| CONTACT: |
| Supreme Court of the Philippines Library Services, Padre Faura, Ermita, Manila, Philippines 1000 |
| (632) 8524-2706 |
| libraryservices.sc@judiciary.gov.ph |
[ VOL. II, August 30, 1986 ]
JOURNAL NO. 69
Friday, August 29, 1986
CALL TO ORDER
At 9:52 a.m., the President of the Constitutional Commission, the Honorable Cecilia Muñoz Palma, called the session to order.
NATIONAL ANTHEM AND PRAYER
The National Anthem was sung followed by a prayer led by Mr. Ambrosio B. Padilla to wit:
Almighty God, our Creator and Lord: With infinite wisdom, Your Sermon on the Mount, in part reads —
"Do not judge others, so that God will not judge you, for God will judge in the same way you judge others, and he will apply to you the same rules you apply to others. Why, then, do you look at the speck in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the log in your own eye". (Matthew 7:1-5)Dear Lord, we pray that in the arduous process of formulating the fundamental law, we invoke Your Heavenly wisdom to guide us, human mortals with finite minds, in expressing our views, with ample latitude for respect to contrary views.
The Constitutional guarantee of the freedom of speech was explained by Justice Holmes —
“When men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas — that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition in the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out.”ROLL CALL
Let us hope that through the remaining sessions of this Constitutional Commission, we will all invoke Divine Providence in enlightening our minds in drafting the 1986 Constitution which will fulfill the ideals and aspirations of all the Filipino people, as one united nation.
Amen.
Upon direction of the Chair, the Secretary-General of the Commission called the Roll and the following Members responded:
READING AND APPROVAL OF THE JOURNAL
Azcuna, A. S. Nieva, M. T. F. Bacani, T. C. Padilla, A. B. Bengzon, J. F. S. Muñoz Palma, C. Bennagen, P. L. Quesada, M. L. M. Bernas, J. G. Rama, N. G. Rosario Braid, F. Regalado, F. D. Calderon, J. D. Rigos, C. A. De Castro, C. M. Rodrigo, F. A. Colayco, J. C. Romulo, R. J. Concepcion, R. R. Suarez, J. E. Davide, H. G. Sumulong, L.M. Foz, V. B. Tadeo, J. S. L. Garcia, E. G. Tan, C. Gascon, J. L. M. C. Tingson, G. J. Guingona, S. V. C. Uka, L. L. Jamir, A. M. K. Villacorta, W. V. Monsod, C. S. Villegas, B. M.
With 34 Members present, the Chair declared the presence of a quorum.
The following Members appeared after the Roll Call:A.M.
P.M.
Aquino, F. S.
Messrs. Brocka and Ople were absent.
Messrs. Rosales and Treñas were sick.
On motion of Mr. Calderon, there being no objection, the reading of the Journal of the previous session was dispensed with and the said Journal was approved by the Body.
REFERENCE OF BUSINESS
On motion of Mr. Calderon, there being no objection, the Body proceeded to the Reference of Business.
REFERRAL TO COMMITTEES OF COMMUNICATIONS
Upon direction of the Chair, the Secretary-General read the titles of the following Communications which were, in turn, referred by the Chair to the Committees hereunder indicated:
Communication No. 652 — Constitutional Commission of 1986
Communication from the Alliance Biblical Seminary, 101 Dangay St., Veterans Village, Project 7, Quezon City, signed by its President, Rodrigo D. Tano, urging the Constitutional Commission to incorporate in the new Constitution a provision that the separation of the Church and State shall be inviolable as embodied in the 1973 ConstitutionCommunication No. 653 — Constitutional Commission of 1986
TO THE COMMITTEE ON GENERAL PROVISIONS
Communication from eighteen signatories of the Concerned Women of the New Families Movement, suggesting that the provision in the Constitution for the protection of life be not only to protect life from the moment of conception but even up to the point of natural deathCommunication No. 654 — Constitutional Commission of 1986
TO THE COMMITTEE ON PREAMBLE, NATIONAL TERRITORY AND DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES
Communication from eight hundred thirty-five signatories, all from Cebu, requesting inclusion in the Constitution of a provision obliging the State to protect the life of the unborn from the moment of conceptionCommunication No. 655 — Constitutional Commission of 1986
TO THE COMMITTEE ON PREAMBLE, NATIONAL TERRITORY AND DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES
Letter from his Eminence, Ricardo Cardinal J. Vidal, President, Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines, P.O. Box 3601, Manila, supporting the provision in the Constitution allowing the teaching of religion in public elementary and high schools within the regular class hours by teachers designated or approved by the religious authorities of the religion to which the children belongCommunication No. 656 — Constitutional Commission of 1986
TO THE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
Communication from five hundred eighty-one signatories with their respective addresses, seeking to include in the Constitution a provision obliging the State to protect the life of the unborn from the moment of conceptionCommunication No. 657 — Constitutional Commission of 1986
TO THE COMMITTEE ON PREAMBLE, NATIONAL TERRITORY AND DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES
Communication from the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines, P.O. Box 3601, Manila, signed by its President, Ricardo Cardinal J. Vidal, extending wholehearted support to the provision in the Constitution that upholds and promotes the unity, stability and development of marriage and the family, and the provision seeking to equally protect the life of the mother and the life of the unborn from the moment of conceptionCommunication No. 658 — Constitutional Commission of 1986
TO THE COMMITTEE ON PREAMBLE, NATIONAL TERRITORY AND DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES
Communication from the Association of Philippine Physicians in America, Inc., Norfolk, Virginia, U.S.A., .urging the Constitutional Commission to include a provision that would allow a natural-born citizen of the Philippines who has lost his Philippine citizenship to be a transferee of private landsCommunication No. 659 — Constitutional Commission of 1986
TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY
Communication. from the Central Visayas Ecumenical Fellowship, 49 Mabini St., Cebu City, signed by three hundred thirty-nine signatories, expressing opposition to Proposed Resolution No. 289, entitled: “Resolution providing in the new Constitution the teaching of religion in public elementary and secondary schools under certain conditions”Communication No. 660 — Constitutional Commission of 1986
TO THE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
Letter from Mr. Cezar L. Legayada, National President, Federation of Unions of Rizal, Philippines (FUR)-TUCP, 247 Quirino Avenue, Baclaran, Parañaque, Metro Manila, endorsing a proposed constitutional provision on industrialization, economic protectionism and Filipinization of the economyCommunication No. 661 — Constitutional Commission of 1986
TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY
Letter from Mr. Rustico Durante of Budeos, Quezon, expressing opposition to the retention of foreign military bases in the countryCommunication No. 662 — Constitutional Commission of 1986
TO THE COMMITTEE ON PREAMBLE, NATIONAL TERRITORY AND DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES
Communication from the Mayors League of Zambales, Iba, Zambales, signed by its President, Porfirio F. Elamparo, and other officers, requesting for the retention of the U.S. Military Bases in the PhilippinesCommunication No. 663 — Constitutional Commission of 1986
TO THE COMMITTEE ON PREAMBLE, NATIONAL TERRITORY AND DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES
Communication from the Wesleyan Church of Cabanatuan City, urging the Constitutional Commission to incorporate in the Constitution the provision that the separation of the Church and the State shall be inviolable as embodied in the 1973 Constitution and as understood historically and jurisprudentially in the PhilippinesMANIFESTATION OF MR. BENGZON
TO THE COMMITTEE ON GENERAL PROVISIONS
At this juncture, Mr. Bengzon adverted to his previous day's announcement of the continuation of consideration of the Article on National Economy and Patrimony. However, he stated that the Committee has not yet completed the reconciliation to be made on the provisions, in view of which, he asked that the Body go back to it later instead of continuing its consideration during the morning session.
BUSINESS FOR THE DAY: COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 29 ON PROPOSED RESOLUTION ON THE ARTICLE ON EDUCATION, SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ARTS AND CULTURE
Thereupon, on motion of Mr. Bengzon, there being no objection, the Body proceeded to the consideration, on Second Reading, of the Proposed Resolution on the Article on Education, Science, Technology, Arts and Culture (Committee Report No 29), entitled:
Resolution to incorporate in the Constitution an Article on Education, Science, Technology, Arts and Culture.The Chair recognized Mr. Villacorta and the members of the Committee on Human Resources.
SPONSORSHIP REMARKS OF MR. VILLACORTA
At the outset, Mr. Villacorta acknowledged the important contributions of Mr. Guingona in proposing the creation of the Committee on Human Resources and Mr. Uka who supported it with his now famous comment, "what is one Committee among friends".
Speaking in support of the Proposed Resolution, Mr. Villacorta stated that the significance of education, science and culture in rebuilding society cannot be emphasized. He said that the Filipino nation is still searching for its identity and for the appropriate educational system that will ford the people to greater self-confidence and achievement and that without a national consciousness and necessary skills that are committed to the service of the Filipinos themselves, there will be difficulty in realizing the aspirations of other Articles in the new Constitution particularly those on social justice and national economy and patrimony.
He stated that education, language, science and technology, arts and culture are the essential ingredients of human development and towards these ends, the Committee has formulated the draft Article after thorough and objective discussions on the pertinent provisions of the Malolos, the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions; the other proposed resolutions, position papers and communications submitted by Members of the Commission and the public at large; the opinions of experts, scholars and other resource persons in the fields of education, language, science and technology, arts and culture; and the views expressed by the different sectors during the public hearings and consultations.
