that not already covered under other provisions regarding the protection that will be given to women, whether working or not?
BISHOP BACANI: No, there is nothing in the Constitution at present which sort of advises the State to help the women, if they so desire, to stay in the home and do their work there because there are now compelling conditions that practically force women to work outside their homes for financial survival, to such an extent that at present if they just work in the home, it seems that they are not really contributing to family income.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. GUINGONA: Just one question, Mr. Presiding Officer.
I do not see how the government can extend this recognition without any financial burden. Would the Commissioner envision some kind of a subsidy to women who are not working because they are staying at home and attending to their maternal duties? Because that is the only way the State can give recognition, aside from perhaps giving certificates, but this is all meaningless. I was asking for some definite, tangible and meaningful recognition that the State could give, and I frankly could not think of any.
BISHOP BACANI: The Commissioner mentioned what was already cited by the women earlier that in the computation of the GNP, the number of hours of work that they do in the home should be taken into consideration. Now, the second thing that I spoke of is helping set conditions so that they will not be forced to work outside the home.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. GUINGONA: Will all of these require a constitutional provision? Can this inclusion in the GNP not be done without a constitutional provision?
Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: The body is now ready to vote, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Is the proposed provision clear?
BISHOP BACANI: May I read it, Mr. Presiding Officer. It states: "THE STATE SHALL PROVIDE SPECIAL PROTECTION AND CARE TO MOTHERS DURING PREGNANCY AND MATERNITY AND SHALL RECOGNIZE THE SOCIAL VALUE OF THEIR WORK IN THE HOME."
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): As many as are in favor, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
The results show 12 votes in favor and 15 against; the proposed amendment is lost.
The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, since we are through with the Article on Human Rights? I move that we proceed to the discussion of the Article on General Provisions.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: I just wanted to make a manifestation that Sections 1 and 2 of the Article on Family Rights, as approved, are overlapping. I suggest, if the committee is willing, that we endorse this to the Committee on Style without changing the substance of the two sections.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, may we listen or hear how the revised version would read so that we may know if there is any objection?
MR. MONSOD: I was just thinking that maybe Section 1 should read: "THE STATE RECOGNIZES THE FAMILY AS THE BASIC AND AUTONOMOUS SOCIAL INSTITUTION OF THE NATION. ACCORDINGLY, IT SHALL STRENGTHEN ITS SOLIDARITY AND ACTIVELY PROMOTE ITS TOTAL DEVELOPMENT."
Section 2 should read: "Marriage is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State."
MR. RAMA: So it is a restyling.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): The suggestion is properly recorded.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): The proper committee would take note of that in the performance of their duties later.
MR. MONSOD: Mr. Presiding Officer, there is one other amendment. I do not know if the committee or the body needs to vote on this, but in Section 3 (d), I think it is going to be very hard to operationalize a consultation mechanism where we give rights to families. Family association seems to be in order, but to give rights to families of which there must be about 8 or 9 million families, anybody who is a family can claim to a right to be heard. and that will result in chaos.
MR. RAMA: That would be a subject of motion for reconsideration.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Yes, that has been passed already.
MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): So, it is not the problem of the Committee on Style anymore.
MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner de Castro is recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you.
Shall we put this as a separate article or part of the Declaration of Principles?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): What is the suggestion of the committee?
MS. NIEVA: Our desire is that it be a separate article, but where it should be attached, where it really belongs, we leave to the Sponsorship Committee.
MR. DE CASTRO: So, whether it will be a separate article or part of some other articles, the Sponsorship Committee and the Style Committee have been given the leeway to determine that?
MS. NIEVA: Provided it remains, yes.
I think it is the Sponsorship Committee.
MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Presiding Officer, the matter of having a new article in our Constitution is not a prerogative of the Style nor of the Sponsorship Committee. There is nothing in their power, under our Rules, to do that.
MS. NIEVA: Yes. It is the desire of the committee that this be a separate article. We did not say that decision on that should be left to the Sponsorship Committee; it is just where to place the separate article that we would leave to the Sponsorship Committee.
MR. DE CASTRO: As I understand it, the committee is not definite as to whether to make this a separate article.
MS. NIEVA: Excuse me, we have maintained that from the very beginning we hope this will be a separate article. That was the primary assumption.
MR. DE CASTRO: Then, Mr. Presiding Officer, I move that we vote on whether this should be a separate article or part of the Declaration of Principles or the General Provisions.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): May we have the motion of the Commissioner.
MR. DE CASTRO: I move that the Article on Family Rights should not be placed in a separate article but be included in either the Article on the Declaration of Principles or in the Article on General Provisions.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): I think such a motion is in order. So the motion is in the negative that the Article on Family Rights should not be included in a separate article. So if the "Yes" votes prevail, then the Article on Family Rights will not be a separate article.
MR. DE CASTRO: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): If the "No" votes prevail, the Article on Family Rights will be a separate article.
MR. DE CASTRO: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. COLAYCO: Point of order, Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Colayco is recognized.
MR. COLAYCO: The motion of Commissioner de Castro apparently includes two subjects because he says it should be transferred either to the Article on the Declaration of Principles or to the Article on General Provisions.
MR. DE CASTRO: I took away the last portion of my motion and proposed that the Article on Family Rights not be in a separate article.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Should not be a separate article?
MR. DE CASTRO: Not a separate article in our Constitution.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Yes, that was how I explained it. So are we now ready to vote on that?
BISHOP BACANI: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: May we just say that we would very much want to have this as a separate article because the purpose of creating a subcommittee on the Article on Family Rights was precisely to highlight the importance of the family in our society and Constitution.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): May the Chair make a suggestion? I think a motion is better worded affirmatively.
REV. RIGOS: Yes.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): So may we ask Commissioner de Castro to withdraw his motion?
MR. DE CASTRO: I withdraw my motion.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Will the Gentleman state it in the affirmative?
MR. DE CASTRO: That the provisions on the Article on Family Rights which we approved today be placed in some other article that we have already approved in the Constitution.
MR. GUINGONA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Guingona is recognized.
MR. GUINGONA: May I say that this motion is ambiguous because it does not tell us where. I think perhaps what we should do now is to try to discuss where. There are two possibilities that have been mentioned: one is the Article on Social Justice and the other one is the Article on General Provisions so that when a motion is made, it will be a definite motion.
MR. DE CASTRO: I will make it more definite for Commissioner Guingona to understand. I move that the provisions on the Article on Family Rights which we approved today be part of the Article on General Provisions.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Guingona is recognized.
MR. GUINGONA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I object because in the first place, the proponent has not explained why he wants to put it under the Article on General Provisions. Second, I think we should have a discussion. Those who might be suggesting that it should be in another article should be allowed to explain why they think it should be in another article before we vote on this.
MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Presiding Officer, it is not for another Commissioner to ask that we vote on another motion. I have a motion. I put it on the floor.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Yes, we will put that to a vote but I think Commissioner Davide wants to comment on that motion.
MR. DAVIDE: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
Under Rule II, Section 8 of our Rules on committees, we have the provision under item no. 17, page 7 of our Rules which reads:
Committee on sponsorship, 15 Members — all matters pertaining to the formulation and final draft of the Constitution, the correction, harmonization of proposals for the purpose of avoiding inaccuracies, repetitions and inconsistencies, and the arrangement of proposals in a logical order, but the committee shall have no authority to change the sense, substance or purpose of any proposal referred to it, and the sponsorship of the final draft of the Constitution.
I believe, Mr. Presiding Officer, that since one of the functions of the committee is the arrangement of proposals on a logical order we should leave the matter of the placement of the approved articles according to what the Sponsorship Committee believes would be logical.
MR. GUINGONA: I agree with the observations.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): The Chair believes there is a more basic question.
Would Commissioner de Castro agree with the Chair if we put this to a vote?
MR. DE CASTRO: Separate article. Yes, I will agree to that.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Gascon is recognized.
MR. GASCON: Mr. Presiding Officer, before we vote, the committee wishes to express its hopes that the body will give its approval of the committee's proposal to have it as a separate article because as we have already mentioned, we feel that the family as a basic social unit should be given its recognition in this Constitution. Also, there are other countries throughout the world like Brazil, Ireland, West Germany, Cuba and Portugal who have had separate articles as well on the family.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): So, we will now vote on whether or not to incorporate this Article on Family Rights in a separate article.
MR. ROMULO: Mr. Presiding Officer, just a point of information. How many sections are there finally?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): May we know from the committee how many sections are there now?
MS. NIEVA: There are three major sections.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Four sections with four subsections.
MR. ROMULO: Thank you
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo). So, let us vote on the motion to incorporate the provisions on the Article on Family Rights under a separate article.
As many as are in favor, please raise their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)
As many as are against, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)
The results show 16 votes in favor and 7 against; the motion is approved.
The provisions on the Article on Family Rights will be under a separate article, and where to place it will be entrusted to the Sponsorship Committee.
