| CONTACT: |
| Supreme Court of the Philippines Library Services, Padre Faura, Ermita, Manila, Philippines 1000 |
| (632) 8524-2706 |
| libraryservices.sc@judiciary.gov.ph |
[ VOL. II, July 22, 1986 ]
R.C.C. NO. 36
OPENING OF SESSION
At 9:43 a.m., the President, the Honorable Cecilia Muñoz Palma, opened the session.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is called to order.
NATIONAL ANTHEM
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please rise to sing the National Anthem.
Everybody rose to sing the National Anthem.
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please remain standing for the Prayer to be led by the Honorable Ricardo J. Romulo.
Everybody remained standing for the Prayer.
PRAYER
MR. ROMULO: Dear Lord, we beseech You to grant us the faith to believe that we can do the task assigned to us; the hope that our people will find our work worthy of ratification; and the charity to accept graciously the will of the majority in our deliberations.
In the silence of our hearts, let us now pray for our own intentions and the intentions of one another. Amen.
ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will please call the roll.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
The President is present.
The roll call shows 27 Members responded to the call.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair declares the presence of a quorum.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I move that we dispense with the reading of the Journal of yesterday's session.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
APPROVAL OF JOURNAL
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I move that we approve the Journal of yesterday's session.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I move that we proceed to the Reference of Business.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
The Secretary-General will read the Reference of Business.
REFERENCE OF BUSINESS
The Secretary-General read the following Communications and Committee Report, the President making the corresponding references:
COMMUNICATIONS
Communication from Mr. Salustiano G. Tengonciang of 13 Maginhawa, U.P. Village, Quezon City, proposing provisions that would provide for the development of a national language for understanding and unity, and saying that "bilingual education concentrates too much of our efforts in learning a language rather than on instilling in the youth nationalistic values."
(Communication No. 267 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on General Provisions.
Communication from Mr. Bonifacio M. Lacdoo of 9-A Monserrat St., "MBS" Caloocan City, proposing a legislature composed of all provincial governors.
(Communication No. 268 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on the Legislative.
Letter from Mr. Delfin R. Manlapaz of 1707 E. Rodriguez, Sr. Boulevard, Cubao, Quezon City, Metro Manila, proposing an amendment to Proposed Resolution No. 496 (Committee Report No. 24), which would provide for the creation of a citizen-owned Reservoir of National Credit.
(Communication No. 269 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on the National Economy and Patrimony.
Communication from Mr. Cesar C. Sanchez of 19 ACSIE Avenue, Severina Industrial Estate, Km. 16, West Bicutan, Parañaque, Metro Manila, proposing a provision that will require elected national officials headed by the President to come up with an Economic Development Program, embodying a general plan based on priorities for implementation within a specific period of time.
(Communication No. 270 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on the National Economy and Patrimony.
Position paper of the American Chamber of Commerce of the Philippines, Inc., in support of Proposed Resolution No. 389, introduced by the Honorable Ambrosio Padilla, entitled: "RESOLUTION PROPOSING A PROVISION ALLOWING FOREIGN INVESTORS TO ACQUIRE, HOLD OR OWN LOTS WITH LIMITED AREA REQUIRED FOR THE OPERATION OF EXPORT-ORIENTED INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES."
(Communication No. 271 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on the National Economy and Patrimony.
Position paper of the American Chamber of Commerce of the Philippines, Inc. on foreign investments and multinational corporations role in rebuilding the Philippine economy.
(Communication No. 272 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on the National Economy and Patrimony.
Resolution No. 1, series of 1986, of the Archbishop Luis del Rosario Assembly, Pagadian City, proposing a provision in the Declaration of Principles that the basic and fundamental unit of the nation as a body politic is the family institution and that the preservation of its solidarity, development and strength is the primordial concern of the State.
(Communication No. 273 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of Principles.
Resolution No. 2, series of 1986, of the Archbishop Luis del Rosario Assembly, Pagadian City, proposing a provision for the retention of the U.S. military bases in the Philippines.
(Communication No. 274 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on General Provisions.
Letter from the Alliance of Farmers Union in Zamboanga del Sur, signed by Mr. Wilfredo Alinton, submitting a program for genuine land reform.
(Communication No. 275 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Social Justice.
Resolution No. 115 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Negros Oriental, expressing its objection to the disregard of the proprietary rights of the province and suggesting that this be corrected through a provision promoting local autonomy.
(Communication No. 276 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Local Governments.
Letter from Mr. Custodio C. Lauron of Bacuag, Surigao del Norte, suggesting provisions on citizenship, suffrage, qualifications of local candidates, retention of death penalty, sessions of Congress from January to November, fiscal year to coincide with the calendar year, and approval of the budget before Congress adjourns, among others.
(Communication No. 277 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Steering Committee.
An article by the honorable Commissioners Yusup R. Abubakar, Lugum L. Uka, and Ahmad Domocao Alonto, entitled: "VICE-PRESIDENT LAUREL'S TRIP TO SPAIN UNDERSCORES THE ARABIC INFLUENCE IN THE SPANISH LANGUAGE AND HISTORY — Islam is a universal faith: 55 million Moslems coexist with 700 million Buddhists in China, 30 million Moslems live in friendship with the Russians, 9 percent of the population in Yugoslavia are Moslems — we had religious unity way back in 1930 but Marcos, pursuing the policy of divide and rule, promoted religious strife."
(Communication No. 278 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Human Resources.
A detailed list of native folk songs to be taught in the elementary and high school levels, to be furnished all Members of the Commission for their favorable consideration, respectfully submitted by the honorable Commissioners Hilario G. Davide, Jr., Yusup R. Abubakar, Napoleon G. Rama, Regalado E. Maambong and Lugum L. Uka who are among the authors of Proposed Resolution No. 451, for a better understanding of the implementation of Section 19 thereof.
(Communication No. 279 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Human Resources.
COMMITTEE REPORT
Committee Report No. 32 on Proposed Resolution No. 533, prepared by the Committee on the National Economy and Patrimony, entitled:
Sponsored by Hon. Villegas, Tadeo, Bacani, Bengzon, Jr., Bennagen, Foz, Gascon, Monsod, Natividad, Ople, Romulo, Sarmiento, Suarez, Uka and Villacorta.
To the Steering Committee.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
CONSIDERATION OF C.R. NO. 22
(Article on the Legislative/National Assembly)
Continuation
PERIOD OF SPONSORSHIP AND DEBATE
MR. RAMA: I move that we continue the consideration of Committee Report No. 22 on the Article on the Legislative/National Assembly.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
The body will now proceed to the consideration on Second Reading of the Article on the Legislative/National Assembly.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Rodrigo be recognized to interpellate the sponsor.
THE PRESIDENT: May we request Commissioner Davide, Chairman of the Committee on the Legislative, to occupy the rostrum, and the members of the Committee to please join Commissioner Davide.
Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, first of all, I would like to announce that I am a member of this Committee, but I signed the report with reservations on two grounds. I had my reservation on the report of the Committee for the unicameral system of legislature and also on the novel provisions on election by sector and party list and also on the reserved powers of initiative and referendum.
May I premise my question with certain statements. Madam President, I am not against the idea of election by sector and party list; it is a good idea. But the problem is the mechanics, how to implement it. From the time this was suggested by certain groups and certain Members of this Commission, I already requested them to submit a plan whereby this idea can be implemented in a practical way. Up to now, I have not seen nor heard any practical way of implementing this election by sector and party list.