Mr. Villacorta noted that the Malolos Constitution devoted only a brief article to education while the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions each contained only a section on education in slightly expanded form, and that for the first time in the country's history, one whole article would be devoted to the subjects of education, language, science and technology, arts and culture, and rightly so, because these are priority areas which have long been neglected by the government.
He explained that the rationale of the draft Article is that the State should give highest priority to education, science and technology, arts and culture for the purpose of fostering national pride and identity, enhancing the quality of life of every Filipino and expanding the frontiers of justice and freedom, adding that the salient points are: 1) education is a right and priority should be given to education, science and technology in order to develop the potentials of the individual; 2) free public education up to secondary level; 3) regional and sectoral considerations in educational planning; 4) presentation and development of cultural resources and institutions, the fact being that culture will help build a democratic society; 5) genuine development of the national language in order to accelerate the collective participation of Filipinos in socioeconomic development and nation-building; 6) protection and enhancement of the status of teachers and the upgrading of the standards of the teaching profession; 7) greater assistance to schools to enhance their social service; and 8) promotion of indigenous and appropriate technology in the service of the people.
In support of the provision on the right to education, Mr. Villacorta adverted to what Senator Lorenzo Tañada and Chief Justice Enrique Fernando said, to wit: "The right to education affords to every citizen access to such values as enlightenment and skill. Such right is essential to avoid a caste society and to afford the real equality of opportunity which a regime of freedom and democracy demands. Democracy as an ideal approaches reality when positions of leadership are open to all, irrespective of one's financial condition at birth, whether in the public service or in private business or in the professions. Unless appropriate training is undergone by those who have aptitude and talent, they will not acquire the skills that will fit them into such positions of leadership. To others who may not be in the front rank of whatever endeavors they may pursue, instruction is likewise indispensable because skill, in whatever form, is essential to enable everyone to express his opinion and make it felt on matters of public concern."
Finally, Mr. Villacorta appealed that for the sake of the people, especially the disinherited, and for national pride and identity, as well as for expanding the frontiers of freedom and justice in the country, the members of the Committee look forward to the favorable consideration and approval of the draft Article.
SPONSORSHIP REMARKS OF MR. GUINGONA
Mr. Guingona stated that every Filipino has the right to education and the State must recognize its duty of providing education to all citizens. The right to education, he said, is one of the human rights to which man is entitled, adding that education is not only a natural and positive right; it is a universal right.
He stated that in specifically providing for this right in the Constitution, the Body is, in effect, translating the moral right to which man is entitled to a positive right which may be enforceable under the law, the right to education being recognized under Section 1, Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that "everyone has the right to education" and under Section 1, Article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Noting the distinction between legal or positive rights and natural rights, Mr. Guingona explained that the former are rights which men actually have under the law, while the latter are those which men ought to have. He stressed that notwithstanding the view of philosophers like Jeremy Bentham and Edmund Burke who contend that man is in no sense entitled to natural rights because these rights cannot be enforced by law, the fact is that the right to education is now recognized as a universal right. Supportive of this view, he stated that the Subcommittee on Education maintains that the right to education is enforceable not only under the law but under equity.*
He explained that “right” does not only mean lawful entitlement but also just entitlement. However, he noted that the State is not given primacy over the rearing of the youth since this is the primary role of parents and guardians although the role of the State should be supportive, complete and adequate.
He added that although the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions contain provisions recognizing the right to education, the draft provisions attempt to expand the mandate by providing that the State recognize its duty to provide education to all citizens, to wit: 1) free public education for the elementary and secondary levels; 2) socialized fee structure in the tertiary level of state colleges and universities; 3) maintenance of a system of scholarship grants and other incentives; and 4) the provision of civic and vocational efficiency and other skills training to adult citizens, the disabled and out-of-school youth.
He stressed that the inclusion of this provision in the Constitution will serve as a mandate to the State to give top priority to education insofar as government expenditures are concerned.
He stated that the past regime attempted to deceive the people by presenting figures to show that more money was appropriated for education every year, ignoring the fact that the peso value during the latter part of 1985 became considerably low at P20 to $1. He stated that if the country could go back to the 38% allocation as suggested by former Delegate Ceferino Padua, coupled with economic recovery, it would not be too long when education under the context of this draft Constitution could be provided.
On the duty to provide free secondary education, he stated that it is an expression of an objective or priority rather than a mandate that would be immediately and fully executory. He cited the Constitutional provisions on free education as mandated by the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions arid the extent of their implementations, He stressed that despite the free education program of the government, statistical data on school dropouts are very high.
Mr. Guingona pointed out that the responsibility to educate the youth lies with the parents and the State only plays a supportive role in enhancing this natural, inherent and inalienable right.
SPONSORSHIP REMARKS OF MR. GASCON
Mr. Gascon stated that as a student, he strongly feels that the present educational system has to undergo changes. He stressed that education is a right of all citizens and not merely a privilege and that there must be a concrete policy thereon and a comprehensive program of action to undertake a full review, and systematic implementation of changes involving both teachers and students in terms of greater and better facilities, higher budget allocation for scholarships for poor but deserving students, and decent salaries for teachers.
He stated that education stands for truth about the entire gamut of social problems, a means to promote freedom, justice and peace.
He observed that authentic education is a continuing process of being a person and being a nation, working towards the free development of each for the development of all.
As in the right to life, liberty and property, he pointed out that the right to education cannot be taken away without due process of law.
Finally, he stressed that it should be the primary goal of the State to give proper and quality education to the youth.
SPONSORSHIP REMARKS OF MRS. ROSARIO BRAID
Mrs. Rosario Braid stated that educational planning has been very much centralized with very little participation from the various sectors such that too much focus was made on formal education and little attention given to nonformal education which the draft provisions attempt to provide. She pointed out that much concern has been focused on skills development to the neglect of integrating culture and science.
Mrs. Rosario Braid underscored that the draft provisions attempt to forge Philippine education into a humane, relevant educational system.
She stated that the draft provision also seeks to eliminate brain drain and rural to urban migration in terms of students seeking jobs in central urban places, by relating educational planning to the needs of the economic, social and cultural conditions of the community.
SPONSORSHIP REMARKS OF MRS. QUESADA
Mrs. Quesada stated that science and technology have enabled mankind to control and dominate nature; that in mastering the forces of nature, science and technology opened up staggering opportunities for the development of productive forces; and that science and technology have raised economic productivity to unprecedented levels. She cited high achiever countries in Asia, Latin America and Eastern Europe to show their progress in the field of science and technology.
Mrs. Quesada explained that science and technology propositions have been discussed with the science and technology community, and after some exchange of ideas, the following approximations of the Philippine situation have been arrived at: 1 ) that science and technology cannot be a factor in national development unless parallel changes are effected in other areas of concern such as the imposition of an authentic agrarian reform program, and 2) that high literacy and level of education are prerequisite in the buildup of scientific and technological manpower, the sine qua non of an indigenous capability in science and technology.
She stated that economic planners and policy-makers conjure grandiose industrial schemes but disregard the development of science and technology which is one of the reasons why researches are not utilized by the productive system. She pointed out that domination by foreign technology leaves no room for Filipino inventions and innovations.
On the protection of local businessmen and entrepreneurs utilizing local inventions and innovations, she stated that fiscal and nonfiscal incentives should be given to research and development organizations, technologists, suppliers and users.
SPONSORSHIP REMARKS OF MR. BENNAGEN
Mr. Bennagen stated that the process of industrialization requires an agrarian society to be more scientific and issue-oriented, to be more problem-oriented, requiring changes not only in the field of science and technology, but in the arts and culture as well
He observed that for a long time, the Filipinos have not spoken the words: "I am proud to be a Filipino" except in school plays. He stated that the February people's uprising had changed this negative attitude but the everyday realities still pose the queries whether indeed, the Filipinos have become Filipinized, and whether such newfound sense has been translated into policies and programs that truly serve the fundamental interests of the nation.
He stated that despite efforts to endorse Filipino as the wikang pambansa, the same has not been seriously implemented. He stated that a national language is not only a cultural marker for national identity but a factor that facilitates the unification and empowerment of the people.
He stressed that unless science is internalized in the local languages, the country can never develop a scientific attitude which likewise applies to the arts. Mr. Bennagen observed that there are no united efforts towards achieving a systematic and sustained development of the arts and sciences as instruments of national liberation from foreign control of the economy, the political life and the national psyche.
On the seemingly trivial side, he noted that there are advertisements which continue to sell foreign owned products featuring mestizos and mestizas, or Caucasian models. The Philippine basketball league, he observed, is dominated by American imports who lord it over their Filipino counterparts and some of whom have been awarded instant Filipino citizenship. The reinforced basketball conference, he stated, is reinforced by American players. On the matter of beauty contests, he stated that Caucasian beauties with foreign-sounding names continue to win and a few of them have come back to the country from Canada or the United States to win over homegrown contestants. Even in the universities, he observed that a local scholar who goes abroad, especially to the United states, for further studies goes through an enrichment program. He stated that “Stateside yata yan” is very much part of Filipino consciousness.
This consciousness, he stated, uncritically beholden to things foreign facilitates the acceptance of Western domination and its persistence prevents the Filipinos from galvanizing themselves into a people truly committed to the completion of the February revolution. This, he maintained, would not mean rejection of all things foreign and that borrowing, which is critical, would be to support the needs and legitimate interests of the people.