The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I move that we take up for consideration the Article on General Provisions.
MS. NIEVA: Before we close, Mr. Presiding Officer, we just would like to express our appreciation and our thanks to all the Commissioners who have formulated and strengthened this very significant Article on Family Rights which, I think, is now one of the most important and fundamental articles in our new Constitution. (Applause)
(Article on General Provisions)
PERIOD OF SPONSORSHIP AND DEBATE
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I reiterate my motion that we consider Committee Report No. 31 on Proposed Resolution No. 531 as reported out by the Committee on General Provisions.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
Consideration of Proposed Resolution No. 531 is now in order. With the permission of the body, the Secretary-General will read only the title of the proposed resolution without prejudice to inserting in the Record the whole text thereof.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: Proposed Resolution No. 531, entitled:
RESOLUTION PROPOSING TO INCORPORATE IN THE CONSTITUTION AN ARTICLE ON GENERAL PROVISIONS AND A SECTION IN THE TRANSITORY PROVISIONS.
Be it resolved by the Constitutional Commission in session assembled. To incorporate and provide in the Constitution the following provisions:
GENERAL PROVISIONS
SECTION 1. The flag of the Philippines shall be red, white, and blue, with a sun and three stars, as consecrated and honored by the people and recognized by law.
SECTION 2. The Congress may by law adopt a new name for the country, a national anthem, and a national seal, which shall all be truly reflective and symbolic of the ideals, history, and traditions of the people.
SECTION 3. No elective or appointive public officer or employee shall receive additional, double or indirect compensation, except pensions or gratuities, unless allowed by law, nor accept, without the consent of the Congress, any present emolument, office or title of any kind from any foreign state.
Unless required by law, neither should he hold any other office or employment in the Government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations.
SECTION 4. It shall be the responsibility of the State to provide adequate care and benefits for war veterans and government retirees as well as their dependents commensurate with their present conditions in life. Preference shall be given these war veterans and government retirees in the acquisition of public lands and the development of natural resources.
SECTION 5. Salaries and other emoluments of all government officials including those of the Constitutional Commission shall not be exempt from income tax.
SECTION 6. Congress may create an office of tribal communities to advise the President on policy problems affecting cultural minorities.
SECTION 7. Congress shall by law set a twenty-year limit on the life of government ministries, bureaus, agencies or corporations after which time, the agency will be automatically dissolved unless it can justify its continued existence.
SECTION 8. The State shall promote indigenous tourism, reorient the tourism industry to one that is responsive to the creation of a just, humane, and sustainable socio-economic cultural development of its country's heritage.
SECTION 9. The State recognizes the vital role of communication and information in national development. It shall promote a comprehensive communication policy and establish an appropriate information system among the various sectors. The communication industry shall promote cultural identity, national integration and the common good.
SECTION 10. (1) The State shall promote the growth of non-commercial forms of communication and may provide subsidies, grants-in-aid and other incentives to non-commercial media that support non-formal education and the development of self-reliant communities.
(2) The State shall protect the public from misleading, harmful, deceptive and colonial advertising, labelling and other forms of misrepresentation.
SECTION 11. (1) The ownership, management, and control of any form of mass media shall be limited to citizens of the Philippines, or to corporations, cooperatives or associations wholly owned and managed by such citizens.
No one individual, family, or corporation can own more than one form of commercial mass media in a single market.
Employees of such corporations or associations shall enjoy the right to be part-owners thereof or to purchase shares of stock therein, and to participate in the management thereof in the manner provided by law.
(2) No franchise, certificate or any other form of authorization for the operation of advertising and commercial telecommunication establishments shall be granted except to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations organized under the laws of the Philippines at least two-thirds of whose voting stock or controlling interest is owned by such citizens. The governing and management body of every entity engaged in advertising and commercial telecommunication shall in all cases be controlled by citizens of the Philippines.
SECTION 12. The State shall regulate the grant of broadcast and telecommunication franchises allocated according to criteria prescribed by Congress. No franchise shall be assigned, mortgaged, leased or transferred without securing the prior consent of the State.
SECTION 13. It shall be the responsibility of the State to adopt population policies most conducive to the national welfare. It shall, however, be the right and duty of parents to determine the number of their children and, in the exercise of this right and duty, they shall not be compelled to use means of birth limitation that shall be against their informed conscience and religious convictions.
SECTION 14. Wholly-owned Filipino corporations shall be given priority to domestic credit facilities.
SECTION 15. The State may not be sued without its consent.
SECTION 16. The State shall protect consumers from malpractices and substandard products of manufacturers and producers.
SECTION 17. The Armed Forces of the Philippines, the main force for the defense and security of the State, belong to the Filipino people.
Its tasks are to preserve the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the nation, to participate in national development and reconstruction, to insure public security, and to serve the interest of the people.
The State shall strengthen the military's patriotic spirit and nationalist consciousness in the performance of their sacred duty to the nation and the people.
SECTION 18. (a) The Armed Forces of the Philippines shall be a citizen armed force composed of able-bodied citizens of the Philippines who shall undergo military training as may be provided by law. It shall keep a regular force necessary for the security of the State.
(b) The citizen armed force shall have a corps of trained officers and men on active duty status as may be necessary to train, service, and keep it in reasonable preparedness at all times.
(c) The citizen armed force may be employed for the internal security of the State as may be provided for by law.
SECTION 19. (a) It shall be the duty of the Armed Forces of the Philippines to remain loyal at all times and in all places to the people, obey the laws of the country, and defend and preserve the sovereignty, safety and welfare of the people.
(b) All officers and men of the Armed Forces of the Philippines shall take a solemn oath to defend and uphold the Constitution, protect the country and the people, and yield no loyalty to any person but to the people.
SECTION 20. (a) Professionalism in the military shall be maintained in the matter of appointment and/or promotion through the strict adherence to the rules on seniority and merit. Its career management system shall be consistently implemented.
(b) The pay and allowances of the members of the military shall be regularly reviewed to make them consistent with their dignity as men in uniform.
(c) All officers of the armed forces due for retirement from the service in accordance with existing laws shall be retired without any exception.
(d) The tour of duty of the Chief of Staff of the armed forces shall be for three (3) years, subject to extension only during national emergency, which extension shall not be for more than one (1) year.
SECTION 21. The military as impartial guardian and protector of the Constitution, the country, and the people shall be insulated from the influence of partisan politics. No member of the military shall engage directly or indirectly in partisan political activity except to register and vote.
SECTION 22. The State shall establish and maintain one police force which shall be national in scope and civilian in character to be administered and controlled by a national police commission. The authority of local executives over the police units in their jurisdiction shall be provided by law.
TRANSITORY PROVISIONS
SECTION ___. All armed groups and paramilitary forces now existing contrary to law shall be dismantled.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: May I call on all the members of the Committee on General Provisions to join me in front.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I ask that the chairman, Commissioner Rosario Braid, be recognized to make the sponsorship speech.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. Rodrigo): Before that, the Chair would like to announce that we have copies of amended Committee Report No. 31 as of September 1, 1986, which is a substitute resolution. This is the copy which we will use as basis of our discussion.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Rosario Braid be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Rosario Braid is recognized.
COMMISSIONER ROSARIO BRAID
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Mr. Presiding Officer, honorable Members of the Commission, the Committee on General Provisions has been translated into Filipino as "Mga Tadhanang Pangkalahatan." The Committee on General Provisions may also be aptly described as the committee on et cetera. All provisions not included or not treated or not having relevance to other standing committees have been thrown to this committee for discussion.
The Article on General Provisions differs from the articles in the Constitutions of 1935 and 1973 in that it no longer includes important areas like education, science and technology, arts and culture. Its gains, however, are shown in the expanded provisions on national defense and communication. We have 21 provisions; there were 8 provisions from the 1935 Constitution and 16 provisions from the 1973. The committee held more than 25 committee meetings including public hearings with representatives of the military, media, advertising, and various advocacy groups were sought for their expert views on various issues such as the FLAG, the Church and State, population and others.
Thus, the issues in this article are disparate and are integrated by unifying themes such as the concern for cultural diversity, national unity and symbols that reflect national ideals and aspirations, as shown in Sections 1 and 2 on the Philippine flag, and an opening for possible changes in the country's name, a national anthem, and national seal which shall be reflective and symbolic of the ideals, history and tradition of the people, and which shall be mandated to Congress.
In our deliberations, we have organized according to subcommittees with our vice-chairman, Commissioner Bacani, and four other subcommittees on the flag and national anthem, public office, national defense, media and other issues included in this article.
All the provisions call for a reorientation of the public officers, the media of communication and the military. The two provisions, Sections 3 and 5, deal with the limitations on compensation and other privileges of public officers, and are concerned with accountability of these officers. They differ from the 1973 Constitution in terms of additional phrase on direct compensation.