As to initiative and referendum, I am also in favor of the idea because this is direct democracy, reserved power of the people to act directly instead of through elected representatives. But, again, there is the practical difficulty. Even the UP Law Constitution Project which recommends initiative and referendum calls attention to this practical difficulty, and I quote:
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, the Committee itself has decided to discuss the effects of this particular provision. So the issue was whether it would be mandatory or directory, whether it would only be an authority to be granted to the legislature. What prevailed was that it should only be an authority to be granted to the legislature, and so we do not qualify it as either directory or mandatory.
MR. RODRIGO: Thank you very much.
On page 14, Section 27, lines 20 to 21, reads: "The National Assembly shall provide for a system of initiative and referendum." Is this mandatory or directory?
MR. DAVIDE: The Committee would only say that that is a power or authority vested upon the legislature in order to implement a desired policy to allow people power to be institutionalized in the Constitution.
MR. RODRIGO: Yes, if and when the Members of the legislature think that the time is right for it.
MR. DAVIDE: That would be the effect, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: Thank you very much.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Foz be recognized to interpellate.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Foz is recognized.
MR. FOZ: Madam President, I have at least two questions, if the Committee is willing to entertain them. I would like to refer to Section 16 of the proposed resolution on the Article on the National Assembly. It says here, and I quote:
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, we used the word "tenure" instead of "term." So, necessarily, if he vacates his office as a Member of the National Assembly, resigns or is removed from such office, then he may thereafter be appointed to any other office provided that such office is not covered by the second sentence.
MR. FOZ: What I am after is whether this disqualification of holding any other office in the government is absolute, meaning, that no appointment whatsoever can be extended to him by the President, or he can be appointed but he loses or forfeits his membership in the National Assembly.
MR. DAVIDE: In view of the fact, Madam President, that the prohibition extends to the period during his tenure, it would follow that if a Member accepts any position within the period for which he was elected, he should vacate his position in the National Assembly because that exceeds his tenure.
MR. FOZ: So his acceptance of a position outside the legislature would result in the loss of his membership in the legislature.
MR. DAVIDE. Yes, Madam President.
MR. FOZ: Thank you.
I have a related question here. The sponsor will recall that in our provisions on the Civil Service Commission, we have a more or less similar provision about disability or disqualification. I call attention to Section 4 in our draft on the Civil Service Commission provision, which reads:
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, Madam President, but if the idea is to delete this because it is already covered by that particular provision, we believe this should be retained because it would apply specifically to the Members of the National Assembly.
MR. FOZ: Will the sponsor not agree that Section 4 of the Civil Service Commission provision, which uses particularly the phrase "in any capacity to any public office or position," would be a more-embracing extent or scope than what is now contained in Section 16 of the resolution?
MR. DAVIDE: The interpretation would be practically the same, because the prohibition is:
No Member of the National Assembly shall hold any other office or employment in the government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporation during his tenure.
It means the holding in any capacity.
MR. FOZ: What about the term "government-owned or controlled corporations"? Does this cover the subsidiaries of these government corporations?
MR. DAVIDE: That is the intention of the Committee. We prepared this report before the amendments to the concept of government-owned or controlled corporation were taken up by the Commission pursuant to the amendment of Commissioners Romulo and Ople. So at the proper time, probably we could entertain any amendment for symmetry.
MR. FOZ: Is the sponsor saying that possibly we should amend this to include the phrase which was proposed by Commissioner Romulo in the draft on the Civil Service Commission provision which reads: "including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters"?
MR. DAVIDE: That is what I have just said, Madam President. We will entertain any proposal to achieve symmetry between that provision and Section 16 of the proposed resolution.
MR. FOZ: But does the sponsor not think, Madam President, that if we do that we would delimit the extent of the prohibition, so that Members of the National Assembly could be appointed and could accept positions in the subsidiaries of these government corporations?
MR. DAVIDE: I think the amendment of Commissioners Romulo and Ople was to include the phrase: "government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters and their subsidiaries." But we could get the true input of that upon inquiry from Commissioner Romulo.
We would like so seek the assistance of Commissioner Romulo, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Romulo is recognized.
MR. ROMULO: Our amendment to the provision on the Civil Service Commission was restricted to those government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters. Therefore, those government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters would continue to fall within the ambit of the Civil Service Commission. However, the subsidiaries of those corporations with original charters would be exempt from the Civil Service.
MR. DAVIDE: From the Civil Service or from the Commission on Audit because there were two, if I remember correctly?
MR. ROMULO: No, only from the Civil Service.
MR. DAVIDE: From the Civil Service.
MR. ROMULO: Yes.
MR. DAVIDE: Then at the proper time, Madam President, the Committee will be prepared to entertain amendments to reflect the intention of the Commission.
MR. FOZ: Would adoption of such an amendment, Madam President, mean that Members of the National Assembly may be appointed, let us say, to directorship of subsidiaries of government-owned or controlled corporations?
MR. DAVIDE: Unless there is an amendment to include their subsidiaries, it can be interpreted to mean that they may be, but the real intention of the Committee is not to allow them.
MR. FOZ: In that case, the Committee will not accept any proposed amendment that would not exclude subsidiaries of these government corporations?
MR. DAVIDE: That "would not exclude" them from being appointed to subsidiaries.
MR. FOZ: In other words, the intention is really to extend the coverage of the disqualification even to subsidiaries?
MR. DAVIDE: That is our intention, and we will welcome any proposal at the proper time, Madam President, to amend this section.
MR. FOZ: In that connection, Madam President, the same term "government-owned or controlled corporations during his term of office'' appears in the following section, Section 17, in connection with the financial interest of the Members in any contract or any franchise or special privilege with the government. Would the same intention of the Committee apply in this case that the prohibition or disqualification be made applicable even to subsidiaries of government-owned or controlled corporations?
MR. DAVIDE: If the subsidiaries have the authority or the power to grant any franchise or special privilege or to enter into any contract with any other party, the prohibition will extend to them.
MR. FOZ: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner de Castro be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de Castro is recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you, Madam President. Will the sponsor yield to a few questions?
MR. DAVIDE: Very gladly, Madam President.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you.
I notice that the Committee maintained the Commission on Appointments consisting of 24 members, as provided for in the 1935 Constitution. In maintaining this agency, has the Committee considered the many misfeasance and nonfeasance of the Commission on Appointments? I will say that misfeasance and nonfeasance are still light words to use considering the many misdeeds that the Commission on Appointments had brought upon the appointees of the President for confirmation.
MR. DAVIDE: Commissioner de los Reyes will answer the question.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Yes. Undoubtedly, there are misfeasance and nonfeasance committed by the members of the Commission on Appointments, but the evil is greater if there is no Commission on Appointments because there will be a unilateral appointment by the President.
MR. DE CASTRO: Since the Commissioner has admitted the evil of the Commission on Appointments, is he willing to substitute it with a more prestigious body to pass upon presidential appointments?
MR. DE LOS REYES: It may also be a Commission on Appointments but with a different composition if that is the idea so that it will not be exclusively composed of politicians.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you.
MR. DE LOS REYES: I think that is the idea of the Commissioner.
MR. DE CASTRO: I would only like to put on record the many sad experiences we in the Armed Forces suffered in the hands of the Commission on Appointments. There is no question that the Armed Forces is one of our mainstays for the democratic stability of our country.