He underscored that what should be done for now would be to continue waging the struggle for nationhood in the economic, political and cultural spheres. The latter struggle, he observed, would entail the following: 1) critical investigation into existing patterns of values so as to eradicate those which serve foreign interests and internal forces of domination; 2) identification of cultural aspects which support the people's struggle for a better life such as democratic values and social justice; and 3) development of the dignity and self-respect of Filipinos as a people — psychologically and in terms of economic and political self-determination.
SPONSORSHIP REMARKS OF MR. UKA
Mr. Uka stated that Section 4 of the Committee Report provides “That the State shall promote and protect the status and standards of the teaching profession. Teachers, researchers and nonteaching academic personnel shall enjoy the special care and protection of the State”.
He observed that the teaching profession entails a lot of hard work involving lesson plans, sheetwork and homeworks although teachers receive low salaries for which reason many of them have resigned to go abroad in search of greener pastures.
He stated that he, himself, has been teaching for the past 54 years, starting at the age of 17 and that many do not realize the importance of the humble teacher who is a nation-builder. Many great men of the world, he noted, were called teachers. among them Moses, Buddha, messenger Mohammed and Jesus Christ. He said that he and the others would not be where they are if it were not for the humble teacher who taught lessons from grade one to college. *
Mr. Uka underscored the need to care for the teachers by raising the standards of the teaching profession, by protecting the teachers and making the profession attractive to them. He noted that when asked of their calling, teachers would respond “maestro lang” as if to belittle the profession. He maintained that teachers are the moulders of the character of the youth and the fair hope of this country.
ADDITIONAL REMARKS OF MR. GUINGONA
On Section 2(b) of the proposed Article which reads "The State shall exercise reasonable supervision and regulation of all educational institutions to ensure that quality education shall be provided to all levels by them. The State shall establish, maintain and support a complete, adequate and integrated system of education relevant to the needs of the people and society. The State shall recognize and strengthen the complementary roles of public and private educational institutions as separate but integral parts of the total Philippine educational system", Mr. Guingona explained the significant changes vis-a-vis Section 2 of the 1973 Constitution, namely:
1) the addition of the word "reasonable" before the phrase “state supervision and regulation”;
2) the addition of the word "quality" before "education";
3) the modification of the language of the 1973 Constitution with reference to a system of education and requiring the same to be relevant to the goals of national development to the present formulation “relevancy to the needs of the people and society”; and,
4) the explanation given to the phrase “integrated system of education" to mean "the recognition and strengthening of the complementary roles of public and private educational institutions as separate but integral parts of the total Philippine educational system.”
Moreover, Mr. Guingona clarified that “state supervision and regulation” would refer to the external governance of the educational institutions particularly private educational institutions, as distinguished from internal governance by the respective board of directors or trustees and their administrative officials. He noted that even without the provision on external governance, the State would have the inherent right to regulate educational institutions through the exercise of its police power. He stated that the Committee restated the supervisory and regulatory functions of the State found in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions but with the addition of the qualifier "reasonable" in view of the obiter dictum in the case of Philippine Association of Colleges and Universities vs. The Secretary of Education and Board of Textbooks, in which the Supreme Court said that "it is enough to point out that local educators and writers think the Constitution provides for control of education by the State. The Solicitor-General cites many authorities to show that the power to regulate means the power to control".
Mr. Guingona further observed that the use of “reasonable” would underscore the sense of the Committee that when the Constitution speaks of State supervision and regulation, it does not in any way mean control but only a reference to the power of the State to provide regulations to ensure that these are duly implemented. He added that it does not include the right to manage, dictate, overrule, prohibit or dominate.
He adverted to Delegate Ernesto S. Amatong of the lone district of Zamboanga del Norte who, in sponsoring Report No. 1 (Session No. 143, March 28, 1972) of the Committee on Education in the 1971 (Constitutional Convention, stated: "We may disagree on the nature and scope of institutional autonomy, but we shall never disagree on the matter of its importance and necessity in a democratic society. the present status of government supervision of the private educational institutions leaves much to be desired. Although we agree that the State must be in a position to direct and guide the teaching of the youth, as well as regulate the operation of the educational institutions within its natural borders, it must not create in its centers of higher learning an atmosphere of fear and restriction.”
He noted, moreover, that Delegate Clemente who was Chairman of the 1971 Constitutional Convention’s Committee on Education, on the November 27, 1971 meeting of the said Committee, relative to the same subject matter remarked: "While we are agreed that we need some kind of supervision and regulation by the State, there seems to be a prevailing notion among some sectors in education that there is too much interference by the State in the management of private education. If that is true, we need Some kind of reexamination of this function of the State to supervise and regulate education because we are all agreed that there must be some kind of diversity, as well as flexibility, in the management of private education".
On the teaching of the Constitution and Human Rights, he remarked that the provision would be general, allowing both the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports and educational institutions to provide the details. He observed that at present, the Constitution as a subject is being offered in college and that college students could best appreciate its spirit and meaning, although teaching it in college would only reach 17% of the student population as against 33% if it were offered in high school.
On the matter of "quality education", Mr. Guingona explained that the government should, in the exercise of its supervisory and regulatory powers, set satisfactory minimum requirements in all areas and ensure that these requirements are met by all private and public educational institutions.
Quality education, he maintained, would involve, among others, curriculum development, development of learning resources and instructional materials, upgrading of library and laboratory facilities, innovations in educational technology and teaching methodologies, and improvement of research quality. He stressed that the principal focus therein as well as in other provisions would be the students. He stated that people should be aware of the slogan, with respect to quality education, that “better than ever is not enough” meaning that even if the quality of education is good, there should be steps to keep on improving the same.
On the relevance to the needs of the people and society, Mr. Guingona observed that individual needs of the students should also be emphasized, thus, the inclusion in the aims of education of the need to provide liberal education by the educational institutions. He argued that it is not appropriate to simply attach peso and centavo values to education considering the matter of national development in these terms. He underscored that the focus of attention of the Article has been the students and the teachers.
INTERPELLATION OF MR. NOLLEDO
Mr. Nolledo prefaced his interpellation by congratulating the Chairman and Members of the Committee for an excellent job which he hoped would not, in the course of amendments, suffer from adulteration.
With respect to Education, Section 1(a) which states "Education is the right of every citizen of the Philippines", Mr. Nolledo concurred with the statement but noted that this would be compellable and enforceable in court, as he gathered from the statements of Messrs. Villacorta and Guingona.
On whether a student of a private school who is not allowed to re-enroll therein by reason of his conduct in school which the administration considered undesirable, would have the right to enforce this provision, Mr. Guingona replied that the right to education, like other rights, is not an absolute one. Article XXVI of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, he explained, in acknowledging the right to education qualified it with the phrase “on the basis of merit”. He noted that the student may be subject to certain reasonable requirements regarding admission and which is so provided in the draft. He observed that even discrimination as in the case of schools refusing admission to boys should such schools be exclusively for girls or refuse admission to girls should such schools be exclusively for boys or in cases where schools may refuse to accept students with contagious diseases on the ground that they affect the welfare of other students has been accepted in the Philippines and even in the United States. He stressed that there could be reasonable qualifications, limitations or restrictions to the right.
Additionally, Mr. Gascon stated that in speaking of education as a right, what should be emphasized is that education should be equally accessible to all regardless of social and economic differences. He observed that this would delve into the issue of providing opportunities to education, recognizing that there are limitations imposed on those who come from the poorer social classes because of their inability to continue education. In the same light, he noted that the right to education would be subject to the right of educational institutions to admit students upon certain conditions such as the ability to pay the. required fee for entrance examinations and maintaining a respectable school record. Such qualifications, Mr. Gascon observed, must be reasonable and should not be used to impose unfair conditions on the students.
Mr. Guingona, moreover, informed that there are established jurisprudence on this matter such as the case of Lacer vs. Board of Education of New York 239, NYS, 2d 776* wherein the U.S. court held that the refusal of a school to admit a student who had an average of less than 85%, which was the requirement of the school was lawful and, in the Philippines, the case of Padre Bulan* vs. Manila Central University where refusal to retain the student due to his deficiency in a major subject was upheld by the Philippine Supreme Court; and the case of Garcia vs. Loyola School of Theology wherein Garcia, a woman, tried to continue studying in that school.
With respect to the duty of the State to afford education to all citizens, Mr. Nolledo queried whether "citizens" would include any citizen regardless of age and would, therefore, include formal and informal education and adult education, to which Mr. Guingona replied in the affirmative. Mr. Guingona drew attention to the provision on civics, vocational efficiency and other skills training for adult citizens, the disabled and out-of-school youth.
As to whether the phrase "socialized fee structure" would indicate partial or full scholarship, Mr. Gascon stated this would: 1) pertain to tertiary education in state colleges and universities on the premise that income and wealth are inequitably distributed; 2) mean that education is a right and therefore there would be a need to equalize and democratize access to quality tertiary education. He observed that economic and political inequality is manifested in the access to education as those with political and economic clout are able to get quality-education inasmuch as they can afford it and would be better suited to the standards of such quality education because of their exposure. He maintained that the socialized tuition fee structure is an attempt to address this problem. by providing concrete and alternative systems in the allocation of resources. He stated that varying levels of subsidy should be granted to different income levels based on the estimate of the educational cost. Charging the same tuition fees to a wide range of income brackets, he maintained, should not be done and instead socialization must be applied to all income levels. He underscored that the whole attempt is to enable the poor, who normally cannot continue tertiary education, to pursue such education. He added that this is a new scheme.