Section 4 mandates the State to provide adequate care and benefits for war veterans, government retirees and their dependents. Section 6 mandates Congress to create an office of tribal communities to advice the President on policy problems on cultural minorities, while Section 7 would encourage government ministries, bureaus, agencies or corporations to renew their goals and restructure their organization and these could be dissolved unless they are able to justify their continued existence. Section 8 will encourage the promotion of indigenous tourism.
The committee also recognizes the population problem of the country and had amended the provision of 1973 by mandating the State to adopt population policies conducive to the national welfare. This is similar to recommendations made by NEDA on the restructuring of the present Population Commission to become a population board which will be linked with institutes on demography and will study issues such as fertility, migration and other issues beyond applied population control or family planning. This provision also respects the right and duty of parents to determine the number of their children.
Section 14 gives priority to Filipino-owned corporations in terms of access to domestic credit facilities. The provision on Church and State as well as the bases, although discussed in this committee, had been referred to the Committee on Declaration of Principles. Section 15 repeats the old provision which states that the State may not be sued without its consent. Section 16 protects consumers' interest Sections 17 to 21 are provisions on national defense and security which will be explained in greater detail by Commissioner de Castro and Commissioner Natividad. It affirms the AFP's task in preserving the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the nation and participating in national development and reconstruction so that it can serve the people's interest. The important features which will be discussed later include the citizen armed force, professionalism in the military and a reorientation of its members in terms of objectives of development. It also includes nonextension of retireable officers. One provision affirms the insulation of the military from partisan politics.
The last provision states the establishment of a police force which shall be national in scope and civilian in character to be administered and controlled by a national police commission where the authority of local executives is provided. A provision to dismantle all armed groups and paramilitary forces existing contrary to law has been recommended by our committee to the Committee on Transitory Provisions.
I shall speak at greater length, Mr. Presiding Officer, on the communication sectors which are embodied in new provisions and which I, together with Commissioners Bacani, Foz and Gascon, will defend. But may I make the sponsorship speech at this time.
Sections 9 to 12 are provisions on communication and information. They differ from earlier provisions in their concern about the role and reorientation of the media of communication including new communication technology so that they truly serve the economic, political, social and cultural development of the nation. The provisions note the significant impact of the media of communication on Filipino values and culture. These concerns are expressed in support of an earlier provision on Filipinization of ownership of the mass media. The present provision expands it to broaden ownership which will give employees of media corporations the right to be part owners or to purchase shares of stock and to participate in the management of these establishment.
Another provision gives control and management of commercial telecommunications and advertising firms to Filipinos by providing Filipino citizens a majority controlling interest in these corporations.
Section 12 mandates the State to regulate the grant of broadcast and telecommunication franchises according to criteria of public interest and to prevent transfer of such without securing the prior consent of the State.
Communication comes from the Greek word communis, meaning to commune or to come together. Thus, when we communicate, we share ideas, feelings; we dialogue. Information is processed data on which we make decisions. Other forms include mass media such as broadcast, print or films, new communication technology such as satellites, computers, book publishing, telecommunications or telephone and the knowledge industry. Communication is the nerve of government just as information is power. Those who own the information technology necessarily have more power which could be used for good or evil. Thus, communication policies are necessary although such should be developed through private initiative and must involve as many sectors in the population who have a stake in communication — consumers, laborers, businessmen, academe, farmers and fishermen groups and others. Such policies will be concerned with such problems as: the need to strengthen local production capability in media programs so that we can become interdependent in this area in the global market particularly with other countries in the Asian region; the need for linking the mass media with education, such as in distance learning, encouraging more balance in programming, so that information needs of farmers, entrepreneurs and workers are met; improving the flow of communication between the government and all sectors of society; and linking the local communication industry with the knowledge industry in the global village.
We cannot talk of the functions of communication unless we have a philosophy of communication, unless we have a vision of society. Here we have a preferred vision where opportunities are provided for participation by as many people, where there is unity even in cultural diversity, for there is freedom to have options in a pluralistic society. Communication and information provide the leverage for power. They enable the people to act, to make decisions, to share consciousness in the mobilization of the nation. We are not so much concerned, therefore, with the media or the channels or the messages as we are about the functions of communication resources in a given society — in education, in mobilization of rural communities in the integration of ethnic groups, improving capability of decision making and in forging peace and brotherhood with the entire community of nations.
The media have such a powerful socializing effect that they could tell audiences how to think and behave. They have a tremendous influence in shaping opinions and attitudes and could lead to cultural alienation and social uniformity. The growing dependence on advertising tends to produce a commercial mentality in which consumption becomes an end in itself. Instead of fostering a culture based on plurality, they often encourage homogenization of ideas. They discourage productivity since they encourage consumerism. Where the flow is from top to bottom, the media are likely to promote the acceptance of approved ideas at the expense of independent thought and critical judgment. We have, for instance, a position paper from a group of concerned citizens where they say that pornography could be censorship because they prevent independent thought; they prevent critical thinking and the entry of positive programs into the existing channels.
Someone stated that if our society loves self-destruction, it only needs to go on with the policy which encourages abuse of the present communication resources which is happening now. This is clearly shown in the contradictions between the values taught in school and in the home and the values shown in the media. So that what we are saying, Mr. Presiding Officer, is that the left hand of our economy should not destroy through irresponsible advertising what the right hand of the same economy wants to achieve in terms of productivity and growth. Economic growth will depend more on proper work attitudes rather than on the whetting of appetite for consumer goods that the economy is unable to supply.
The lessons from the Marcos regime in the use of communication for bolstering its legitimacy, in depriving millions of Filipinos the freedom to shape their personal needs and demands due to the continuing assault by messages of indoctrination either from advertising that sells foreign goods or favorable images about the new society should alert us on the consequences of an interlapping relationship between a political regime with transnational corporations, communication enterprises and the elite groups of society who have access to power.
As someone said, "no other technology, but no other technology has prescribed itself so penetratively and yet so imperceptibly on human consciousness as mass communications." We cannot measure the real losses in terms of people participation, development of indigenous technical skills, personal and national identity and self-worth and self-esteem owing to the pervasive influence of communication in our society. The importance of small and noncommercial forms of communication, particularly community media, small media, that support the philosophy of "small is beautiful" in enhancing people power is recognized in one provision. This refers to the opportunity presented by the media as delivery systems for nonformal education, health, agriculture and other development areas. The role of communication may be regarded as that of a major carrier of culture. It fosters adoption of behavior patterns to bring about social integration. Development is a cooperative venture requiring communication and deep understanding between people. All people must, therefore, share a common code of meaning. It is difficult for people to cooperate with each other politically when they are divided socially and culturally. This is a recognition of the primacy of communication as a tool of government, particularly in communicating the national ideology or philosophy.
So that with this sponsorship speech, Mr. Presiding Officer, I hope the Commission would consider the importance of the recommendations we have made here, and we welcome, therefore, comments and interpellation.
Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): The body is now in the period of sponsorship and debate.
MR. ROMULO: Mr. Presiding Officer, there is no one listed for interpellation so far.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Would the Commissioner move to end the period of sponsorship and debate so we can go on to the period of amendments?
MR. BENGZON: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: Since there is no one registered to interpellate . . .
MR. COLAYCO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Colayco is recognized.
MR. COLAYCO: I would like to ask some clarificatory questions of any member of the committee. I am reading from Section 13, first paragraph which states:
It shall be the responsibility of the State to adopt population policies most conducive to the national welfare.
What kind of policies does the committee have in mind under this paragraph?
BISHOP BACANI: There is no definite policy that the committee has in mind. All we are saying is that the State shall have that responsibility. We are not even saying it has the "sole responsibility," but "the responsibility to adopt population policies most conducive to the national welfare." They can formulate it. We do not think of any particular policy. In the previous formulation of the corresponding section on General Provisions, it says: "The State shall achieve and maintain population level most conducive to the national welfare." In other words, there is, therefore, a definite trend in that policy. This is a more general formulation which, while not discarding it, does not adopt that policy.
MR. COLAYCO: In other words, the Commissioner cannot even state for the record any specific guideline which our legislature would be bound to follow. We are giving our legislature, therefore, the freedom to think of any kind of policy.
BISHOP BACANI: Yes. There is a guideline that is inserted here already; that is, the policy that is "most conducive to the national welfare. " It is conceivable that, perhaps, somebody will propose other guidelines after due consultation. There is also a guideline that has been supplied already by the protection of the State for the life of the unborn. So, that would eliminate abortion. Then the second sentence provides an additional guideline which should be observed in the formulation of population policies. It states:
It shall, however, be the right and duty of parents to determine the number of their children and in the exercise of this right and duty, they shall not be compelled to use means of birth limitation that shall be against their informed conscience and religious convictions.
There are, therefore, guidelines within the Constitution itself and guidelines within this provision. Other guidelines like the one I suggested — maybe "after due consultation" or "with due consultation" — can also be provided.