Sometime in 1960, when I was a member of the AFP Promotions Board, we bypassed one lieutenant colonel because he was not fit for the next rank of full colonel. We submitted the list, through the President, to the Commission on Appointments. The presiding officer, upon reading the long list of lieutenant colonels to be confirmed to full colonels, found out that his man was not there so he put the list under his desk and told the majority floor leader of the Commission on Appointments to be absent. Only two days were left for the Congress to meet, so there was hurried work. The Promotions Board was in a hurry as it was under pressure to include that man so that the long list of lieutenant colonels may not be prejudiced. As Chairman of the Committee, I was constrained to include that man. And when the Chairman of the Commission on Appointments saw the name of his man, he approved the list on the last day. I do not know whether or not it passed the scrutiny of the Commission on Appointments. That man was promoted and confirmed to full colonel, and later, again by political attachment, became a general of the Armed Forces, but he could not be given a command because he could not really command men.
We are insulating the Armed Forces from partisan politics. We want the Armed Forces to be free from anything that will include political interference because we found out that political influence destroys the morale of the Armed Forces. We want a new Armed Forces today. We do not want a man who will bend on his knees to the Commission on Appointments so he can be confirmed and we do not want the Commission on Appointments a stepping stone for a star. So we thought of other means by which the officers of the Armed Forces may be confirmed when appointed by the President.
I would like to state also my little experience, if the honorable Chairman permits. The question with me is I am old enough to have so many experiences. I was appointed Chairman of the Police Commission in 1966. My name was submitted for confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. One member of the Commission, a Senator, told me to see him. I was quite busy at that time because we were professionalizing the police force, so I asked him if we could deal with the matter on the telephone. Considering the tenor of his order and my temperament, I did not see him. I was bypassed.
The next year, that Senator was in the Commission again; the same situation happened. His temperament and my temperament could not meet. I was again bypassed.
For seven years of my stay in the Police Commission, I was twice bypassed but always reappointed. I cannot with bended knees, stay in a position where I have to beg. I was confirmed only on the last day when martial law was declared and the Senate was already to be abolished the following day.
Madam President, is this the way our Commission on Appointments shall deal with the appointees of the President? I understand that what that Senator wanted was to put his men in the police force, whether qualified or not, under the Police Act. He recommended 50 permanent employees and 50 casual employees.
Madam President, let us not maintain this system. Let us, for the first time, be honorable in our position.
I filed Proposed Resolution No. 330 which seeks to create a Committee on Appointments, in place of the Commission on Appointments, the same recommendation of the UP Law Center, which was referred to the Committee on Constitutional Commissions and Agencies. I do not know whether or not the Committee has taken action on this, but I have not had the honor to be invited and asked about this resolution. I think it is still in the dead file or somewhere. The UP Law Center recommends that this Commission be under the executive. I do not know whether this may fit in the Committee on the Legislative as a Committee on Appointments in lieu of the Commission on Appointments. Can this be part of the Committee on the Legislative, not of the Committee on the Executive or the Committee on Constitutional Commissions and Agencies?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, that particular resolution as stated by the Honorable de Castro was referred to the Committee on Constitutional Commissions and Agencies, so it was not referred to our Committee. Anyway, we will try our best to answer or comment on the observations just made.
We expect, of course, some injustices which will be committed by a commission. But restoring the Commission cannot be prevented simply because of some occasional errors committed by it before. We consider the fact that appointments to the government by the President, without the approval by the Commission on Appointments, may result in what we had just witnessed in the last years when only the President exercised the power to appoint without any check by any other department of the government. So the evils sought to be avoided by the existence of a Commission on Appointments are far lesser than the evils which may be produced without the existence of a Commission on Appointments.
MR. DE CASTRO: I agree with the sponsor.
MR. DAVIDE: If the things which the Commissioner has enumerated happened before, it was probably because of the rules of the Commission which would require the concurrence of all its members before an appointment may be approved. Probably, we can have a relaxation of the rule as to the number of members of the Commission who will vote in order that an appointment may be considered as confirmed. Perhaps, a lesser number will do. Yesterday, we restored a bicameral system of legislature. With the restoration of the Senate, we look forward to a new Congress of the Philippines with more responsible people, with people who would now consider and take into account people power itself. So, perhaps, there will be no repetition of what happened in the past.
MR. DE CASTRO: I hope so, and I fully agree with the honorable sponsor that there must be a check and balance on the appointments made by the President. Will the honorable sponsor welcome certain amendments to the Commission on Appointments at the proper time?
MR. DAVIDE: We will welcome any proposal, Madam President, because we have not incorporated in this Article the manner of how the Commission on Appointments shall vote on a given appointment to be confirmed or otherwise by it.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you.
For the information of the body, the Commission on Appointments — may the soul of Congressman Crisologo rest in peace — had been the subject of great talk for two years when one man refused to meet him.
Thank you, Madam President. In due time, we will make the proper amendments.
MR. DAVIDE: Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Bacani be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: Will the members of the Committee yield to a few questions?
MR. DAVIDE: Very gladly, Madam President.
BISHOP BACANI: Thank you.
In Section 2, we set the number of Members of the National Assembly at not more than 250. I would like to ask whether this will remain even with the change introduced yesterday.
MR. DAVIDE: It will remain unless amended during the period of amendments because the Senate will be an entirely different House to be composed, as proposed by the Committee, of 24 Members.
BISHOP BACANI: Suppose the population of the Philippines increases in the year 2025, does the sponsor not foresee any flexibility in it?
MR. DAVIDE: As provided for here the maximum is 250 Members. Of course, we have a provision here which states:
Within three years following the return of every census, the National Assembly shall make a reapportionment of legislative districts based on the standards provided in the preceding section.
Of course, if the intention is to provide for a flexibility of the composition depending on the increase in population, meaning, we maintain the ratio of population to Representative as in the initial National Assembly, perhaps, we could add in Section 2 the clause UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OR THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
BISHOP BACANI: So will the sponsor be amenable to such a change?
MR. DAVIDE: The Committee will entertain any amendment on Section 2, Madam President.
BISHOP BACANI: Yes, thank you. I would like to be clarified as to the meaning of "sectoral and party list representative." What is embraced within the scope of these words?
MR. DAVIDE: The main proponent for the sectoral representation is Commissioner Villacorta and for the party list, Commissioner Monsod. May I request, Madam President, that we recognize Commissioner Villacorta to be followed by Commissioner Monsod.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Villacorta will make the necessary explanation.
MR. VILLACORTA: Madam President, if I understand it right, the Chairman of the Committee on the Legislative would want me to elaborate on the concept of sectoral representation. The idea of giving meaningful representation, particularly to the farmers and the workers, would be our Commission's humble gesture of extending protection to the interests of these groups which are not adequately attended to in normal legislative deliberations. Sectoral representation is a necessity, especially in these times when the people are giving the democratic process another chance, if not its last chance. Providing for mechanisms which would enhance the chances of marginalized sectors in electing their Representatives to the National Assembly will keep their hopes alive in the principle of peaceful change. This imperative becomes more urgent when this Commission recently adopted a bicameral system of legislature. We have heard apprehensions that the Upper House might be monopolized by the moneyed sectors and might protect vested property interests. Therefore, I would like to know if the Committee on the Legislative would consider identifying the mechanics of multiparty and multisectoral representation in the Constitution instead of leaving the mechanics to the legislature and, therefore, unnecessarily make our masses wait much longer before they are sectorally represented in the legislature. Contrary to the claim of Commissioner Rodrigo that the proponents of this sectoral representation idea have not submitted a single proposal for the mechanics, in fact, there have been two resolutions which were submitted and considered by the Committee. The first was submitted by Commissioners Monsod, Romulo and Foz and the second was actually an amendment of the first by this humble Member, together with Commissioners Aquino, Ople, Nieva, Suarez, Davide, Sarmiento, Uka, Quesada, Azcuna, Jamir, Tadeo, Garcia, Rosario Braid, Bennagen and Villegas. The proposals incorporate the concept of sectoral representation with that of the multiparty system, and since the Committee is calling on Commissioner Monsod to explain the mechanics of the multiparty system, I will leave it to the honorable Commissioner to explain the details of that system. But I would like to point out that the UP Law Center, in its voluminous reference materials, also referred to the merits of multisectoral representation.