On page 2, lines 1 and 29 which provides that "Education shall be compulsory through the elementary level", Mr. Nolledo raised several questions as to whether the provision contemplates exceptions inasmuch as it would not involve expenses in terms of tuition fees but also transportation; whether there would be sanctions for violation of this provision and as to who would be held responsible — the child or the parent.
Mr. Gascon, in reply thereto, stated that the premise for including "compulsory education" is that the highest incidence of dropouts occurs in the fourth grade level which corresponds to the fact that in many barrios throughout the country, the schooling available is only up to Grade IV. He contended that 4 out of every 5 dropouts leave school between the third and fifth grades. He noted that this results in retrogression in that 1 among those 5 who drop out of school reverts to a literary level below Grade 1.
Mr. Gascon also noted that the percentage of those retrogressing below Grade I level decreases as the grade level completed increases, thus, Grade VII is the level where very little retrogression to below Grade I level takes place, considering that retrogression happens quite soon after a person drops out of the elementary grades.
He stressed that compulsory education would assure a level of literacy among the Filipino people whose literacy percentage from 1980 to 1985 increased by only 10% compared to Indonesia's 56% and China's 65%. He stated that if the Constitution does not step up the process of encouraging education at least up to the primary level, time may come when a large majority of the population would be essentially illiterate.
On whether the Committee contemplates any sanction on parents who refuse to send their children to school, Mr. Guingona stated that the Committee itself does not, although there is some jurisprudence on the matter. He pointed out that even in the United States no sanctions which are criminal in nature are imposed and that under the truancy law children would just be compelled to attend classes with nothing beyond that because compulsory education is not directed principally to students or parents but to the State's duty to provide free public education up to the secondary level.*
On the meaning of "liberal education", Mr. Guingona stated that it does not only mean the return to the basics in the lower levels nor only the education as accepted by the academe, but also the need for value or moral education. He pointed out that one of the causes of failure in the educational policy is the overemphasis that planners give to the economic factor by attaching a corresponding peso and centavo value to plans. He averred that although cost consideration would inevitably be an integral part of formulation and implementation, there are also nontangible humane and cultural factors that decision-makers should consider with regard to policies affecting education.
On the contention that there is no need for the National College Entrance Examination (NCEE) because it could unduly infringe upon the right of every citizen to select a profession or course of study, Mrs. Rosario Braid stated that the NCEE, as an evaluation tool, is needed because without it, the government could not possibly aspire for quality education. She stated that the problem lies in developing appropriate tools to enable students to be evaluated appropriately; however, this would really refer to the problem of limiting certain professions which are overcrowded, thus the need for the State to exercise some prerogative in limiting entry thereto.
Additionally, Mr. Gascon stated that there is no question on the need for evaluation before students enter tertiary education; however, it has also been the consensus of the Committee that as far as the present NCEE is concerned, there should be a thorough review and reassessment as well as some reorientation of its direction short of totally abolishing it.
Mr. Gascon also observed that the phrase "subject to admission and selection requirement" is unfair to students and parents because, aside from the NCEE, the students are oftentimes given other school entrance examinations which put into question the need for an evaluation process which is not respected by the schools. Moreover, he saw the need for rationalization of the whole evaluation program being implemented by schools and by the State. He stated that although the State should encourage different professions in the educational system, it has no right to tell a student what course he should pursue, otherwise, it would be a curtailment of his freedom of choice. He stated, however, that the State may encourage certain courses or professions geared towards the economic developmental needs and goals.
Additionally, Mr. Guingona explained that as far as private educational institutions are concerned, the matter of restrictions and limitations had already been clarified, that is, referring to standards imposed by the schools or the physical limitations which would affect standards such as when the school can accommodate only a number of students.
Mr. Guingona stated that it is doubtful whether the State could directly prohibit a student from selecting his profession, although violation of this right can be done indirectly by not offering courses requested or in demand by the students. He explained that unreasonable admission requirements, such as passing the NCEE or other government examinations which may be unreliable or not scientifically validated, may even be discriminatory. He stressed that the action of the State is oftentimes related to the decision brought about by bureaucratic planning or decision on the country's need for professionals and skilled workers which focuses attention only to the societal need and not to the individual need of the student.
Mr. Guingona stated that while he strongly sup ports educational planning, Dr. Chou Shuyui* of the National University of Singapore pointed out that "manpower planning as part of overall economic planning came into vogue in the late 1950s and early 1960s, just a couple of decades ago. And as far as underdeveloped and developing countries are concerned, there is a lot of detailed inaccurate data. This has resulted in erroneous and unreliable forecast". He then cited, as an example, the projection report entitled Higher Education and Labor Market in the Philippines, which states that "the greatest project growth is expected to be in the field of agriculture which will be 20% for the period 1978-82". He observed, however, that according to the MECS Statistical Bulletin, the enrollment in agriculture, both in government and private tertiary institutions, had in fact decreased by more than 20% or from 56,242 in school year 1979-1980 to 38,651 in school year 1982-1983.
On the matter of training architects, Mr. Guingona observed that there is a gestation period; in Australia where the number was reduced resulting in the lack of architects, they had to bounce back to encouraging the study of architecture and those who needed architects had to wait because of the six-year gestation period.
On whether the word "teaches" found on page 3, line 27, would include public school teaches, Mr. Rigos replied in the negative. On whether the exercise of the optional religious instruction would include costs to the government considering that the word "additional" before "cost" did not appear in the 1973 Constitution, Mr. Rigos explained that “cost” would probably be the cost of water and electricity; however, salary for religion teachers would be paid by the religious groups concerned. And to Mr. Nolledo's query on how the students may enjoy academic freedom in institutions of higher learning, Mr. Gascon gave the definition of "academic freedom" as that aspect of intellectual liberty concerned with the peculiar institutional needs of the academic community. He stated that the claim that scholars are entitled to particular immunity from ideological coercion is premised on the concept that a university is a community of scholars engaged in the pursuit of knowledge, collectively and individually, both within the classroom and without, and on the pragmatic conviction that the invaluable service rendered by the university to society can be performed only in an atmosphere entirely free from administrative, political or ecclesiastical constraints on thought and expression. He pointed out that recent comprehensive formulations of student academic freedom has evinced a range of concerns that parallel those expressed by proponents of teachers' freedom, like the freedom of inquiry and expression in curricular activities, in extracurricular student affairs, procedural fairness in disciplinary proceeding and participation in governing boards of institutions.
Adverting to the foundations of academic freedom in the United States, Mr. Gascon pointed out 1) the philosophy of intellectual freedom; 2) the idea of autonomy for communities of scholars; and 3) the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of Rights in the American Constitution as interpreted by the courts.
Mr. Gascon stated that to answer the query why students must enjoy academic freedom, it is necessary to define a university and its purposes. He stated that the word "university" comes from universitas which means an association, community. or corporation considered in its collective aspect, and was used to denote diverse groups ranging from municipal corporations to an association of captives in war which, later, signified an association in the world of learning corresponding to a guild in the world of commerce, a union among men living in a studium and having some common interest to protect and advance.
On the components of such a university, he stated that the university is made up of the institution itself including the administrative authorities; the faculty composed of teachers and professors; and students. He stressed that as members of the university, the students must enjoy academic freedom in order that the purpose of the university may be effectively achieved. He adverted to Justice Makasiar's dissenting opinion in Garcia vs. Faculty Admission Committee of the Loyola School of Theology, 68 SCRA, 277, that "it should be stressed that the academic freedom thus guaranteed is not limited to the members of the faculty nor to the administrative authorities of the educational institution but should also be deemed granted in favor of the student body because all three — the administrative authorities, the faculty, and the students — constitute the educational institution, without which, the educational institution could neither exist nor Operate. The educational institution is permitted by the State to exist and operate not for the benefit of its administrative authority or faculty members alone but for the benefit of its studentry as well because the denial of student academic freedom constitutes a violation of the equal protection clause of the Constitution".
Mr. Gascon also stated that in the course of the discussions concerning academic freedom in the 1971 Constitutional Convention, Delegate Ledesma admitted that the term "scholar" also includes students and that both teachers and students assume the role of learners because although they vary in the degree of information they have already acquired, there is no pressing reason why an individual should be curtailed in his attempt to attain adequate knowledge on the poor excuse that he has much more to learn.
Mr. Gascon adverted to the theories, none of which favor academic freedom for students, to wit:
1) Private Theory. Under this theory, students are deemed to have abandoned some rights once they have entered the university.
2) En Loco Parentis. This theory is based on the assumption that the school is a surrogate parent.
3) Contract Theory. By his act of registration, the student could be deemed to have accepted the regulations of the university. In return for tuition and the observance of the regulations by the student, the latter enjoys the right to continued attendance subject to breach of contract, the burden of which is upon the student. Ambiguous terms in the contract are decided against him and the institution may negate any implied right of the student.
Adverting to the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Malabanan vs. Ramento, Mr. Gascon stated that the freedoms enjoyed by the students outside the university continue within the walls of the university. He stressed that the rights to peaceful assembly and free speech are guaranteed to students of educational institutions so that necessarily, their exercise to discuss matters affecting their welfare or involving public interest should not be subjected to previous restraint or subsequent punishment unless there is a showing of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil that the State has the right to prevent.