MR. COLAYCO: But since the committee apparently admits that it has the vaguest idea about the concept which is embodied in the first sentence, I think it is a very dangerous approach or a very dangerous way of instituting or giving authority to the legislature on matters about which the committee admits not to know anything at all. Does not the Commissioner think so?
BISHOP BACANI: No, it is not that we do not know anything at all but we are not formulating the government policy on population.
MR. COLAYCO: A cursory reading of this sentence immediately brings up the most logical concept which is population control.
BISHOP BACANI: It is not necessarily that because in some future time, the government may opt for an increase in population. In other words, we are really not formulating a policy for the government.
MR. COLAYCO: But the Commissioner must admit that under this sentence, the legislature can pass laws which would, in effect, order population control.
BISHOP BACANI: Under this provision, yes, but the Gentleman will notice that they must be guided by at least two limitations within this provision itself — "most conducive to the national welfare," and "the right and duty of parents to determine the number of their children," plus their right not to "be compelled to use means of birth limitation that shall be against their informed conscience . . ."
MR. COLAYCO: Yes. Anyway, substantially and probably exclusively, the first sentence would refer to population control, whether it is to reduce or to increase the population. Is that correct?
BISHOP BACANI: Or how to serve the population. I was talking with Dr. Mita Pardo de Tavera and they are renaming the Population Commission as the Commission on Population Welfare.
MR. COLAYCO: The name does not matter if the purpose is there.
BISHOP BACANI: The orientation will be different from what it has been.
MR. COLAYCO: I am asking these questions because the concept of the second paragraph seems to clash, to be inconsistent with the concept in the first sentence. When we declare that it is the "right," we are not saying "duty"; when we say "the right and duty of parents to determine the number of their children," we are saying, in effect, that the State should not enter that area of their private lives. Is not that correct?
BISHOP BACANI: Yes. The second paragraph puts a delimitation to the extent of the government policy.
MR. COLAYCO: At this moment, I consider the first sentence an invasion of privacy of that part of a man's life and a woman's life which is most sacred to them. Second, another ground which I will probably raise and which I am reserving to do hopefully tomorrow is that it is a prohibition of that constitutional principle which we call "pursuit of happiness." Some people want small families; other people want as many children as they can rear. So I am reserving my right, if time will permit, to be able to marshall my arguments and probably cite legal precedents to sustain my position that the first sentence is an invasion of privacy. For that reason, therefore, it should be incorporated in our Constitution.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Mr. Presiding Officer, I think this policy must be related to the present policy in the government. When we talk of population policies here, we do not only refer to family planning but we also refer to demographic and migration policies. Actually, by providing more education for women, they tend to marry late. So there are various indirect means of population control. There are economic means — by improving the productivity of a country, then you are able to improve the resources of the population. So what we are saying is that family planning is just one aspect of the population policy.
As a matter of fact, the agenda now in government, as presented in the economic recovery program of NEDA, has a very clear-cut policy on population and there are, of course, certain basic restructuring proposed. Besides, since the present population program is very, very oriented to applied family planning, it will link itself with policy research institutions or population policy institutions that are studying the problem of fertility and population problems. So this is the intent of the first sentence.
MR. COLAYCO: I would like to reserve, however, the opportunity to submit more legal grounds to defend my view.
MR. REGALADO: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Regalado is recognized.
MR. REGALADO: In like manner as Commissioner Colayco, I would also reserve for tomorrow some questions on Section 13. But for the present, I will move to the other proposed sections here.
Regarding Section 2, page 1, line 9, I know this was taken from the 1973 Constitution wherein it is provided that "the Congress may by law adopt a new name for the country." If Congress should pass such a law, changing the name of the Philippines, let us say, to Rizalia or Maharlika, how would that affect our Constitution which all throughout has always been referred to as the Constitution of the Philippines and the citizens thereof as Filipinos? Would this not necessarily require the participation of the entire Filipino nation considering such a transcendental change of a name which was given to us way back in the 16th century and now we can change it merely by a statutory fiat of Congress? I know it was in the 1973 Constitution, but I never got around to finding out the rationale or the justification for that grant of power to Congress to change the name of the country. What would be the reason here and the justification?
MR. NOLLEDO: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I give my answer for the committee, I was a Member of the 1971 Constitutional Convention and there was really a move to change the name of the country to Maharlika.
MR. REGALADO: I know, Mr. Presiding Officer; what I am looking for is the justification.
MR. NOLLEDO: That is the reason why we just adopted that without any justifiable reason as contemplated in the 1973 Constitution because Marcos wanted to change the name Philippines to Maharlika.
MR. REGALADO: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer, because of the desire of one man to perpetuate his so-called guerilla organization and that is why it was there. Do we follow and still proceed under the same rules?
MR. NOLLEDO: Not necessarily, Mr. Presiding Officer, because there may come a time that there is a need to change the name of the Philippines.
MR. REGALADO: Yes.
MR. NOLLEDO: I think the fear of the Commissioner that the name "Philippines" has been used in different parts of the Constitution can easily be remedied by a constitutional amendment or we may not at all amend. The moment we change the name, then it is understood that the name "Philippines" appearing in other provisions should necessarily follow the new name.
MR. REGALADO: In other words, Mr. Presiding Officer, it can be changed just by congressional fiat.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer. In other words, this provision will qualify the name "Philippines" in other parts of the Constitution in the appropriate case.
MR. REGALADO: We will see the constitutionality of that tomorrow.
With respect to line 14, page 1, regarding double or indirect compensation which appears to be under a new conceptualization now, does this include such matters like allowances, honoraria or such other emoluments by whatever name we baptize them, provided they are not, however, pensions or gratuities? Is that the purpose of the committee?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Commissioner Maambong will respond.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: In the first place, Mr. Presiding Officer, I would like to inform the body that this particular section is supposed to be in Section 7 of the Article on Constitutional Commissions, particularly the Civil Service Commission. As a matter of fact, I have furnished the Members of the Commission an outline, wherein I suggested that this should be transferred to Section 7 of the Article on the Civil Service Commission.
MR. REGALADO: Mr. Presiding Officer, I am also a member of the Committee on Constitutional Commissions, and I remember that when we were discussing it here on the plenum, it was understood that no further discussions thereon would be held because anyway we were going to discuss it when we go to the Article on General Provisions. Hence, this question: Just exactly what is meant by "any kind of emolument provided it is not in the nature of a pension or gratuity"?
MR. MAAMBONG: That is the understanding, Mr. Presiding Officer. Actually, to give some historical background, this indirect compensation was the amendment proposed by Commissioner Davide so that it will cover all kinds of money which an employee will receive as long as it is not pension or gratuities.
MR. REGALADO: Line 19 says: "Unless required by law, neither should he hold any other office." What is contemplated by this situation where one is required by law to hold another office, instead of the usual formulation, which states: "unless otherwise authorized by law"? I am just curious about that situation where a public officer can be required by law to hold another office.
MR. MAAMBONG: I was the one who proposed this amendment actually, Mr. Presiding Officer, and I contemplated a situation in the case of the Supreme Court acting as a presidential or vice-presidential electoral tribunal. That is a direct requirement not only of law but of the Constitution that the Supreme Court should sit en banc in order to determine the electoral protests filed in the case of elections of President and Vice-President regarding qualifications and election anomalies or whatever. That is a direct requirement of the Constitution, Mr. Presiding Officer.
In the case of Members of Congress, we have the House Electoral Tribunal and the Senate Electoral Tribunal and it is a requirement by the Constitution that they should sit representing the majority and the minority parties.
MR. REGALADO: How about those who are not required but are only authorized? Would that mere authorization be likewise an excepting or negativing clause to this particular section?
MR. MAAMBONG: Actually, Mr. Presiding Officer, we examined certain instances where members of the Cabinet and even some officials of lower rank occupy directorships. For example, a bureau director sits in an ex-officio capacity in certain boards or commissions because there are laws which compel them to. And when we say "authorized or required by law," from my own standpoint without binding the committee, I feel that that amounts to the same thing, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. REGALADO: That would mean the same thing, Mr. Presiding Officer.
Now on Section 4, Mr. Presiding Officer, page 2, lines 2 and 3, which is about a very belated recognition of our veterans, it says: ". . . State to provide adequate care and benefits for war veterans . . ."
I understand, of course, that this refers to recognized war veterans. And my question is: What would be the bases for the determination of who the recognized war veterans are, because we are aware of the fact that as there were fake guerilla organizations and fake units, there are also fake veterans, and I am sure this was not intended to give these benefits to veterans whose status is in the limbo of doubt?
Would this not be, therefore, a matter that should be addressed and provided for by law as to who these war veterans are to whom we shall give this belated recognition? I know most of them are already in the twilight years of their lives.
MR. DE CASTRO: Firstly, when we speak of "veterans" here, we speak of those who participated in the 1896 Revolution, World Wars I and II and the wars in Korea and Vietnam.