On page 31 of Volume 1, annotated provisions of the UP Law Center's draft, the advantages of sectoral representation include:
First, it encourages interest in political affairs on the part of a large number of citizens who feel they do not have the opportunity to elect satisfactory spokesmen under the present system. Many who do not vote when the result is a foregone conclusion will do so when they have the assurance that their vote will likely affect the result.
Second, the minority groups are not forced to resort to extraparliamentary means to express their interest and to influence governmental policies, since every citizen is given a substantial representation which stands to develop a feeling of cooperation among all groups.
There are many other advantages, and I would like to emphasize that the UP Law Center devoted almost five pages defending the sectoral representation as against one page describing the drawbacks of such an idea.
I believe, Madam President, that for as long as the sectors, particularly the marginalized sectors, have a voice and the ability to influence legislation through their direct representatives, the masses will not have to seek recourse in institutions and practices that are outside the purview of the law.
Moreover, sectoral representation will lead to a more dynamic and vibrant democracy. It will engender the rise of nontraditional political parties and greater participation of people's organizations. There will likewise be more genuine grass-roots consultation. The people will have direct and firsthand experience in electoral process, for sectoral representation merges the features and dynamics of both direct and representative democracy.
At huli sa lahat, ibig ko sanang basahin ang ilang verses na sinulat ng aking hinahangaang makata, Commissioner Soc Rodrigo:
Marami pong salamat.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: I thank the Honorable Villacorta for the very beautiful defense of the idea of a sectoral representation, but I am already in basic sympathy with that. I want that myself. Only, I want to ask what sectors will be included. Will it be the farmers, teachers, et cetera? What will be the criteria or the bases for the creation of recognition of the sectors that will be represented in the Assembly?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, on the matter of the sectoral representation and the mechanics for the implementation thereof, the Committee had left it to a law to implement the same. That is why the provision here reads: "and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected from the sectors and party list." The law itself implementing this will provide which sectors to be represented.
BISHOP BACANI: How will we determine these sectors?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, since this is also on the matter of the party list, may we seek the recognition of Commissioner Monsod for the question of Commissioner Bacani?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: Thank you, Madam President.
I would like to make a distinction from the beginning that the proposal for the party list system is not synonymous with that of the sectoral representation. Precisely, the party list system seeks to avoid the dilemma of choice of sectors and who constitute the members of the sectors. In making the proposal on the party list system, we were made aware of the problems precisely cited by Commissioner Bacani of which sectors will have reserved seats. In effect, a sectoral representation in the Assembly would mean that certain sectors would have reserved seats; that they will choose among themselves who would sit in those reserved seats. And then, we have the problem of which sector because as we will notice in Proclamation No. 9, the sectors cited were the farmers, fishermen, workers, students, professionals, business, military, academic, ethnic and other similar groups. So these are the nine sectors that were identified here as "sectoral representatives" to be represented in this Commission. The problem we had in trying to approach sectoral representation in the Assembly was whether to stop at these nine sectors or include other sectors. And we went through the exercise in a caucus of which sector should be included which went up to 14 sectors. And as we all know, the longer we make our enumeration, the more limiting the law become because when we make an enumeration we exclude those who are not in the enumeration. Second, we had the problem of who comprise the farmers. Let us just say the farmers and the laborers. These days, there are many citizens who are called "hyphenated citizens." A doctor may be a farmer; a lawyer may also be a farmer. And so, it is up to the discretion of the person to say "I am a farmer" so he would be included in that sector.
The third problem is that when we go into a reserved seat system of sectoral representation in the Assembly, we are, in effect, giving some people two votes and other people one vote. We sought to avoid these problems by presenting a party list system. Under the party list system, there are no reserved seats for sectors. Let us say, laborers and farmers can form a sectoral party or a sectoral organization that will then register and present candidates of their party. How do the mechanics go? Essentially, under the party list system, every voter has two votes, so there is no discrimination. First, he will vote for the representative of his legislative district. That is one vote. In that same ballot, he will be asked: What party or organization or coalition do you wish to be represented in the Assembly? And here will be attached a list of the parties, organizations or coalitions that have been registered with the COMELEC and are entitled to be put in that list. This can be a regional party, a sectoral party, a national party, UNIDO, Magsasaka or a regional party in Mindanao. One need not be a farmer to say that he wants the farmers' party to be represented in the Assembly. Any citizen can vote for any party. At the end of the day, the COMELEC will then tabulate the votes that had been garnered by each party or each organization — one does not have to be a political party and register in order to participate as a party — and count the votes and from there derive the percentage of the votes that had been cast in favor of a party, organization or coalition.
When such parties register with the COMELEC, we are assuming that 50 of the 250 seats will be for the party list system. So, we have a limit of 30 percent of 50. That means' that the maximum that any party can get out of these 50 seats is 15. When the parties register they then submit a list of 15 names. They have to submit these names because these nominees have to meet the minimum qualifications of a Member of the National Assembly. At the end of the day, when the votes are tabulated, one gets the percentages. Let us say, UNIDO gets 10 percent or 15 percent of the votes; KMU gets 5 percent; a women's party gets 2 1/2 percent and anybody who has at least 2 1/2 percent of the vote qualifies and the 50 seats are apportioned among all of these parties who get at least 2 1/2 percent of the vote.
What does that mean? It means that any group or party who has a constituency of, say, 500,0()0 nationwide gets a seat in the National Assembly. What is the justification for that? When we allocate legislative districts, we are saying that any district that has 200,000 votes gets a seat. There is no reason why a group that has a national constituency, even if it is a sectoral or special interest group, should not have a voice in the National Assembly. It also means that, let us say, there are three or four labor groups, they all register as a party or as a group. If each of them gets only one percent or five of them get one percent, they are not entitled to any representative. So, they will begin to think that if they really have a common interest, they should band together, form a coalition and get five percent of the vote and, therefore, have two seats in the Assembly. Those are the dynamics of a party list system.
We feel that this approach gets around the mechanics of sectoral representation while at the same time making sure that those who really have a national constituency or sectoral constituency will get a chance to have a seat in the National Assembly. These sectors or these groups may not have the constituency to win a seat on a legislative district basis. They may not be able to win a seat on a district basis but surely, they will have votes on a nationwide basis.
The purpose of this is to open the system. In the past elections, we found out that there were certain groups or parties that, if we count their votes nationwide; have about 1,000,000 or 1,500,000 votes. But they were always third place or fourth place in each of the districts. So, they have no voice in the Assembly. But this way, they would have five or six representatives in the Assembly even if they would not win individually in legislative districts. So, that is essentially the mechanics, the purpose and objectives of the party list system.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President, am I right in interpreting that when we speak now of party list system though we refer to sectors, we would be referring to sectoral party list rather than sectors and party list?
MR. MONSOD: As a matter of fact, if this body accepts the party list system, we do not even have to mention sectors because the sectors would be included in the party list system. They can be sectoral parties within the party list system.
BISHOP BACANI: Thank you very much.
Madam President, I have two more brief questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, please proceed.
BISHOP BACANI: In Section 17, lines 22 and 24 read: "He shall not intervene in any matter before any office of the government for his pecuniary benefit." It seems the phrase "for his pecuniary benefit" was not in the 1973 Constitution. Would it be good to revert to the 1973 Constitution's formulation so that there will be no need to prove that such intervention was done for pecuniary benefit because that might be a hard thing to prove?