Mr. Villacorta affirmed that academic freedom is enjoyed only by colleges and universities and not by high schools.
On the final queries of Mr. Nolledo, Mr. Guingona affirmed that the report of the Committee on the Legislative which states that "all lands, buildings and improvements, etc. directly used by educational institutions shall be exempt from taxation and the exemption as already ruled by the Supreme Court shall only refer to realty tax", does not contain any qualification whether the institution is stock or non-stock. With respect to Section 4(b), he stated that the taxes and duties referred to are not limited only to realty taxes and that the exemptions granted to proprietary educational institutions shall be dependent upon the existence of law, which exemptions, however, shall not be limited likewise to realty taxes subject to the qualifications or limitation on stockholders' dividends. He further affirmed that these provisions would not alter the first statement that lands, buildings and improvements directly used for educational purposes shall be exempt from realty tax.
MR. SUAREZ' SUGGESTION
Considering that the Committee Report is divided into four substantial topics, namely, education, language, science and technology and arts and culture, Mr. Suarez suggested that interpellations be made on a methodical basis, that is, interpellations be first confined to the subject on education and thereafter, the Body could proceed to the other subjects.
The Committee acceded to Mr. Suarez' suggestion.
INTERPELLATION OF MR. TINGSON
Mr. Tingson prefaced his interpellation by stating that pursuant to Mr. Suarez' suggestion, he would confine his interpellation to education with a reservation to continue his interpellation later when the other subjects would be considered by the Body.
Relative to Section 1 of the Report, Mr. Tingson inquired from the Committee whether it agrees that in describing its intent on Section 1 it should be stated that education, which is the harmonious development of the mental, physical, moral and spiritual faculties of the individual, is a right of every citizen of the Philippines, to which Mr. Villacorta assured that the Committee is open to suggestions.
Mr. Gascon admitted that even the Committee Members themselves have different perceptions as to what education is, so that the Committee would consider at the proper time a definition of education to include the harmonious development of the mental, physical & moral and spiritual aspects, for record purposes. He pointed out, however, that education, being a continuing process, is open to varying definitions.
Mr. Guingona agreed that education covers many aspects, however; he stated that this should be mentioned in the record as the sense of the Committee instead of merely including it in the Report.
On Mr. Villacorta's suggestion, Mr. Tingson agreed to elaborate on the concept of harmonious development during the period of amendments.
Relative to Section 2(c), Mr. Tingson inquired whether the International School, the Brent School in Baguio and the Faith Academy are included within the ambit of the provision considering that these schools are run by foreigners, the purpose of which is to give the same category of education given in foreign schools so that the students enrolled therein would be eligible to enter college when they go back to their respective homelands.
Replying thereto, Mr. Villacorta stated that the schools cited by Mr. Tingson are contemplated in the last sentence of Section 2(c) which states that "the provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to schools established for foreign diplomatic personnel and their dependents, and for other temporary residents".
Additionally, Mr. Gascon stated that Section 2(c) contemplates that educational institutions shall play a role in instilling values and molding opinion in students especially on children in the elementary and secondary levels who are still in the process of forming their own values. On the other hand, he stated that if this role is played by mass media; it may not be able to provide adequate attention and protection to children in these educational institutions. It is for this reason, he stated, that Section 2(c) encourages educational institutions wholly owned by Filipinos to take active part in rearing Filipino citizens although this would not mean that citizens of foreign countries residing in the Philippines could not avail of specialized education which is offered by schools like the International School, Brent School and the like. He stressed the need of safeguarding the interest of future generations by assuring that education be directed to serve Filipino interests.
On Section 2(g), Mr. Tingson inquired whether the Committee could go beyond what are provided in said paragraph by including as part of the school curricula the life and works of Dr. Jose Rizal, the reason being that the country's national hero is the very embodiment of what is inspiring and uplifting in the Constitution. He stated that the life and works of Jose Rizal is precisely a specific study of what is humanizing and uplifting in the subject on human rights. He urged the Committee to consider his suggestion because at present, the life and works of Dr. Jose Rizal is not given adequate attention and time in schools. He pointed out that one could not speak of Rizal as a hero if he does not know him as a person. Furthermore, Mr. Tingson stated that the works of Rizal exude masteral lyricism of his supreme protest against injustice, dazzling and fascinating with literary genius in his novels, Noli Me Tangere and El Filibusterismo and these, he stated, encouraged the late Don Claro M. Recto and Jose P. Laurel to put into law the works of Rizal as a required subject in schools. He opined that if the works of Shakespeare and of the Palanca awardees are taught in schools, with more reason, the works of Rizal should elicit the same status and esteem. He stated that if this is done, the Textbook Board could easily prepare and publish books designed for individual use. He then reiterated his suggestion to the Committee to include at the proper time the study of the life and works of Jose Rizal so that the country could produce citizens who would live up to his visions, patriotism and nationalism as the national hero.
Replying thereto, Mrs. Quesada stated that the proposal would open the floodgates to proposals of the same nature. She pointed out that there has been a suggestion to limit it to the study of the Constitution and exclude human rights on the ground that a study of the Constitution would already include the study of human rights. She assured, however, that the Committee would study the proposal of Mr. Tingson.
Mr. Tingson stated that at the proper time, he would present a proposal to require the study of the life and works of Dr. Jose Rizal, to which Mr. Villacorta replied that the Committee would seriously consider the proposal.
Mrs. Rosario Braid stated that the Committee felt that a study of the lives of heroes, including that of Jose Rizal, is adequately covered in the subject of Social Studies aside from the fact that the Committee Report is focused on nationalism and mandates the Textbook Board to preclude more instructional materials on national heroes.
At this juncture, Mr. Tingson reserved his right to continue his interpellation after the suspension of session.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
The Chair suspended the session.RESUMPTION OF SESSION
It was 12:15 p.m.
At 2:53 p.m., the session was resumed.INTERPELLATION OF MR. TINGSON
(Continuation)
On Mr. Tingsons query whether the Committee would be amenable to a proposal to insert "and the lives of our national heroes after "rights" on Section 12(g), Mr. Villacorta stated that it would be considered at the proper time.
On the query whether, on Section 5, the Committee could simply state that all educational institutions would be exempt from taxes and duties, with the exemption being considered as government subsidy, since private schools contribute much more than public schools to the overall education of the youth and, at the same time, the exemption could also be considered as a partial reimbursement to parents who pay taxes to support State schools, Mr. Villacorta replied that the Committee is open to all proposals on the section but there are some Members who feel that the second sentence thereof should not be included so that tax exemption would only be extended to non-stock, nonprofit educational institutions and not to proprietary educational institutions. He added that the proposal would be submitted to the Body at the proper time.
Mr. Tingson stated that perhaps the lawyer-Members could think of putting some kind of control. He manifested that he would reformulate his proposal and present it at the proper time.
At this juncture, Mr. Rigos pointed out that there are many private schools that make profits and with the inclusion of the second sentence, perhaps the private schools would be encouraged to limit the dividends that go to stockholders and this would partly achieve the aim of the section.
On whether the phrase "without additional cost to the government" in Section 5(h) means that it would be optional for public schoolteachers to teach religion, Mr. Rigos stated that that is the intent of the Committee.
Mrs. Rosario Braid pointed out that the Committee is encouraging nonstock, nonprofit educational institutions because based on studies made on the country's educational institutions, it was found that democratization of education does not contribute to social equality because the privatization of higher education has maintained the existing income disparities as a result of high rates of return accruing to graduates of high-tuition private schools. She added that there is a definite correlation between education and income and the studies suggest that private financing of higher education tends to enhance inequality from one generation to another.
In addition thereto, Mr. Gascon stated that education is primarily a public function and the State has the primary responsibility to provide for it. He added that the Committee intends to discourage profit-making schools and encourage non- stock, nonprofit schools to emphasize that education is primarily a service and not a business.
Reacting to Mr. Tingson's comment that there are some schools which are not primarily for profit-making but are making good profits anyway, Mrs. Rosario Braid stated that the Committee has decided that there is a need to suggest to Congress and to various aggroupments of educational institutions to add another criterion to the existing accreditation criteria like, for example, performance of a school’s alumni in national development, as one aspect which could grant to a school preferential treatment in terms of tax exemptions.
On the possibility of requiring a common textbook to be used for optional religious instruction in public schools, Mr. Rigos stated that it would be better to leave to Congress whether or not to include ethical and spiritual values as part of the curriculum. He, however, stated that an amendment to that effect would be considered at the proper time.
(At this juncture, the President relinquished the Chair to the Honorable Francisco A. Rodrigo.)
INTERPELLATION OF MR. BACANI
On Mr. Bacani's query whether the Committee would be amenable to an amendment on Section 1 so as to include the phrase "achieving national unity", Mr. Gascon stated that the Committee would consider the proposal at the proper time.
On whether the right to education includes the right to choose where and how one is going to be educated, Mr. Gascon answered in the affirmative stating that the State has the correlative duty to provide schools to equalize access thereto.
Mr. Bacani observed that the quality of instructions in most public schools is inferior than those given in a comparative number of private schools so that parents usually choose to enroll their children in private schools, to which Mr. Gascon stated that the Committee precisely seeks to correct the difference between public and private schools, so that the choice will be real.
Mr. Villacorta added that Section 1(c) provides for the promotion of quality education in public schools.