When we speak of World War II, the guerillas are included therein. I want to inform the honorable Commissioner that we have sufficient listing in the Adjutant General's Office of the retired and the veterans force, with sufficient listing in the headquarters of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.
The Commissioner is speaking of those guerillas who were not recognized. They are not in the list of our Armed Forces of the Philippines, but at present, the honorable Col. Simeon Medalla is still fighting for those people who were not recognized but definitely have participated one way or another as guerilla enlisted men or as guerilla officers.
MR. REGALADO: In other words, with respect to these guerillas who participated in World War II, recognition was authorized under the U.S. Missing Persons Act which was administered here by the Recovered Personnel Division, originally of the AFWESPAC and later of the PHILRYCOM where I worked for two years. I am myself a veteran of the Second World War. We are still verifying and still going to include within the purview hereof those veterans or guerillas who were not included in the reconstituted records of the Missing Persons Act as well as the Recovered Personnel Division, subject now to such action as the United States government may take on the representation of Colonel Medalla of the Veterans Federation of the Philippines as well as some bills introduced in the United States to give them that guerilla status.
Will they be covered by this beneficent provision in the event their status is established?
MR. DE CASTRO: As I said, all those guerillas who have been recognized as such have a proper listing in the Armed Forces of the Philippines. Perhaps one's name may be there but he may not know.
As late as about half a year age or about six months ago when I was director of the Association of Generals and Flag Officers, we asked the Adjutant General to show us the list of duly recognized veterans or guerillas. We asked this because our association is working for the benefits which were accorded them by a certain public act in the United States but which were not duly circularized such that only a few of us know what it is, and so we are working for the inclusion of all those veterans under this public act.
If one is not recognized, then something must be done because those who were not recognized and not listed under the Armed Forces of the Philippines are not, therefore, included as war veterans in this proposition.
MR. REGALADO: Lines 5 to 7 of the same section give preference to war veterans and government retirees in the acquisition and ownership of public lands. Would the committee consider the possibility of giving them leasehold rights only, meaning, not acquisition but utilization of natural resources?
MR. DE CASTRO: Yes, we have the words "and the development of natural resources." And we can put there "and utilization of natural resources."
MR. REGALADO: Lines 8 to 10 concern salaries not exempt from tax. Included therein are the words "Constitutional Commission." Are we using those words in a specific sense or in a generic sense, meaning, such constitutional commissions or constitutional conventions shall in the future be created? Strictly speaking, members of the Constitutional Commissions are not public officers but members of a coordinate governmental agency. Would this, therefore, refer to a constitutional commission or a constitutional convention in a generic sense?
BISHOP BACANI: There should be an "s" after "Commission." We are referring to the constitutional commissions.
MR. REGALADO: Or a convention in the future.
BISHOP BACANI: No, we are referring to the bodies under the Article on Constitutional Commissions.
MR. REGALADO: The Commissioner is, therefore, referring to the COMELEC, the COA and the Civil Service Commission?
BISHOP BACANI: Yes.
MR. REGALADO: Why do we have to single them out, since after all they are actually government officials? I was a little misled there because I thought the Commissioner was referring to members of the constitutional commissions or constitutional conventions whose status remains unclear since they are not members of the executive, the legislative or the judiciary but members of a coordinate government agency. If we are referring to the constitutional commissions like the COA, the COMELEC and the Civil Service Commission, they are government officials already.
MR. NOLLEDO: If the Commissioner does not mind, on behalf of the committee, I think there was a typographical error. That should be understood as referring to constitutional officials.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Yes.
MR. REGALADO: The constitutional commissions?
MR. NOLLEDO: No, it should not be "commission," but "officials," meaning, officials recognized and provided for in the Constitution.
MR. REGALADO: The constitutional officers then.
MR. NOLLEDO: That is correct.
MR. REGALADO: On page 3, Section 11 (1), there is a specific reference to mass media, whereas under Section 11(2), there is a reference to advertising establishments. In other words, it would appear that we are making a distinction here between "mass media" and "advertising establishments."
Does this, therefore, set aside that opinion given by the Securities and Exchange Commission in 1974 to the effect that advertising agencies are also part of mass media and, therefore, we now make a distinction. I know that in 1974, the opinion of the Securities and Exchange Commission was that advertising agencies are actually part of mass media.
Under Section 11, vis-a-vis paragraphs 1 and 2, we are making a distinction between "mass media" and "advertising agencies" in the matter of ownership. Is it understood, therefore, that the Commissioner disregards that view of the Securities and Exchange Commission?
BISHOP BACANI: Mr. Presiding Officer, we really were not aware of that decision because the insistence of the media people was that there is a difference between mass media and advertising. They claim they are not mass media but users of mass media.
MR. REGALADO: That was an opinion rendered in 1974, if I recall correctly, by Securities and Exchange Commissioner Arcadio Yabyabin, to the effect that advertising agencies are also considered part of mass media.
MR. NOLLEDO: May I interject, Mr. Presiding Officer. I am aware of that opinion and that opinion is not accepted by people in the advertising field. As we know, that is a mere administrative opinion; it has a persuasive but unbinding effect.
MR. REGALADO: Of course, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. NOLLEDO: We feel that advertising is closely allied with telecommunication.
MR. REGALADO: Of course, that is obvious because that is only by an administrative officer and a mere commissioner. But I just wanted to be very sure of the position of the committee that for purposes of the Constitution and its intendment and its legal effects, the concepts of advertising agencies and mass media are not to be in conflict.
MR. NOLLEDO: The Commissioner is perfectly correct.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Is the Commissioner also aware of the considerable discussion during the debate in the 1973 Constitution on the inclusion of advertising as mass media?
MR. REGALADO: Yes, so that when we go into the deliberations on these particular provisions, we will read into the Record and the Journal that those previous opinions contrary to our distinction here are not in any way binding or approved by this Commission.
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. REGALADO: I reserve, Mr. Presiding Officer, further questions for tomorrow.
MR. FOZ: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Foz is recognized.
MR. FOZ: May I offer my opinion in this discussion. I always disagreed with the press of the committee on this score because I have always held the position that advertising is part of mass media. Although on so many technical grounds it can be argued that advertising is not part of mass media, the close functioning of advertising agencies with other forms of mass media makes the advertising business inextricably part of the general term "mass media." As a matter of fact, even in the United States, advertising is considered part of mass media.
So, this provision which would exclude the advertising business from the general term "mass media" was written over my opposition.
MR. NOLLEDO: Be that as it may, Mr. Presiding Officer, we will be making advertising an exception to mass media for purposes of the first paragraph which is Section 11 (1).
Thank you.
MR. RAMA: May I ask that Commissioner Jamir be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Jamir is recognized.
MR. JAMIR: Mr. Presiding Officer, my questions will be on Section 4. I suppose that Commissioner de Castro will answer the questions on Section 4.
May I know whether the term "government retirees" includes retirees from government-owned and controlled corporations?
MR. DE CASTRO: I will request the Honorable Nolledo who is my cosponsor on this provision on "government retirees" to answer the question.
MR. NOLLEDO: The term "government retirees," Mr. Presiding Officer, here refers to employees who have retired from the government in all levels, whether national or local.
MR. JAMIR: So, the words do not include retirees from government-owned and controlled corporations?
MR. NOLLEDO: I would recommend that they likewise be included because in the case of government-owned or controlled corporations, they form part of the term "government" in my understanding.
MR. JAMIR: This provision also states that their dependents will be given adequate care and benefits. I suppose that the term "dependents" includes the wives and children. How about the parents of the war veterans? Will they be among the dependents?
MR. DE CASTRO: If the parents of the war veterans are alive and dependent on the veteran himself, they are part of the dependents of the veteran.
MR. JAMIR: In the direct descending line of the war veteran, who will be entitled to adequate care? Up to what civil degree?
MR. NOLLEDO: I would like the Commissioner to know that the purpose of this provision is for the law to define who the "dependents" are. In the meantime, if we refer to the pertinent provisions of the Social Security Act and the GSIS Law in relation to the Civil Code of the Philippines, we give preference to dependent children. In the absence thereof, we also refer to the dependent parents.
MR. JAMIR: In the Civil Code we have an enumeration of the so-called "legitimate children." Are all of them included among those entitled to adequate care?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. JAMIR: With respect to this entitlement to public lands and the development of natural resources, will this be in addition to the adequate care and benefits given to retirees and veterans?
MR. NOLLEDO: Certainly, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. DE CASTRO: Preference must be given. Please take note that under RA 1373, the veterans are given preference for the purchase of public lands such as those under the Land Resettlement Program. But that law has already expired and so we chose to put it here that preference in the purchase of public lands, development and utilization of natural resources shall be given these veterans and their widows and orphans, as well as government retirees.
MR. JAMIR: May I know from the committee if it has any idea, an approximation of the number of war veterans and government retirees who will be entitled to adequate care under this provision?
MR. DE CASTRO: War veterans and their dependents number to about 500,000. Commissioner Nolledo knows the number of the government retirees.