MR. DAVIDE: At the proper time, Madam President, meaning, during the period of amendments, the Committee will entertain any proposal.
BISHOP BACANI: Thank you very much.
And then on Section 18, we speak of the Question Hour for the members of the Cabinet and their deputies. Is this limited to them? How about heads of government corporations and other functionaries not related to any specific ministry? Would they not be also comprised within this?
MR. DAVIDE: Under the proposal and traditionally, as a concept in a parliamentary system of government, the Question Hour is limited only to the Cabinet members.
BISHOP BACANI: Thank you.
MR. DAVIDE: But the proposal may be taken up during the period of amendments.
BISHOP BACANI: Thank you very much.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Nolledo be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Nolledo is recognized.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you, Madam President.
Will the Chairman and members of the Committee please yield to interpellations?
MR. DAVIDE: Willingly, Madam President.
MR. NOLLEDO: With respect to Section 5, I remember that in the 1971 Constitutional Convention, there was an attempt to require candidates for the Assembly to be actual residents in the place not less than one year immediately preceding the day of the elections. So, my question is what is the Committee's concept of residence of a candidate for the legislature? Is it actual residence or is it the concept of domicile or constructive residence?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, insofar as the regular Members of the National Assembly are concerned, the proposed section merely provides, among others, "and a resident thereof"; that is, in the district, for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the day of the election. This was, in effect, lifted from the 1973 Constitution. I understand that in the 1973 Constitution, the interpretation given to it was domicile.
MR. NOLLEDO: That is correct because I understand also that the word "actual" was deleted by the 1971 Constitutional Convention in a plenary session.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, Madam President.
MR. NOLLEDO: With respect to the words on line 3 of Section 5, "on the day of the election," would the sponsor consider a candidate who turned 25 years old three days after the election but before his proclamation as a winner qualified as a Member of the legislature?
MR. DAVIDE: The requirement is on the day of the election as fixed by law which, under this proposal, would be the second Monday of May.
MR. NOLLEDO: And so, it should really be on the day of the election.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes.
MR. NOLLEDO: Because there was an opinion before that as long as one is not yet proclaimed and he reached the age before proclamation, the qualification will retroact to the date of the election. So, the Committee has abandoned that rule.
MR. DAVIDE: It is not abandoning that rule. This is also taken from the 1973 Constitution. If we allow the proposal, that is, reckoning the age requirement as of the day of proclamation, it would become uncertain. An individual who is not really qualified may participate in the election but delay his proclamation in order to be able to become a Member of the National Assembly.
MR. NOLLEDO: With respect to Section 9, subsection 3, on page 8, it is stated that the National Assembly may punish its Members for disorderly behavior, and with the concurrence of two-thirds of all its Members, suspend or expel a Member. But if the penalty is suspension, this shall not exceed 60 days.
My question is this: May the erring Member or the Member suspended or expelled appeal to the Supreme Court on the ground that his suspension or expulsion does not have any legal basis?
MR. DAVIDE: If my recollection is correct, in the case of Senator Osmeña, the Supreme Court considered it as a political question. The Rules provided for by the Congress of the Philippines on expulsion or suspension of its Members is within the exclusive prerogative of that body. However, I do not know its effect in view of the approval by this Commission of the Article on the Judiciary relating precisely to a definition of judicial power wherein political questions could no longer be an obstacle to a judicial determination of an issue.
MR. NOLLEDO: It is precisely with respect to that approved report of the Committee on the Judiciary that I am asking this question, because it may turn out that the Member suspended or expelled belongs to the minority party and by sheer majority vote of the majority party, he was suspended for reasons that are not sufficient for suspension.
MR. DAVIDE: By the clear intendment of the Article on the Judiciary, specifically on political questions, I believe that that matter may be inquired into. In other words, in this particular case, the doctrine of a political question may no longer be available.
MR. NOLLEDO: I agree with the sponsor especially if the suspended Member raises the question of abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction.
With respect to Sections 10 and 11 on page 8, I understand that the Committee has also created an Electoral Tribunal in the Senate and a Commission on Appointments which may cover membership from both Houses. But my question is: It seems to me that the committee report does not indicate which body should promulgate the rules that shall govern the Electoral Tribunal and the Commission on Appointments. Who shall then promulgate the rules of these bodies?
MR. DAVIDE: The Electoral Tribunal itself will establish and promulgate its rules because it is a body distinct and independent already from the House, and so with the Commission on Appointments also. It will have the authority to promulgate its own rules.
MR. NOLLEDO: With respect to Section 21, page 11, authorizing the legislature by law to grant to the President powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy in times of war or other national emergency, may I ask about the extent of these powers? Do these powers include the right to legislate?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, in times of war or national emergency, we have to consider certain situations. In times of war, there may be martial law proclaimed by the President, of course, with the concurrence of the legislature.
In the draft Article on the Executive, one of the effects of a proclamation of martial law is that the legislature and any other legislative body are not supplanted, meaning, they continue their functions and the exercise of their authority. So, necessarily, it would follow that under Section 21, we presuppose a situation where the National Assembly can continue to exercise its functions. Logically then, the areas over which the National Assembly may delegate to the President certain authority must be very limited to meet the exigency of the emergency.
MR. NOLLEDO: Do I understand that the rules to be promulgated by the President should be coextensive with the existence of war or emergency, after which emergency or war these rules shall cease to have effect?
MR. DAVIDE: No, because one has to consider the last paragraph which reads:
Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the National Assembly, such power shall cease upon the next adjournment of the National Assembly.
So, it will automatically be set aside upon the next adjournment, if there is no resolution revoking it earlier.
MR. NOLLEDO: I have two more questions, Madam President, if the sponsor does not mind. The first question refers to Section 22, subsection 5, page 12 of the committee report about the provision that "No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations." This provision was set forth in the 1973 Constitution, inspired by the illegal fund transfer of P26.2 million that Senator Padilla was talking about yesterday which was made by President Marcos in order to benefit the Members of the Lower House so that his pet bills would find smooth sailing. I am concerned about the discretionary funds being given to the President every year under the budget. Do we have any provision setting forth some guidelines for the President in using these discretionary funds? I understand Mr. Marcos abused this authority. He would transfer a fund from one item to another in the guise of using it to suppress insurgency. What does the sponsor say about this?
MR. DAVIDE: If Mr. Marcos was able to do that, it was precisely because of the general appropriations measure allowing the President to transfer funds. And even under P.D. No. 1177 where the President was also given that authority, technically speaking, the provision of the proposed draft would necessarily prevent that, Mr. Marcos was able to do it because of the decrees which he promulgated, but the Committee would welcome any proposal at the proper time to totally prevent abuse in the disbursements of discretionary funds of the President.
MR. NOLLEDO: My last question, Madam President, is with respect to Section 25, subsection 3, on page 13, of the report of the Committee. I know that the members of the Committee are aware that educating the citizens is a basic purpose of the State. And the private schools, including the Catholic schools, are playing, I should say, an important role in the attainment of this objective of educating the youth of the land. Would the sponsor please justify the written statement of the 1935 constitutional provision granting exemption from realty tax to private educational institutions?
MR. DAVIDE: Before answering that, we should qualify the property which would be subject to the real estate tax and for which the educational institution may now be exempt. Only buildings and lands or improvements which are actually, directly and exclusively used for religious, charitable or educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation. So, for the justification on why we would now want educational institutions to be exempted from real estate taxes with respect to lands, buildings and improvements owned by them but which are actually, directly and exclusively used for educational purposes, may I request the recognition of Commissioner Guingona, the main proponent, who is a member of the Committee, to speak for the Committee?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Guingona is recognized.