On the query of Mr. Villacorta as to the rationale of the question, Mr. Bacani explained that his query was based on the principle that the parents are the primary educators of their children while the State plays a secondary role, and that parents who have the means prefer to send their children to private schools because of the high quality of education.
On whether the Committee advocates a subsidy to parents to enable them to send their children to any school they prefer, Mr. Villacorta stated that the serious financial constraints of the government should be considered.
In reply to Mr. Gascon's query whether granting subsidy to parents implies that parents are to be granted the opportunity to send their children to private schools due to the high quality of education in these schools, Mr. Bacani answered in the affirmative.
Mr. Gascon stressed that it is the sense of the Committee to compel the State to improve public education thus, making it unnecessary for the State subsidize the parents.
Adverting to President Aquino's speech during the conferment of a doctorate degree by Xavier University, Mr. Bacani stated that the President mentioned that instead of building schools, students should be sent to Catholic schools to be paid by the government.
Mrs. Rosario Braid informed that Mr. Bacani was referring to an experiment conducted on elementary and secondary schools called "service contracting" which could be extended to tertiary education. She stated, however, that this is a stopgap or complementary scheme but the Committee's concern is to strengthen public education through various ways such as manpower development and strengthening of curriculum materials.
Mr. Bacani observed that the sense of the Committee is to strengthen public education rather than facilitate the free choice of the parents to send their children to schools of their choice.
Reacting thereto, Mr. Gascon emphasized that it is the responsibility of the State to provide for education as the past regime neglected this duty.
Mr. Guingona stated that the experiment mentioned by Mrs. Rosario Braid refers to private schools contracted by the government to provide education to students who cannot be accommodated in public schools due to lack of space facilities and teachers. He stated that the cost of contracting is comparable to and in most cases cheaper than admitting excess students in public schools, resulting in big savings for the government. He expressed agreement with Mr. Gascon's statement that public educational institutions should be strengthened, stating that it is a stop-gap measure in the present economic crisis while, at the same time, giving more access to education. He stated, however, that this is not the scheme as conceived by the Committee since its objective is to improve the quality of education.
He stated that as a member of the 1970 Presidential Reorganization Commission, he had the opportunity to confer with presidents of state colleges who admitted that their schools were substandard and that these were created because of political motivation. He stated that proliferation of substandard state colleges and universities should be avoided.
He stated that in the meantime that the government does not have the capacity to improve the system, this scheme should be adopted to allow a wider access to education.
Reacting thereto, Mr. Bacani stated that the State is, in the understanding of the Committee, the educator itself whereas what it should do is supervise or regulate the educational system. As the State is often a bad businessman, so it is often a bad educator. He stated that in Hongkong, the government pays the salaries of all staff members of private schools which provide good education for its citizens. He suggested that the Committee revise its stand on the matter.
In reply, Mr. Guingona stated that providing for a strong public educational system does not necessarily focus on the system. He stated that public and private schools should not run parallel with each other but work in coordination and cooperation for the benefit of the youth.
On whether a foreign religious order could set up a school, Mr. Villacorta stated that they have to link up with the archdiocese of the particular community.
On whether subparagraph (e) would run counter to subparagraph (f), Mr. Gascon stated that the intent of the subparagraphs is that the State, in formulating its educational policies, should have a more rationalized and systematic program of developing education in the country, by taking into account regional and sectoral needs and conditions. He emphasized that aside from developing schools responsive to the needs of the region, which will render service to the community at large, there must be a decentralization of the educational system which would make them tributaries to the immediate community.
He stated that it would encourage greater opportunities for students, teachers, parents and the administrators to work together at formulating policies and programs for the school or for the whole educational system.
Subsection (f ), he said, attempts at democratizing the educational system while subsection (e) attempts at rationalizing and decentralizing it.
Mrs. Rosario Braid maintained that the educational philosophy, like economic development, should have a thrust geared at involving many sectors in planning. She observed that owing to the differences among regions, the more evolutionary regions tend to be more participative in planning, while the others would start with two or three sectors. Research, she stated, has substantiated that the lack of appropriate planning boards between the school system and representatives of employers or agencies as well as other sectors have resulted in the perception that the educational system is not relevant to their needs.
Additionally, Mr. Guingona contended that there is a need for adequate and effective communication between the policy makers and the people affected by such policies. He informed that a fundamental rule of management is that communication, in the hierarchical pyramid, should flow from top to bottom and vice versa. He noted that the decision maker should not be isolated from the experiences and needs of citizens who have frequently been ignored or given minimal roles in the process of policy formulation and implementation.
As to whether there would be sanctions if the educational institutions fail to follow the mandate in Subsection (f), Mr. Villacorta stated that the intention behind the provision is to democratize policy-making in all schools and to enshrine people power even in schools.
To Mr. Bacani's remarks that Section 2(f) properly pertains to the legislature, taking into account the different conditions in schools and in the regions, Mr. Villacorta replied that the Committee would be open to suggestions on how to improve the provision.
On whether the same provision would apply even to educational institutions with only an elementary education, Mr. Villacorta stated that it is at this level where greater participation ,of parents, students and teachers would be necessary.
Mr. Bacani, referring to Section 3, queried whether the sentence "Institutions of higher learning shall enjoy fiscal autonomy" would be an attempt of the State to help them gain fiscal autonomy and whether institutions which cannot survive on their own would be propped up by the State. Mr. Villacorta responded that the idea is to give the institutions independence and enough elbow room to determine the direction and future of their fiscal viability as applied to state colleges and universities. Such institutions, he informed, are tied up to the Office of Budget and Management from which they would have to request their funds. He added that the provision would decentralize the fiscal concerns of such institutions. With respect to private schools, the provision would grant them the necessary autonomy to determine their own fiscal policies.
In reply to the statement of Mr. Bacani that he misconstrued the provision to mean that the state shall guarantee fiscal autonomy, Mr. Villacorta directed attention to Section 5(c) which states: "The State may subsidize educational institutions which are duly accredited for the purpose of subsidy as may be provided by law, without prejudice to other types of assistance or incentive given to all educational institutions". He explained that the word "may" is directory, giving the State the option to subsidize educational institutions.
On whether Section 4, lines 18 to 23, would be understood in the context of existing labor laws and not as an indiscriminate assertion that academic and nonacademic personnel would enjoy security of tenure, Mr. Villacorta concurred that it would refer to existing laws although, should Congress amend these laws, the most immediate laws would apply.
INTERPELLATION OF MR. BERNAS
Mr. Bernas observed that during the sponsorship speeches, the emphasis was on primary rights of parents although in the afternoon, Mr. Gascon stated that education is primarily a public responsibility and that the third view was that education is a primary right and duty of parents.
He observed that the Section in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions which recognizes the natural right and duty of parents in the rearing of youth has disappeared.
To his inquiry as to where would parents stand as far as the philosophy of education is concerned, Mr. Villacorta stated that the Committee recognizes the role of parents as partners of the State in the education of the country's youth. He asked Mr. Bernas to cite the specific provisions.
In reply, Mr. Bernas referred to the deletion of the old provision which mentions the right and duty of parents and the statement of Mr. Gascon that education is primarily a public responsibility. He noted, further, that in the morning session there was also a statement that education is primarily a parental responsibility .
Mr Gascon, in answer to the first question informed that the provision has been transferred to the Article on Family Rights.
Upon inquiry of Mr. Bernas, Mr. Gascon affirmed that the Committee still recognizes that the role of the State in education is subsidiary. To the second question, Mr. Gascon replied that the duty to provide education belongs to the parents but that the State has a public duty.
On the matter of hierarchy, Mr. Gascon maintained that the parents have the primary role and responsibility which does not mean that the State does not have a duty as well inasmuch as it is its correlative duty to provide and support parents in providing education.
Mr. Guingona confirmed the statement of Mr. Gascon. He stressed that the primary duty of the State is to provide education within the context or framework of the Constitution and later on provide such other types of education.
Mr. Bernas remarked that if it is true that the primary right belongs to the parents, he fails to see how it follows that the emphasis of the State should be on public schools. He noted that when Mr. Bacani asked about the possibility of giving subsidy to parents and for the parents to choose the schools to which they would send their children, Mr. Gascon responded negatively because the primary emphasis should be on public schools.
Mr. Villacorta noted that probably Mr. Gascon did not mean to say that the State has no responsibility to private schools and that the government would be more concerned with the development of government schools. He stated that for this reason, the Committee provided that public education shall be free up to the secondary level because this is the sector of education that the government is most concerned with and should concern itself with. He added that it would not imply that private schools are outside the purview of concern of the State.
As to whether Mr. Gascon stated that the State shall help the parents only if they send their children to public schools, Mr. Villacorta maintained that this was not the intention of Mr. Gascon.
Mr. Bernas observed that three kinds of academic freedom-institutional academic freedom, faculty academic freedom and student academic freedom- are mentioned in the draft.
On the matter of institutional academic freedom, he inquired if the Committee accepts the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Garcia vs. Loyola School of Theology which declared the components of institutional academic freedom or the right of the institution to decide on academic grounds, what should be taught, how it should be taught, who should teach and who should be taught. Mr. Villacorta replied in the affirmative.
Mr. Bernas noted that there are provisions which would empower the State to dictate what should be taught.