MR. JAMIR: May I know the number of government retirees and their dependents?
MR. NOLLEDO: I think they reach more or less one million based on statistics that I have read.
MR. JAMIR: That does not include war veterans and their dependents?
MR. NOLLEDO: Excluding the war veterans. I have no knowledge about the number of war veterans. Commissioner de Castro may have the statistics.
MR. JAMIR: So, approximately, there will be about one-and-a-half million.
MR. DE CASTRO: One-and-a-half million.
MR. NOLLEDO: It is possible.
MR. JAMIR: Does the Commissioner have any idea as to how much this would entail?
MR. NOLLEDO: When we talk of "government retirees," excluding the war veterans, we are talking now of existing social security laws — the Social Security Act, the GSIS Law, the Medicare Act. What this provision intends is to urge Congress to increase the benefits to the retirees, because it seems to me that, generally, government retirees receive from P70 up to P240 monthly retirement pay, which is very inadequate to support body and soul.
MR. JAMIR: The Commissioner is referring to government retirees; how about war veterans? Does the Commissioner have any idea how much?
MR. DE CASTRO: My record is that the surviving veterans of the Philippine Revolution of 1896 are being given only about P50 a month.
MR. JAMIR: I know.
MR. DE CASTRO: That reduces them to beg and the veterans, the widows and the orphans of World War II receive only about P100 per month as the form of care and benefit given by the government. Certainly, this is reducing them to extreme poverty.
MR. JAMIR: Please understand that I am not against this; I am very much in favor of it. But I am concerned with the fact that the help given to them now is really very, very small. In addition to that, I know of a case in my hometown, Kawit, where we have a colonel who is more than 86 years old. October last year, he was told that he would be entitled to about P20,000. Up to now, he has not received a single centavo and he is on the verge of dying already. I tried to make representation with our Veterans Administration, but no reply reached me.
That is why I would like to ask the committee to facilitate, if possible, the payment of these benefits.
Thank you very much.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I just add my observation to the remarks of Commissioner Jamir?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Natividad is recognized.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Thank you.
The members of the War Veterans Organization just left the gallery, but then they left me a note requesting me to mention the fact that our veterans now, especially the disabled veterans, get only from P30 to P100 a month, depending on the degree of disability.
Then there are those who have no medicine and go to the Veterans Memorial Hospital for treatment, not knowing that they are not entitled to medicine. American help in the Veterans Memorial Hospital is very, very marginal, covering only equipment.
According to them, and I agree because I am one of the veterans, the promises during the war were never fulfilled.
First, equalization in pay was promised. Although our enlisted men were promised P50 a month in pay, they were paid only P18 a month; second, hospitalization, death and burial benefits similar to the American veterans from the mainland and from American territories were denied the USAFFE and recognized guerrillas; third, educational and housing benefits were never granted; fourth, nonservice-connected hospitalization has not been fully granted to Filipino veterans; fifth, old-age pensions were totally forgotten. These benefits were denied the Filipino veterans by the 79th Congress of 1946 by rider in the Rescission Act. Classified USAFFE and guerilla services were service to the Commonwealth of the Philippines and not service to the United States.
This is what the War Veterans Association left to my care to be read to the plenary session in case this question is asked, and I have done my part.
MR. DE CASTRO: If I may add, based on my own experience as a general, I went to the Veterans Memorial Hospital for an X-ray and they wanted me to buy the plate. They have no plate for it. Then they gave a prescription for me to buy my own medicine.
This is one of the sorrowful things that our war veterans are experiencing. Lately, as I said, there is a U.S. public law which authorizes giving subsistence allowance for prisoners of war. This has never been circulated; and only within our sanctum, in the Association of Generals and Commanding Officers, did we know about this. That is why we immediately checked all the names in the Adjutant General's Office and that is how I knew that our Adjutant General's Office records are complete. Then I went to the veterans organization under Colonel Ocampo and checked all those and proposed to the Adjutant General that he put up a form for this so that every veteran will simply sign and it is up to the Association of Generals and Flag Officers now to work for every veteran on their subsistence allowance. I understand there are still some benefits which involve quarters allowance but these still have to be passed through the U.S. Congress because we have been inducted as USAFFE members, although as I say, we were fighting a Philippine war. We were inducted by the U.S. Armed Forces as part of their armed forces.
May I ask the Honorable Jamir, being a major in the guerilla, how much he is receiving now as a major of the guerillas?
MR. JAMIR: I am not receiving a single centavo.
MR. DE CASTRO: Definitely then, the Commissioner included it here in Section 4 of our proposed General Provisions. I wish he will vote for it.
MR. JAMIR: May I tell the general that with or without compensation, I am with him in this.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I ask that Commissioner Guingona be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Guingona is recognized.
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
Like Commissioner Regalado, may I respectfully reserve the right to ask a few more questions tomorrow in case there is need because I received this copy rather late, but I would like to ask a few questions now, if I may. One is with regard Section 7 which says that: "Congress shall by law set a twenty-year limit on the life of government ministries. . ."
MR. NOLLEDO: That has already been amended. There is a separate copy.
MR. GUINGONA: I see. I do not have the amendment. Would the Commissioner kindly read the amendment?
MR. NOLLEDO: The provision now states that Congress shall by law and within a specified period provide for the review of the performance and management of government ministries, bureaus, agencies or corporations for the purpose of determining their retention, reorganization or dissolution.
MR. GUINGONA: So the reorganization that the Commissioner is talking about, dissolution and so forth, will now be a legislative and no longer an executive prerogative? In the past, if the Commissioner recalls, P.D. No. 1 concerned reorganization but this was done by the President. Recently, President Aquino has also organized a reorganization group headed by Minister Villafuerte and I suppose she will also effect the reorganization through a presidential decree. So this will be a legislative prerogative.
MR. NOLLEDO: While it is a legislative prerogative because we authorize Congress to pass a law which we can call a reorganization law, the actual review may be done by officers in the executive department.
MR. GUINGONA: So there will be nothing done as before?
MR. NOLLEDO: It can be delegated by the Congress.
MR. GUINGONA: Yes. I was precisely going to ask that because I recall that although P.D. No. 1 provided for the reorganization, the actual restudy and reorganization was done by the 1970 Presidential Reorganization Commission. When the Commissioner talks of corporations here, I presume he is talking of government corporations?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. GUINGONA: Does this include government-owned or controlled corporations?
MR. NOLLEDO: Yes.
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you.
How about Section 8?
MR. NOLLEDO: Section 8 has also been amended.
MR. GUINGONA: I am sorry. Will the Commissioner kindly read the new formulation?
MR. NOLLEDO: It now reads as follows: "THE STATE SHALL PROMOTE INDIGENOUS TOURISM AND REORIENT THE TOURISM INDUSTRY TO ATTAIN SOCIO-ECONOMIC CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE NATION."
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you.
Could the Commissioner kindly explain what is meant by "INDIGENOUS TOURISM"?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Mr. Presiding Officer, we have received several materials from the public and the most important document that is related to this is one prepared by the Center for Solidary Tourism. I think they start on the premise that they deplore even the kind of domestic tourism we have which is not really indigenous in the sense that, like Puerto Galera, it had led to the destruction of natural resources rather than in the preservation of such natural wealth. Towards this end, they have banded together with different groups to encourage a kind of tourism that will promote appreciation of our truly indigenous culture rather than the superficial aspect of tourism which is characteristic of the domestic tourism today. For example, the domestic tourism that the last regime encouraged was intended to show "white elephants" such as the Cultural Center, the Folk Arts Theater and other buildings of that sort which became centers of tourism. So this will, in effect, try to preserve the Puerto Galeras of the Philippines.
MR. GUINGONA: Yes, thank you.
But my reservation here is that the Commissioner's singling out indigenous tourism, although I have no objection to this, might lead people to believe that the Commissioner is not concerned about the promotion of other types of tourism. In the period of amendments, would the Commissioner consider an amendment which would say: "THE STATE SHALL PROMOTE TOURISM INCLUDING INDIGENOUS TOURISM"?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: We will appreciate that amendment.
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
How will the State reorient the tourism industry so that it will be responsive and sustainable to socio-economic and cultural development?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: I think the present tourism industry could begin to examine where it is now and then try to evaluate the present tourism thrust against some criteria that are contained in our newly approved provision on culture. We have come up with very good provisions that will support the preservation of cultural identity and treasures like our own local artifacts in museums and these will be some of the areas of concern of such a thrust.
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
If the Commissioner will recall, I have proposed an amendment that says: "THE STATE RECOGNIZES THE VITAL ROLE OF COMMUNICATION IN NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT." I certainly would favor the extension of recognition to communication, but I have my reservation about the formation of boards that may eventually exercise persuasion or even control over the various instruments of communication, particularly mass media.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Yes. We appreciate the Commissioner's concern and, as I said in my sponsorship speech, such policies would be developed by the private sector with perhaps the State only acting as a facilitator where it encourages the private sector to develop minimum standards and positive suggestions on how it can strengthen its capability. I have talked to several Commissioners and I think Commissioners Monsod, Davide and Azcuna could help reformulate these ideas with a phrase that would connote the idea that the State shall promote the climate or the environment where communication development can take place rather than the State itself taking the important responsibility. This is because our experience of too much state involvement in the past has led to negative consequences.