MR. GUINGONA: I think the honorable Commissioner Nolledo has already given the justification when he spoke on the importance of education. In other words, the concern of the Committee is the benefit that will be derived by the students from this proviso. Our focus of attention, therefore, is the students because the assistance that may be given to educational institutions is expected to redound to the benefit of the students, either in the matter of reduction of fees or the improvement of the quality of education. As a matter of fact, that is one of the main concerns of the Subcommittee on Education. We did not only provide for education; we also included a proviso regarding the need to ensure quality education in our educational institutions.
MR. NOLLEDO: I extend my thanks to the Chairman and members of the Committee.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Quesada be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Quesada is recognized.
MS. QUESADA: I would like to ask some clarificatory questions, Madam President.
I would like to raise some questions on Section 16, page 10. Earlier, Commissioner Foz already asked if this particular limitation to legislators of holding any office or employment in the government or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations during their tenure would also include appointments to board of regents, board of trustees, board of directors of state universities and colleges. It has been done in the past; and so, we would like to find out if this particular provision will preclude them from any such appointment.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, Madam President. during the tenure of the Member of the National Assembly.
MS. QUESADA: Thank you.
In Section 17, a prohibition on a Member of the National Assembly appearing as counsel has been specified. Would this also include making representation not as a counsel but just making personal representation before any court?
MR. DAVIDE: Would the Commissioner kindly specially what kind of representation it will be?
MS. QUESADA: The sponsor knows our "pakiusap," "nilalakad" or influence-peddling.
MR. DAVIDE: I think we have RA 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. I do not know if there is any corresponding provision regarding influence-peddling or a prohibition against influence-peddling.
MS. QUESADA: So, the sponsor thinks that this is covered in that particular republic act?
MR. DAVIDE: I believe so, if that influence, say, on an administrative official or an official exercising judicial functions would cause to prevail upon to render any particular decision which would be manifestly unjust or prejudicial or would cause undue disadvantage or prejudice to another party. I think that would be covered by RA 3019, as amended.
MS. QUESADA: As a follow-up question, lines 17 to 24 talk of pecuniary interest. It states: "neither he shall, directly or indirectly, be interested financially in any contract with, . . ." I wonder now whether this prohibition includes retainership of local and foreign monopolies. For instance, a Member of the legislature may not be directly getting into any government contract but may be actually retained in monopolies or some other business interests.
MR. DAVIDE: That matter of retainership of a multinational corporation would not be covered by the sentence from lines 17 to 22 for the reason that this is strictly limited to direct or indirect financial interests in any contract with or in any franchise or special privilege granted by the government or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations during his term of office.
MS. QUESADA: Would the sponsor not consider this retainership as an indirect way of exerting influence in the legislation of bills? Some legislators would initiate bills which would tend to promote the interest of their client-firms to the detriment of the public welfare.
MR. DAVIDE: If that would be a pure case of a conflict of interest, I think that would mean it can fall under indirect interest, and if it is in relation to his office, probably we could consider it as, say, an indirect appearance before any administrative body or an indirect intervention in any matter before any office of the government.
MS. QUESADA: I am not just referring to direct representation but actually on how they would be able to influence the passage or initiation of legislation that would favor the client-firms.
MR. DAVIDE: He could be disciplined. That may be a misbehavior committed by the individual member and, therefore, that matter can be the proper subject of an inquiry or investigation by the National Assembly itself, and he could be expelled or suspended, for that particular act amounts really to a conflict of interest on a matter over which the legislature may be called upon to act.
MS. QUESADA: So these are provisions that the legislature shall insure that such a breach of public trust is not broken by any of the Members of the National Assembly?
MR. DAVIDE: The National Assembly, under its rules on discipline. may provide a disciplinary measure or penalty on cases or matters which would cause an assault on the integrity of the Assembly itself.
MS. QUESADA: Thank you.
Another point that I would like to have some clarification on is Section 15, page 9 which reads:
A Member of the National Assembly shall, in all offenses punishable by not more than six years imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the National Assembly is in session; but the National Assembly shall surrender the Member involved to the custody of the law within twenty-four hours after its adjournment for a recess or for its next session, otherwise such privilege shall cease upon its failure to do so. A Member shall not be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in the National Assembly or in any committee thereof.
Has the Committee in its deliberations considered some mechanism by which this particular immunity granted to Members of the National Assembly shall not be abused?
MRs DAVIDE: Madam President may I request the recognition of Commissioner Jamir to answer for the Committee?
MR. JAMIR: Of course, the Committee will be willing to consider such matters as will prevent the abuse of these privileges granted to them.
MS. QUESADA: Yes, because there is the position that the granting of such immunity could lead to contempt on the part of legislators who, as representatives of the people, ought to hold themselves as examples in respecting rules demanded by an orderly society. As to privilege speech, a Member shall not be questioned or be held liable in any other place for a speech or debate in the National Assembly or any committee thereof. There is the fear that the broadening of this freedom of speech extended to legislators in the halls of legislation may be used to abuse officials and private individuals by making statements that hurt reputations and feelings. So I was wondering if the Committee has provided for any mechanism like, for example, a statement on the waiver of such immunity which would then allow the special committee of the legislature to discipline a Member who abuses his parliamentary privileges.
MR. JAMIR: At the proper time, the Committee will be willing to hear and consider proposals for the amendment of this in order to avoid abuse of those privileges. But may we inform the Commissioner that the privilege to the Members of the legislature has been given in order to prevent their being harassed in the performance of their duties. This is way back in the history of the House of Commons as well as in the United States Congress. This privilege, is granted in order that the Members of the legislature may perform their duties without fear of harassment and persecution.
MS. QUESADA: Yes, we do recognize that. On the other hand, we also think of balancing these privileges which could be exercised to the detriment of other citizens who have just as much right to be heard or be protected.
The final point for clarification is on page 13, Section 25, subparagraph (3). I came late when Commissioner Nolledo did talk about line 13 which says that charitable institutions, churches, etc., performing educational purposes shall be exempted from taxation. Would this cover schools which will claim that they are nonprofit? Would such an exemption be granted to institutions which might claim that they are charitable because they are not raking profits?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, what is exempted is not the institution itself. Under lines 28 to 30, those exempted from real estate taxes are lands, buildings and improvements actually, directly and exclusively used for religious, charitable or educational purposes. So, if that particular nonprofit educational institution has a land or a building or an improvement actually, directly and exclusively used for educational purposes, that educational institution is exempt from the payment of realty taxes on such land, building and improvement.
MS. QUESADA: So the exemption covers educational institutions which might claim that they are charitable institutions and would have all these functions that were mentioned on lines 23 to 25?
MR. DAVIDE: Insofar as charitable institutions, churches and parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, mosques and nonprofit cemeteries are concerned, they are totally exempt from taxation.
MS. QUESADA: The sponsor has not answered my question: Would charitable institutions include non-profit educational institutions?
MR. DAVIDE: No, because a nonprofit educational institution is for educational purposes.
MS. QUESADA: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam Presidents I ask that Commissioner Suarez be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Madam President.
I am sorry that I have to go through the full spectrum of the Article, but may I start with Section 1. I take it that Section I has to be interpreted with Section 27. Is my understanding correct, especially as regards the last sentence?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President. that is correct. The exception there has reference really to the provision on initiative and referendum which is specifically Section 27 of the proposed draft.