Upon inquiry of Mr. Villacorta, Mr. Bernas affirmed that he was referring to the content of the curriculum in Section 2. Mr. Villacorta maintained that it is part of the plenipotentiary duty, if not the right of the State, to provide certain thrusts in the development of society including education. He stated that the Constitution denies the fascistic prerogative of the State and that in developing the country, certain priorities should be given to the development of the person. He stressed that in this light, the Committee has named as its first thrust, nationalism, followed by love of fellowmen, respect for human rights, rights and duties of citizenship, service to society, ethical and spiritual values, moral character and personal discipline, critical and creative thinking, scientific, technological and work-oriented efficiency and liberal education. He stated that most of them were drawn from the 1973 Constitution.
In reply, Mr. Bernas observed that these are guidelines for the State. He stated that he is concerned with the danger that the State would prescribe the guidelines. He recalled that when Mr. Villacorta was Dean of Arts and Sciences in La Salle, the association of private school deans was fighting the various prescriptions imposed by the State. He then queried whether the Committee would be opening that in the Article.
Mr. Villacorta, admitting that the enumerations are guidelines, stated that this would not mean that there will be special subjects which will embody these principles on a one-to-one correspondence. He maintained that what they fought in the association of Philippine colleges of arts and sciences was the government stand that there should be corresponding subjects which shall embody these thrusts. He cited current issues which was a course required in the tertiary level and such other subjects as green revolution, agrarian reform, and taxation which are still required courses. He underscored that the thrusts are merely guidelines.
As to whether it is the institution by virtue of its academic freedom that would determine how such goals are to be attained, Mr. Villacorta replied in the affirmative. He also affirmed that the Committee is serious about academic freedom.
Upon inquiry of Mr. Villacorta whether Mr. Bernas has certain misgivings about the way it was defined by the Committee, the latter replied that if the Committee were to go beyond guidelines, he would have misgivings. He observed that to allow the State to dictate what subjects and how these subjects should be taught would be very harmful to the educational system, inasmuch as legislators, who are not educators and therefore know very little about education, would make legislations on education which could be better left to educators with certain supervision.
Mr. Villacorta interposed to say that Mr. Bernas, who is an educator, should be aware of the fact that there is a great need to develop certain priority concerns in the molding of the youths' mind and behavior. He queried whether Mr. Bernas has any reservation against emphasizing nationalism.
In reply thereto, Mr. Bernas stated that he has nothing against motherhood concepts.
Mr. Villacorta pointed out that this is the dilemma of educators — to what extent should freedom be allowed in the manner of teaching the subject matter versus certain imperatives in national development. He noted that in the. past regime, a lopsided importance was given to national development only to serve the leadership's interest. He stressed that the Committee is fully aware of the dangers inherent in spelling out the priorities in education, but at the same time it cannot overlook the fact that there are certain areas which must be emphasized in a developing society. Thereupon, he asked the advice of Mr. Bernas and the other Members on how to constitutionalize certain priorities in educational and curriculum development without infringing on the goals of academic freedom. He added that jurisprudence accords academic freedom only to institutions of higher learning.
On academic freedom of educational institutions in relation to security of tenure, Mr. Bernas queried if this would allow educational institutions the freedom to determine when a faculty member acquires tenure, quite different from the rules of permanency of labor in general. He observed that in established universities usually tenure is not acquired until a faculty member reaches a certain rank a judgment by his peers in the educational field that indeed he has that academic qualification.
Mr. Villacorta explained that the term "tenure" has a different meaning in academic institutions which, in the universities, would refer to a certain level of recognition that would assure permanency in the position considering one's achievement in terms of publications and researches. He stated that "tenure" as used in this Article would be in the context of permanency as understood in labor law inasmuch as the provision reads "provided by law" which would not refer to certain principles of academic institutions but most likely to existing laws.
Mr. Bernas stated that he has some difficulty with the particular provision which can be discussed later. He observed that in recognizing as an aspect of academic freedom the right of the institution to decide on academic grounds who should teach, the concept of tenure in academic institutions of higher learning would be different from the concept of tenure in labor.
Mr. Guingona clarified that the law therein would not be equated with labor law. He stated that if the law allows a different measure or standard with regard to educational institutions, that law prevails. As to whether it is the intention of the Committee not to treat the work of faculty members in the same general way that labor is treated, he answered that the Committee would like to treat educational institutions as may be provided by law which may not necessarily be labor laws.
On paragraph (f) of Section 1, Mr. Bernas inquired if the cause "to participate in the formulation school policies" means to have a vote in the administration or merely to act in consultative capacity.
In reply, Mr. Gascon stated that the Committee had not reached a consensus on this matter although it agreed that in the process of determining policies, programs and directions, there should be consultation among the sectors in the academic community. He also stated that the Committee was divided on what is the highest policy-making body the Board of Trustees or the Board of Regents. He opined, however, that the highest policy-making body may be provided by law as was done for some State colleges and universities, like the University of the Philippines. He opined that the Mindanao State University would need restructuring and reorganizing not only of student representation but of faculty representation as well
Additionally, Mr. Guingona stated that the Committee was divided on the matter of policy-making bodies, to which Mr. Bernas replied that perhaps the matter could be resolved during the period of amendment.
On the meaning of the term "academic freedom of students", Mr. Villacorta referred to the book entitled Philippine Constitutional Law written by Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas, to wit:
"The modern conception of academic freedom has its immediate origin from a 19th century German formulation, summed up by two words: Lernfreibeit and Lehfreiheit.Mr. Bernas added that the next page in said book referred to academic freedom that underwent a transformation, in reply to which Mr. Villacorta stated that it would be too long for him to quote from the two pages which described the transplantation to the United States and the other countries of this concept of academic freedom. He stated that the impression he got from reading the book was that academic freedom is indeed enjoyed by university students.
"Lernfreiheit described the academic freedom of students who were free to roam from place to place, sampling academic wares, free to determine the choice and sequence of courses, responsible to no one for regular attendance and exempted from all tests, save the final examinations.
"The core of Lehfreiheit was the freedom of the German educator to do independent research, to report his findings to his students, and even to attempt to win adherents, to his theories.
"Academic freedom was a right enjoyed only within the academic community. It was a right not available outside the walls of the academe."
Mr. Bernas pointed out that in the European tradition, one could speak of academic freedom, but once transplanted to the American tradition things become more rigid, in view of which, he stated that the reason why there was academic freedom in that form in the European tradition was because it was only within the university institution that there was freedom, while outside there was
Reacting thereto, Mr. Gascon stated that when he spoke on the issue of student academic freedom, he said that it would be attuned to the academic freedom afforded the institutions and teachers and would parallel the freedom of inquiry and expression in curricular activities, in extracurricular student affairs procedural fairness in disciplinary proceedings and participation in the governance of the institution. He stated that the context of backing for academic freedom afforded to students was to complete the definition of the academic community which consists Of the administrative personnel, the faculty and the students.
Mr, Gascon adverted to the article written by Atty. Rafael Lotilla in the Philippine Law Journal, to wit:
"The student should not be prevented by the teacher or the institution from undertaking research on his own and afterwards publishing the result of his research. But the student is under obligation to observe administrative procedures and requirements such as the payment of fees for the use of chemicals, power and facilities of the university. The same administrative restriction is imposed on other members of the academic community.
"The student is also required to observe standards of safety and hygiene, thus, the school authorities may regulate access to laboratory facilities, the use of which may pose a hazard in the hands of individuals lacking in skill.Mr. Bernas stated that the essence of academic freedom is the right of the student not to be prevented to do research and to publish it if he could find a publisher or if he could publish it himself, all the rest being merely a recognition of due process which includes the fact that the student should be consulted about the school policy. He stated that the expectation of students should not be raised by leaving the meaning unexplained. He stressed that the academic freedom of students, the academic freedom of the faculty members and the academic freedom of the institution should be balanced so that they do not cancel each other out.
"Supervision by a faculty member or an administrative assistant may also be required.
"Individual student academic freedom is also limited by the freedom of other students. Where the acts of a student denied academic freedom of other students, school authorities must step in. Included among such acts are the employment of violence, force or coercion of other members of the academic community in order that the latter will conform to a particular line of thought or adopt a particular line of action.
"The boot camp policy of intolerance is anathema in an institution of higher learning. Additionally, in a universe where the range of knowledge borders on the infinite, the teacher may find himself in the position of another learner so that his freedom to learn will also have to be respected."
On the query which one should prevail in case of conflict, Mr. Bernas opined that, as a general rule, the faculty and the institution would be on the same level and the student on a lower level, to which Mr. Gascon expressed disagreement on the ground that the student is also a scholar and that the core of academic freedom is essentially the freedom to inquire; both are learners, and there should be no delineation between teacher and student in institutions of higher learning.
Mr. Bernas maintained, however, that there would be no difficulty as far as inquiry is concerned, but with respect to standards, the institution or the faculty should have the superior right to set standards if the student wants to get a degree. Mr. Gascon replied that in getting a degree, certain core subjects have to be fulfilled and, therefore, the context of academic freedom should be seen within such purview.
Additionally, Mr. Guingona stated that in the enjoyment of academic freedom, certain conflicts could arise between institutions and individuals; between the university as a whole and its units such as its colleges; and between professors and students. He pointed out, however, that the Committee thought it prudent not to make any statement on the matter and would rather leave it to the Legislature and the courts to decide on a case-to-case basis.