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
Regarding Section 10 (1), the Commissioner talks about incentives to noncommercial media. When the Commissioner says "noncommercial media," is she referring to corporations that are nonstock, nonprofit?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: No, the "noncommercial" aspect here refers to communications that serve the goals of education. If it is a radio station, it is an educational radio station, a labor radio station, an agricultural radio station or a "university on the air." This would also refer to nonmass media such as blackboard newspapers, rural mimeo newspapers and other means of rural communications that are intended to promote livelihood concerns and support the development of a community.
MR. GUINGONA: Are these commercial media expected not to, for example, solicit and obtain advertising? In other words, are they supposed to be completely disassociated with monetary considerations? Would they be foundations or nonprofit organizations?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Yes, they will be nonprofit. However, let me qualify that statement. A community newspaper, for instance, in Samar or Leyte is struggling in the sense that it cannot survive because it can only come up with scanty news as it is primarily dependent on judicial notices. It cannot, therefore, serve the community adequately. So, the State could provide some subsidies or it can encourage business enterprises to provide subsidies to such enterprises in order that they do not have to solely depend on judicial notices at the expense of the community. They will fall under the category of noncommercial forms of mass media.
MR. GUINGONA: I have only one more question; the other questions are on the military which I will reserve for tomorrow.
With respect to Section 13, would this responsibility of the State to adopt population policies most conducive to the national welfare include the prohibition by the State of the use of contraceptives? I ask this because Commissioner Foz and I attended a forum yesterday where this particular question was asked. Would this prohibit the use of contraceptives?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: No, this will not prohibit their use.
MR. NOLLEDO: Not necessarily.
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
May I just repeat that I am reserving my right to continue tomorrow morning.
Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: May I ask that we suspend the session for a few minutes.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the session is suspended.
It was 5:12 p.m.
At 5:33 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): The session is resumed.
The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I ask that Commissioner Padilla be recognized.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Padilla is recognized.
MR. PADILLA: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
There was some mention of Section 2. This section was the first part of Section 2 of the 1973 Constitution. But the second portion of that Section 2 reads:
Thereafter, the national name, anthem, and seal so adopted shall not be subject to change except by constitutional amendment.
Will the committee consider the deletion of Section 2 because the 1935 Constitution did not have a similar provision? The 1973 Constitution would allow a change; but if no change is made, that is it. Since 1973 up to 1986, we have become proud of the name "Philippines" and Filipinos are recognized with admiration all over the world especially because of the political miracle in February in the form of a peaceful revolution. And the word "Filipino" is now admired and honored not only in the Philippines but throughout the world. So why should we still have this Section 2?
REV. RIGOS: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I answer in behalf of the committee?
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Rigos is recognized.
REV. RIGOS: The committee has no plan about deleting that particular section but some members of the committee including this Representation are planning to suggest that Section 2 be deleted for the reasons already cited by Commissioner Padilla.
MR. PADILLA: Thank you and I hope the committee will consider that at the proper time.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Yes. At the proper time, we will accept that.
MR. PADILLA: Thank you.
I notice that Section 6 on page 2 contemplates the creation of an office of tribal communities to advise the President on policy problems affecting cultural minorities. Will the committee also consider the deletion of this section because we should not create more offices and increase the bureaucracy of the Philippine government? After all, on policy matters, the President will not just act arbitrarily or unilaterally but consider the opinions and suggestions of probably the unenlightened public.
MR. NOLLEDO: That is an Ople proposal which the Commission decided to refer to our committee and which we adopted believing it is meritorious. May we ask Commissioner Ople to please defend his proposal?
MR. OPLE: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: May I just recall that in connection with the period of amendments on the Article on Local Governments, the committee then thought that the office of tribal communities that had appeared in the committee report could probably be best located in the Article on General Provisions because at that time, Mr. Presiding Officer, the Commission had already decided that there would be no further provisions in that article concerning tribal Filipinos other than the Muslims and the Cordillera peoples embraced in the two autonomous regions that were created in that article. At that time, I remember that I appealed to the Commission not to forget about three million other Filipinos belonging to tribal communities other than Muslim Mindanao and the Cordillera autonomous regions. And, of course, right here in Luzon, we have the Mangyans who came here to testify in our hearings; we have the Dumagats of the Sierra Madre in Central Luzon; about 100 tribal communities of this type other than those of the Cordilleras and Muslim Mindanao were identified; and some of them, the major ones, were enumerated.
In Mindanao alone there are an estimated one million such tribal people, not Muslims but residing in different parts of Mindanao. I read this morning that next week they will organize a huge assembly in Davao City, Mr. Presiding Officer.
And so this tribal communities office is somewhat misnamed; it should really be called the Office of Tribal Communities other than those in Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras. There are, according to anthropologists and the official records, about three million such Filipinos, Mr. Presiding Officer. They are already complaining that this Commission had discriminated against them by failing to provide for any provision for them other than in the most sweeping and in the most general terms in the Article on Local Governments.
So it is on behalf of these three million tribal Filipinos, not covered by any umbrella of protection specifically for them in this draft Constitution, that I appeal to the committee to kindly preserve this; and I appeal to Commissioner Padilla to please take a little more thought before he proposes the deletion of this entire provision.
Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. SARMIENTO: Mr. Presiding Officer, may I just add a few words to the comments of Commissioner Ople.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
Commissioner Bennagen and this humble Representation share partial paternity to this provision. I recall, Mr. Presiding Officer, that we objected to the proposal then of Commissioner Ople, that is why we decided that this be transposed to the Article on Transitory Provisions. We suggested the creation of this office because, as Commissioner Ople said, there are more or less three million tribal communities not covered by the autonomous regions. And precisely, the purpose of this office is to take care of these more or less three million tribal communities composed of the Aetas, Negritos, Dumagats and the nomads in Mindanao.
MR. PADILLA: I will submit that to the better judgment and more careful consideration not only of the committee but of the Members of this Commission.
On Section 8, page 2, line 19 says: "The State shall promote indigenous tourism . . ." And lines 29 and 30 mention: "promote cultural identity, national integration and the common good." Should we particularize with the word "indigenous"? Of course, one of the wonders of the world is our rice terraces in Benguet in the Mountain Province and that is a big attraction to tourists. But all the different, attractive natural resources of the country should be developed to attract more tourists and develop national tourism because tourism is a great source of foreign exchange earnings.
Will the committee in due time consider the deletion of the word "indigenous"?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: This is a recommendation from an umbrella organization for different groups that is involved in what it calls policies for alternative tourism. The Declaration of Principles states that the policy of promotion of tourism guided by the "windfall dollar" is deplored and that the communities such as Puerto Galera have a right to self-determination and their people should not be exploited.
They also feel that the cultural heritage should be the cornerstone of promoting national pride. By "indigenous tourism" we mean that we would like to reorient the present commercialism in tourism. We have received many letters on this matter, and we thought we should respond by coming up with this provision which was suggested by several groups.
MR. PADILLA: I am going to another point, Mr. Presiding Officer.
In Section 10, line 32 says: "of non-commercial forms of communication. . ." Then on the next page, page 3, line 5, it mentions "advertising." Line 8 of Section 11 says "control of any form of mass media. . ." and "mass media" is provided in Section 11 (1). Section 11 (2) speaks of "advertising and commercial telecommunication" which is repeated on line 27.
My question is: Should we not clearly distinguish between telecommunications, mass media and advertising?
Telecommunication, as I understand it, includes the telegraphs, the telephone and other public utilities. Mass Media, when referring to TV and radio, require licensing or at least the allocation of certain channels, but print media or the newspapers are not subject to any licensing and that is so because that is part of the freedom of the press which should not be curtailed nor impaired.
The third concept is advertising. I heard Commissioner Regalado say the SEC considered it part of mass media. I heard another opinion that the Secretary of Justice held that advertising is not a part of mass media.
But, definitely, is advertising agency a public utility? Obviously not. Is it subject to licensing like TV and radio? I think it is not. So, advertising is a purely private activity or private business.
Should we not really make these three different situations clear because the committee report is not clear? It goes from communication, then noncommercial, commercial, telecommunications, mass media and then agency, et cetera. We have to make clear the distinctions between telecommunications, mass media and advertising agencies. And from these distinctions may come different consequences. Will the committee consider favorably that suggestion of distinguishing clearly and not confusing one with the other?
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: We copied the provision on mass media as Section 7 in the 1973 Constitution.