MR. SUAREZ: Because the general rule is, the legislative power is vested only in the National Assembly or in whatever Houses we are going to set up under the Constitution. And this system of recall and initiative in Section 27 would constitute the exception to that general rule.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: And Section 27 contemplates a situation where the people themselves would enact legislation.
MR. DAVIDE: Or disapprove or reject legislations.
MR. SUAREZ: That is right. To carry it to its logical conclusion, would this development necessitate a presidential approval as required in the case of a law enacted by the National Assembly?
MR. DAVIDE: That would depend on the law implementing Section 27, although the proposals of the principal authors on initiative and referendum established already the necessary mechanics for the full implementation of these two concepts.
MR. SUAREZ: But under Section 27, therein it expressly provides that the National Assembly shall provide for a system of initiative and referendum. In other words, the mechanism for instituting the system of, initiative and referendum is vested in the National Assembly. But the procedure for the final approval or veto of whatever may be instituted in pursuance to the system of initiative and referendum has not been provided under the draft Article.
MR. DAVIDE: We have not, although we believe that under Section 27, the law itself, which will be enacted by the National Assembly, will provide for everything in respect to the full implementation of the two concepts.
MR. SUAREZ: In other words, the Committee will leave that to the discretion of the National Assembly, including the exercise of the veto or approval power of the President, which is a constitutional precept or principle.
MR. DAVIDE: I think the National Assembly will consider that matter in the passage of the implementing law.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
Let me go to Section 2. This provision is about electing the 200 Members at the least from legislative districts apportioned among the provinces and cities in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants. With respect to the first Members of the National Assembly to be elected from legislative districts, did the Committee append an ordinance to the Constitution in order to determine the legislative districts contemplated under Section 2?
MR. DAVIDE: The Committee intends to approve a resolution to append an ordinance on the apportionment to the Constitution. But we felt that since we are still working on it, the Commission will have to take that up sometime later.
MR. SUAREZ: But does the Committee feel that that is essential before calling the first elections for the Members of the National Assembly?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, Madam President. And we hope that by next week, we can come up already with the ordinance to be appended to the Constitution. With the assistance of the Commission on Elections, by Friday, we will be ready with the apportionment of the seats.
MR. SUAREZ: For all the provinces and cities?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: When one says "cities," we have problems with respect to the so-called "highly urbanized cities" because of the ordinance appended to the 1973 Constitution in 1984. I have gone over this ordinance and I saw that there were seven highly urbanized cities consisting of Baguio, Olongapo, Cebu, Zamboanga, Cagayan de Oro, Davao and Iligan. But after that, for political maneuvering purposes, the City of Angeles was included and declared as a highly urbanized city. So, would the Committee consider all of these factors when they provide for the apportionment of the National Assembly by districts?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, Madam President. And we would earnestly solicit the assistance of the Commissioner in the preparation of the apportionment bill. We would like to call the attention of the body, however, that under the last paragraph of Section 2, it is provided that each legislative district shall comprise as far as practicable contiguous, compact and adjacent territory, provided, however, that each city with a population of more than 200,000, or each province shall have at least one representative. So, cities with a population of more than 200,000 will perhaps be entitled to more than one representation. In short, under this proposal, a city itself may be districted.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, and I would feel comfortable if the Committee will avoid gerrymandering for political purposes in setting up these legislative districts.
MR. DAVIDE: It is the special asset of this Commission that we according to our conscience. We will not gerrymander anything.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
Let me go to Section 18, the matter of a possible Question Hour for Members of the National Assembly to enjoy, as a right, calling upon Cabinet members. I take it that we are setting up a presidential system of government. Is my understanding correct?
MR. DAVIDE: That is correct, and we felt that the incorporation of this strictly parliamentary government concept into a presidential form of government would be very, very helpful and conducive to a further check on the executive.
MR. SUAREZ: But would it not violate the principle of separation of powers considering that in a presidential system of government, it is the President who is accountable to the electorate and he is not accountable to the National. Assembly which is an independent political instrumentality?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, we respectfully submit that it would not infringe upon that principle of separation of powers because that principle would not insulate one organ of the government from the other. Precisely, it is correlated with another principle of check and balance.
MR. SUAREZ: So, the sponsor would want to integrate this in a presidential system of government notwithstanding the fact that it is essentially a characteristic of a parliamentary system of government.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, because while it is a characteristic of the parliamentary system of government, we do submit that it is essential for the enhancement and the strengthening of the doctrine of check and balance.
MR. SUAREZ: And when one contemplates the appearance of a member of the Cabinet and his deputy to answer questions and interpellations by Members of the National Assembly, will it require a presidential approval considering that his Cabinet members are only extensions of the personality of the President?
MR. DAVIDE: No prior approval is necessary. The only authority of the President under this provision is on the last sentence which says:
When the security of the State so requires and the President so states in writing, the question hour shall be conducted in executive session.
MR. SUAREZ: In other words, notwithstanding this last sentence, it is mandatorily required that when summoned, the Cabinet Members must appear. But in a situation where there is a necessity to call them in an executive session, it must be so conducted.
MR. DAVIDE: That is correct.
MR. SUAREZ: In other words, the duty to appear remains.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, but it is mandatory.
MR. SUAREZ: But whether they will be conducting a public hearing or an executive session is the matter at hand.
MR. DAVIDE: Not a public hearing but a public session.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
The next point is on Section 25, subparagraph (3). This has already been asked by at least two Commissioners, because this is bothering quite a number of Members. Since under the 1935 Constitution there is a similar or identical provision but this was completely deleted in the 1973 Constitution, would the sponsor like to resuscitate it, revive it and reincorporate it under the new Constitution? Is that the meaning, Madam President?
MR. DAVIDE: No, Madam President, because it is not true that this particular provision was deleted in the 1973 Constitution. The 1935 provision on this matter was only modified in the 1973 Constitution. For instance, mosques and nonprofit cemeteries are all 1973 amendments to the 1935 Constitution. The words "actually" and "directly" are also 1973 words. Of course, in the 1973 Constitution, the word "educational," referring to line 30, did not appear.
MR. SUAREZ: That is exactly the most bothersome portion, restoring the word "educational" under this particular subsection. But let me clarify only if this is the intention of the members of the Committee. When one says "for educational purposes," lands, buildings and improvements are exempted from the payment of realty taxes, is that the thrust of this provision?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes. Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: And as an example, that means practically that the lands and buildings of the Far Eastern University, the Centro Escolar University, the University of Santo Tomas, the De La Salle University, the Philippine Women's University would all be exempt from the payment of realty taxes?
MR. DAVIDE: Subject to the qualifications mentioned. The three qualifications must be together or simultaneous, not individually. So, before any exemption can be availed of, it must be shown that the lands, buildings or the improvements are actually, directly and exclusively used for religious, charitable or educational purposes.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
Let us go to Section 26, subparagraph (2). In the 1973 Constitution, there were no exceptions; and now, it was included here the exception when a priest, preacher, minister or dignitary is assigned to the Armed Forces, or to any penal institution, or government orphanage or leprosarium. This is again substantially a reflection of the 1935 Constitution.
MR. DAVIDE: And the 1973 Constitution.
MR. SUAREZ: The 1973 Constitution, excuse me. May we know the reasons for proposing the inclusion of these exceptions?
MR. DAVIDE: The reason is that when a priest, preacher, minister or dignitary is assigned to the Armed Forces of the Philippines, he is actually serving the interest of the Armed Forces of the Philippines or the army of the people, or if he is assigned to a penal institution, necessarily, he is performing a duty which ought to be a duty of the government; so, in short, for a time he is being divorced from being just an ordinary member of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian institution or system of religion.