Elucidating on the matter, Mr. Gascon pointed out that academic freedom basically speaks of the freedom of the citizen to express his views which, therefore, should not be limited within the context of the university. The students, he stressed, should be allowed their democratic right to form organizations not contrary to law which they feel are relevant to their needs, subject to certain limitations; to organize alliances or student councils; to unite the studentry in projecting their views and demands; to be given the freedom of expression and speech; and that no regulation shall be issued limiting such right of the student within the university. He pointed out, however, that the present situation in Philippine society it such that there are still many schools which do not have genuine or autonomous student councils or campus papers.
Mr. Bernas stated that he had no difficulty with the things enumerated under academic freedom but it would seem that such rights are already covered by the freedom of speech, assembly and petition and would certainly apply wherever the student it. He stated that he was trying to narrow down the scope of student academic freedom. He then inquired whether this would add anything over and above what are guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. Mr. Gascon replied that personally he believes that academic freedom should give assurance that the rights a student has as a citizen would continue to be enjoyed by him as a student.
On whether the phrase "without additional cost to the government" would also include the possibility that the public schoolteacher, during his free time, could volunteer to teach at no extra cost, Mr., Rigos stated that the Committee's fear is that in such an arrangement the teacher may tend to give more favor to students who attend his religion class. He stated that it would be alright as far as cost to the Stab is concerned, but salary for the teacher should not be charged to the government. He agreed that it would be within the power of the State to prohibit public schoolteachers from teaching religion because the teachers themselves may be subjected to pressure by religious authorities or the teacher may use religion as an instrument for his purpose.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
On motion of Mr. Sarmiento, the Chair suspended the session.RESUMPTION OF SESSION
It was 4:42 p.m.
At 5:21 p.m., the session was resumed with the President, the Honorable Cecilia Muñoz Palma, presiding.INTERPELLATION OF MR. DE CASTRO
In reply to Mr. de Castro's query whether "free education" includes free tuition fees, books and all other fees, Mrs. Rosario Braid answered in the affirmative,
On whether the Committee conceives the establishment of public high schools in several places in a province, Mr. Villacorta stated that it will be the consequence of the provision on free public education and equal opportunity and access to it.
As to how children may be compelled to go to school, Mr. Guingona stated that it should not be compulsion as far as students are concerned since it is the State that is mandated to provide free education.
On whether children who refuse to go to school would be arrested by the police, Mr. Guingona answered in the negative, stating that the provision merely adopted the wordings of the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions. Mr. Gascon added that children would not resort to excuses for refusing attendance if the Stab adopts a clear program of convincing the youth of the value of education. Mrs. Rosario Braid also remarked that present educational facilities might not be able to cope with the same services in the future, in which case, other learning delivery systems such as radio, television and community organizations could prove useful.
On whether subparagraph (c), Section 1 refers to both public and private schools, Mr. Gascon stated that the thrust is that the State should make sure that quality education is given to students whether in public or private schools. The second part of the provision, he said, refers to poor and deserving students and this, again, would also apply to private schools where poor but deserving students may study.
On the meaning of "indigenous learning system” Mr. Bennagen stated that it includes participation of indigenous institutions which teach economics cultural and political skills outside of the formal school system.
On the meaning of "civics" in subparagraph (d), Mr. Villacorta stated that it refers generally to citizenship, social studies, concepts of personal and social morality. Mrs. Rosario Braid affirmed that it would include reading, writing and arithmetic. On good manners and right conduct, Mr. Gascon adverted to Section 19.
On respect for human rights, Mr. Villacorta stated that the Committee would welcome any suggestion on the matter.
Mrs: Rosario Braid also affirmed that the study of the Constitution and the rights and duties of citizenship as part of the curricula would take precedence over other subjects.
Mr. Gascon clarified that the enumeration appearing on Section 2(a) are not subjects or courses but themes and goals which may be taught in different ways.
On the fate of private schools such as Ateneo, La Salle or San Beda in the light of the provision of Section 2(c), Mr. Villacorta stated that these schools had been Filipinized.
On whether the word “regional” in Section 2(e) refers to the autonomous regions, Mr. Gascon stated that it refers not only to the autonomous regions but to all geopolitical regions as well. Mr. Gascon also affirmed that Sections 16 and 18 of the Article on Local Government complement subparagraphs (e) and (f), Section 2 on the applicability of the educational policies to the autonomous regions. In any event, Mr. Villacorta stated that the Committee would welcome amendments to harmonize Section 2 with the provisions on autonomous regions.
On Section 2(g), Mr. de Castro manifested agreement with Mr. Tingson's observation that the curricula should include the teachings of the lives of national heroes to inculcate in the youth the meaning of patriotism and nationalism.
On Section 3 on academic freedom for faculty and students of institutions of higher learning, Mrs. Rosario Braid affirmed that it refers to both public and private institutions.
Mr. Villacorta affirmed that private institutions should practice fiscal autonomy.
With respect to the second paragraph of section 4, Mr. Villacorta agreed that as a natural consequence, the students would have no classes if teachers decide to go on strike.
On whether the phrase "they shall enjoy security of tenure" in Section 4 means that teachers cannot leave the service, Mr. Villacorta stated that they may, to which Mr. de Castro commented that it is one-sided since the institution cannot hold or fire them. Mr. Villacorta explained that in the tertiary level, educational institutions go by semester or trimester in which case the professors or teachers are duty-bound to stay until it is over, while in the pre-university level, he stated that the matter is addressed to the moral responsibility of the mentors since they are supposed to stay until the school year is over.
Mr. de Castro stated that he was intrigued by Mr. Bacani's statement about Hongkong, noting that thirteen phrases in the draft provision begin with the phrase "The State shall" which, he said, implies that education is controlled by the State instead of giving the private sector the opportunity to formulate their own educational system. In reply, Mrs. Rosario Braid referred Mr. de Castro to Section 5 which pertains to private educational institutions.
Mr. Gascon remarked that the Article on Education would remind the government of its role and responsibility in providing for the development of education, science and technology, and arts and culture. He stated that it does not negate the role of private institutions. He noted that inasmuch as education is primarily a service, the State should always assure that it is accessible, that there is bias for nonprofit, non-stock educational institutions and discouragement for profit-making institutions in the educational system. He underscored that it is not the sense of the Committee that the State shall take everything unto itself and shall not allow private schools to do their share, but the only point is that as far as education is concerned, it should assure the citizens of access to educational institutions.
On the statement of Mr. Bacani that teachers in private schools are paid by the State, Mr Gascon observed that this would be public education because the State pays the teachers.
Mrs. Rosario Braid pointed out that private educational institutions do not rake in a lot of profit. She stressed that subsidies will be made to nonprofit institutions to encourage the conversion of proprietary institutions to foundations which would provide quality education, pay good salaries, provide good facilities but do not allow too much profit.
INTERPELLATION OF MR. PADILLA
Mr. Padilla prefaced his interpellation with an observation that the Committee Report has only Section 2(i) on sports and inquired whether the Committee considers the provision adequate to promote physical education and sports. He recalled that he started as an athlete in amateur sports as a student and eventually qualified as an Olympic basketball player. He emphasized that sports development needs programming, training and self-discipline but these have greatly depreciated despite the Gintong Alay and present sports program. He pointed out that the Philippines is only third or fourth in Southeast Asian athletic competition although in past Far Eastern Games or Asian Games, the Philippines was always a strong contender. In basketball, he stated that Philippines had always been first — beating such rivals as Japan, China and Korea.
He observed that under Section 2(i), the country would not develop the sports program and allow the training of young athletes who have potentials for national, regional and even world competitions in Olympic games.
He pointed out that the Committee on Human Resources has given little attention to sports development. He concurred that the first sentence, to wit "The State shall promote physical education" would encourage the development of a healthy and alert citizenry. He stated that public and private colleges and universities, the Armed Forces and other private clubs should be encouraged to prepare for competitions to avoid the further deterioration of sports.
Mr. Padilla opined that the schools are the primary source of good athletes and stressed the need to overcome the impression that a good athlete cannot be a good student.
He urged the Committee to give importance to sports rather than limit it to Section 2(i).
In response thereto, Mr. Villacorta agreed that the Committee would need Mr. Padilla's assistance in improving the provision on sports and physical development.
Mr. Padilla also stressed that amateur sports, as distinguished from professional sports, should be encouraged inasmuch as the highest ideal of any student athlete is to make the Olympic National Team. He stated that the importation of foreign basketball players should be discouraged as they are excessively paid while enjoying so many privileges.
Reacting thereto, Mrs. Quesada stated that the original intention was to have a separate section on sports and that there were several sections devoted to-it based on the proposal submitted by the Bureau of Sports Development of the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports (MECS). This proposal, she informed, was trimmed down due to the length of the Article. She assured Mr. Padilla that the Committee appreciates the need to develop a healthy and alert citizenry and that the Article is not conceived merely in the context of school activities or programs, but in the light of total national sports development. She requested Mr. Padilla's assistance in improving the Section, which the latter agreed.
At this juncture, Mr. Sarmiento manifested that several Members had registered to interpellate and considering that a good number had left, he was moving for adjournment.
ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION
Thereupon, on motion of Mr. Sarmiento, there being no objection, the Chair declared the session adjourned until nine o'clock in the morning of the following day.
It was 6:09 p.m.
I hereby certify to the correctness of the foregoing.
Secretary-General
ATTESTED:
President
Approved on August 30, 1986
* See the Journal of August 30, 1986 for the correction.