The next one which deals with telecommunications is also in Section 7 (2) of the 1973 Constitution. In both cases, the distinction did not have to be made in the Constitution; otherwise, we will use a lot of words. For the sake of brevity, we would like to leave it as it is. I would refer the Commissioner to the 1973 Constitution's provisions on mass media as well as commercial telecommunication.
MR. PADILLA: Yes, precisely, the 1973 Constitution clearly distinguishes between mass media — Section 7 (1) — from commercial telecommunications — Section 7 (2); they are separate.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Yes.
MR. PADILLA: And if we follow the 1973 Constitution, we should maintain that distinction.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: The only one that we lumped with commercial telecommunications is advertising but we did not include mass media in the same section. So there is a distinction.
MR. PADILLA: Then there is another concept now — advertising agency. If we want to have a provision on "advertising agency," then it should be separate from mass media and from commercial telecommunications because advertising agency does not fall under either concept.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: We lumped advertising with telecommunication as we were dealing with ownership and equity. The committee thought that we could have one provision less by putting them together. But we will entertain the Commissioner's amendment at the proper time.
MR. PADILLA: Thank you.
There is a provision on mass media under lines 15 and 16:
Employees of such corporations or associations shall enjoy the right to be part-owners thereof or to purchase shares of stock therein, and to participate in the management thereof in the manner provided by law.
Does the Commissioner not think that this should not be considered as a mandatory right on the part of the employees or a mandatory duty on the part of the employer-owners?
I notice that newspapers have multiplied in number since the February Revolution. We have so many newspapers not only in English but also in Pilipino. Should there not be more of free competition and likewise more freedom on the part of the employer-owners or managers and their staff? I am not against the media men acquiring stock and their being part-owners of the newspaper, but I am against a provision in the Constitution that could imply a right on one hand with the corresponding duty on the other. These are just some thoughts on the subject.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Commissioner Foz will respond to that.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Foz is recognized.
MR. FOZ: There is no intention actually to compel the media establishment to sell shares of stocks to their respective employees or workers. The underlying idea here is merely to encourage management or the owners of these establishments to sell shares of stock to them if they are able and willing. But we should not also ignore the prevailing practice among some media establishments precisely to allow their respective employees or workers to become part-owners of the establishments. An example is the Philippine Daily Inquirer as may be confirmed by Commissioner Rosario Braid herself. And I understand that the Philippine Daily Express Corporation is now substantially owned by the employees in the sense that the employees are themselves stockholders of the corporation. If I am not wrong, I think the Manila Times is also going that way. That is to be confirmed by Commissioner Rama, of course.
Even abroad, we have examples of establishments — media establishments such as newspapers — that are wholly owned by their employees. This is not a peculiar Philippine development; I think we can properly call it as development even abroad, an international movement that will really make the workers themselves be part-owners of media establishments where they work.
MR. PADILLA: So, perhaps, we could change the phraseology of Section 11 on line 16 which says "shall enjoy." And maybe the employers should be encouraged to sell for the employees to acquire, but it should be more or less on a voluntary basis for their mutual benefit.
MR. FOZ: But even if we retain the present phraseology, I think there has to be a legislative enactment that would carry out such a provision in the Constitution.
MR. PADILLA: Yes, but it will already be a mandate by the Constitution on the Congress to provide for such a mandatory duty.
My last point, so as not to be accused of abusing the time, is that I notice lines 24 and 25 say: ". . . at least two-thirds of whose voting stock or controlling interest is owned by such citizens."
Under the provision on the Article on National Economy and Patrimony, particularly Section 15 referring to public utilities, the proportion for a joint venture is 60-40. That refers to the operation of public utilities which is in the same category as the utilization of our natural resources.
Why should we provide for more than the requirement of 60-40 by requiring two-thirds on activities that are of less magnitude and significance with regard to our national development? This might be at variance with or contrary to that proportionate ratio of a minimum of 60-percent Filipino and a maximum of 40-percent foreign.
MR. NOLLEDO: The Commissioner will notice that the term "public utility" is almost synonymous with "public service" and that public utilities may cover the following:
1) Transportation in all its ramifications — land transportation, sea transportation, water transportation and possibly ferry service; 2) electric service; (3) maintenance and operation of ice plants; and 4) telecommunication and others. So, we do not violate Section 15 of the Article on National Economy and Patrimony. We make this as an exception. While we consider the 60-40 ratio as applicable to public utilities, in general, we are making an exception with respect to commercial telecommunication, taking into account that telecommunication involves more seriously the national interest, particularly the national security. So we feel that more Filipinos should have control over commercial telecommunications.
MR. PADILLA: I do not seem to agree with the Commissioner because public utility and natural resources are definitely at a higher level than the operation of advertising and commercial telecommunication. That is the reason I want to distinguish between telecommunications, mass media and advertising.
MR. NOLLEDO: We do not talk here of the level of importance in terms of economics. We feel that national security and national interest can still predominate without taking into account the economic side of the question.
MR. PADILLA: This has no reference to national security. Anyway, these are points for more mature consideration.
Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, with the indulgence of Commissioner Guingona who would like to finish his interpellation in five minutes, I would ask that he be allowed to interpellate for five minutes to wind up his interpellation before we adjourn.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo): Commissioner Guingona is allowed to interpellate for five minutes.
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.
This is on the military. Section 17, Mr. Presiding Officer, says that the Armed Forces of the Philippines belong to the Filipino people. I presume that the words "Armed Forces of the Philippines" refer not only to the tanks and so forth but also to the soldiers. It may be a little inelegant or subject to question to say that the soldiers belong to the Filipino people. Perhaps, it would be more appropriate to say that the Armed Forces owe loyalty to the Filipino people. I would like to find out the distinction between citizen armed force and regular force. What would be the distinction between the two?
MR. DE CASTRO: When we talk of the citizen armed force, we are talking of the whole Armed Forces of the Philippines. When we talk of the regular force in Section 18 (a), this is only a necessary force to fight insurgency in our country. If there will be no more insurgency should our President be successful in talking with the NPAs and the NDF and Mr. Misuari, then this regular force shall eventually be reduced considerably and then our appropriations shall be concentrated in building up a citizen armed force. When we talk of a citizen armed force, we are talking of the citizen armed force of the army, the navy and the air force. Please take note that the 1973 Constitution speaks of a citizen army. I do not know why it was not corrected in the 1973 Constitution, but certainly when we talk of a citizens army, we are only talking of the ground force; when we are talking of the citizen armed force, we are only talking of the ground force, the air and the navy.
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you.
I am satisfied with the Commissioner's answer.
I only have two more points but first, I would like to thank the committee for accepting my proposals in Proposed Resolution No. 133, four of which have been approved and incorporated. My first point is: In my proposals which have been adopted, I said all officers of the Armed Forces due for retirement from the service in accordance with existing laws shall be retired without any exception. These existing laws could provide for emergencies "except in times of war" because it is conceivable that these officers may be needed in time of war.
MR. DE CASTRO: I took into consideration the Commissioner's proposal but in times of war, there is no such thing as retirement as even retired people are required to render military service.
MR. GUINGONA: That is understood.
MR. DE CASTRO: So when we talk here of retirement, we are not talking of emergency.
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you.
The last point is that I also proposed the nonintegration of the police force with the Armed Forces. I wonder if the Commissioners would consider the possibility of the police force — which, according to this committee report, is civilian in character — being integrated into the Armed Forces?
MR. DE CASTRO: I request Commissioner Natividad to answer that.
MR. NATIVIDAD: No, that will be very tragic for the nation because that is precisely what we are avoiding to integrate the military with the police.
MR. GUINGONA: Yes.
MR. NATIVIDAD: All over the world there is a postulate that the police force is civilian in nature because the police is created to service the people, to prevent crime and to help them protect life and property. The army, the military is an agent of force to fight in defense of the country. Their training is completely different, Mr. Presiding Officer. We train the military to fight; we train the police to serve. The police is under the Civil Service Law; the military is under the Articles of War. We train the army with weapons and tactics and develop in them the instinct to kill lest they be killed. We train the police to follow the law. We teach them criminal law, criminal procedure, the Bill of Rights, the rights of the accused, ballistics, et cetera.
MR. GUINGONA: My last question is: At the appropriate time, would the Commissioner have any objection to accept the only proposal which I have in Resolution No. 133 which has not been accepted and that is: "THE POLICE FORCE OF THE COUNTRY ARE CIVILIAN OFFICERS AND MAY NOT BE INTEGRATED INTO THE MILITARY EXCEPT IN TIMES OF WAR"?
MR. NATIVIDAD: The police is always a reserved force in times of war.
MR. GUINGONA: But would the Commissioner, therefore, accept my proposal?
MR. NATIVIDAD: We are precisely creating a civilian police force.
MR. GUINGONA: Thank you.
ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION
MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I move that we adjourn the session until tomorrow at nine-thirty in the morning.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rodrigo) Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the session is adjourned until tomorrow at nine-thirty in the morning.
It was 6:11 p.m.
* Appeared after the roll call.