MR. SUAREZ: The last question is: Why did the Committee qualify orphanage with "government" when there are private orphanages that deserve the help and assistance of the government?
MR. DAVIDE: May I have that again, Madam President?
MR. SUAREZ: In this proposal, the Committee is qualifying orphanage with the word "government." Is it not a fact that there are private orphanages which deserve more aid and assistance than government orphanages?
MR. DAVIDE: That could probably be a subject of an amendment, although we feel that this particular subsection of Section 26 would refer to public money or property.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you for the clarifications, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask for the recognition of Commissioner Bengzon.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, may I suggest that, at this point in time, we suspend interpellations on the report of the Committee on the Legislative to be continued this afternoon.
In the meantime, I move that we vote on Third Reading on the committee reports on Suffrage, Constitutional Commissions and Bill of Rights.
I so move, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
The Secretary-General is requested to ring the bell so that those who may be in the lounge may come in for the voting.
NOMINAL VOTING
ON PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 468
ON THIRD READING
(Article on the Constitutional Commissions —
Common Provisions and Civil Service Commission)
MR. BENGZON: I move that we vote on Third Reading on Proposed Resolution No. 468.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
Printed copies of Proposed Resolution No. 468 were distributed on July 18, 1986 pursuant to Section 28, Rule VI of the Rules of the Constitutional Commission.
Voting on the proposed resolution on Third Reading is, therefore, in order.
The Secretary-General will read the title of the resolution.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: Proposed Resolution No. 468, entitled:
FIRST ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT: The body will now vote on this proposed resolution and the Secretary-General will call the roll.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President, I would like to be clarified. During the deliberations we divided the Article on the Constitutional Commissions into the Common Provisions, the Commission on Civil Service, the Commission on Audit and the Commission on Elections. Are we voting on the entire Article on constitutional bodies?
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, we are voting on Proposed Resolution No. 468. There are three other resolutions on that respect. We have separate resolutions for the COMELEC, the Civil Service Commission and the Commission on Audit. Proposed Resolution No. 468 refers to the Common Provisions and the Civil Service Commission.
MR. GUINGONA: I vote yes, Madam President.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
SECOND ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will conduct a second call for those who have not registered their votes.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 468
ON THIRD READING
(Article on the Constitutional Commissions —
Common Provisions and Civil Service Commission)
THE PRESIDENT: The results show 43 votes in favor and none against.
Proposed Resolution No. 468, as amended, is approved on Third Reading.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, I move that we vote on Third Reading on Proposed Resolution No. 521.
MR. FOZ: Madam President, there are certain errors which cropped up in the Third Reading copy. They are not exactly for the Committee on Style to correct. I think we should correct them before we take a vote on Third Reading.
THE PRESIDENT: Which one?
MR. FOZ: This is a minor correction on page 2, second line of the last paragraph. The word "on" should be OR.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other correction?
MR. FOZ: There are more on page 3.
THE PRESIDENT: There is already a corrected copy.
MR. FOZ: Has that already been corrected?
What about on page 3, subsection (10), which reads: "Perform such other functions as may be provided by law"? Has that been eliminated? That has been transposed to the Common Provisions on the Constitutional Commissions.
THE PRESIDENT: How should it read, please?
MR. FOZ: Subsection (10) on page 3, which reads: "Perform such other functions as may be provided by law" should be deleted.
THE PRESIDENT: Let the proper deletion be made on the corrected copy.
MR. FOZ: Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand the Secretariat distributed this corrected copy yesterday.
I would suggest that the pages leave the copies on the tables. Even if the Commissioners and I are absent, any document for distribution should be left on our respective tables.
NOMINAL VOTING
ON PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 521
ON THIRD READING
(Article on the Constitutional Commissions —
Commission on Elections)
MR. BENGZON: I move that we vote on Third Reading on Proposed Resolution No. 521.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
Printed copies of Proposed Resolution No. 521 were distributed on July 18, 1986 pursuant to Section 28, Rule VI of the Rules of the Constitutional Commission. Voting on the proposed resolution on Third Reading is, therefore, in order.
The Secretary-General will read the title of the resolution.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: Proposed Resolution No. 521, entitled:
FIRST ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT: The body will now vote on this proposed resolution and the Secretary-General will call the roll.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
SECOND ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will conduct a second call for those who have not registered their votes.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 521
ON THIRD READING
(Article on the Constitutional Commissions—
Commission on Elections)
THE PRESIDENT: The results show 44 votes in favor and none against.
Proposed Resolution No. 521, as amended, is approved on Third Reading.
NOMINAL VOTING
ON PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 469
ON THIRD READING
(Article on the Constitutional Commissions —
Commission on Audit)
MR. BENGZON: I move that we vote on Third Reading on Proposed Resolution No. 469.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
Printed copies of Proposed Resolution No. 469 were distributed on July 18, 1986 pursuant to Section 28, Rule VI of the Rules of the Constitutional Commission.
Voting on the proposed resolution on Third Reading is, therefore, in order.
The Secretary-General will read the title of the resolution.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: Proposed Resolution No. 469, entitled:
FIRST ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT: The body will now vote on this proposed resolution and the Secretary-General will call the roll.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
MR. GUINGONA: I abstain, Madam President. May I please explain my vote.
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner may proceed.
COMMISSIONER GUINGONA EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President, it is the opinion of this Member that the function of the Commission on Audit to serve as guardian of the people's money has been unduly restricted with regard to nongovernmental entities receiving subsidy or equity from the government, even where the government's equity in such entities as well as the amount of subsidy thereof might be substantial.
Thank you.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
SECOND ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will conduct a second call for those who have not registered their votes.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 469
ON THIRD READING
(Article on the Constitutional Commissions —
Commission on Audit)
THE PRESIDENT: The results show 42 votes in favor, none against and one abstention.
Proposed Resolution No. 469, as amended, is approved on Third Reading.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, I move that we vote on Third Reading on Proposed Resolution No. 486 on the Bill of Rights.
MR. BROCKA: Madam President, just a minor correction on page 2, Section 9 which reads: "No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble . . ." Could we not modify this phrase "or the right of the people peaceably to assemble" to read as follows: "or the right of the people to peaceably assemble"?
THE PRESIDENT: Page 2, Section 6?
MS. QUESADA: Point of clarification. Would the approval of this Bill of Rights on Third Reading preclude the request that we had earlier for the expansion of the Bill of Rights to include social, cultural and economic rights which we are going to address to the Committee on Style?
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, that can be taken up in the Article on Social Justice.
THE PRESIDENT: I beg the Commissioner's pardon?
MS. QUESADA: My inquiry is: Would the approval of this Bill of Rights preclude any expansion of the Article on the Bill of Rights to include social, cultural and economic rights as we had proposed earlier?
THE PRESIDENT: What does the Chairman of the Steering Committee say?
MR. BENGZON: It will not.
MS. QUESADA: It will not. So, it will all be contained in the Social Justice provisions.
THE PRESIDENT: If this is approved on Third Reading, it is approved as is, unless the body approves it with that reservation.
MS. QUESADA: For another clarification from the Committee. This is on the section on the right to strike. Is this part of the right to form organizations? Would the right to form associations exempt the right to strike?
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.
It was 11:59 a.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 12:02 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
MS. QUESADA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Quesada is recognized.
MS. QUESADA: I would like to withdraw my clarification; I have already been clarified.
THE PRESIDENT: So, we can proceed to vote on Proposed Resolution No. 486 on the Bill of Rights.
The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
NOMINAL VOTING
ON PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 486
ON THIRD READING
(Article on Bill of Rights)
MR. BENGZON: I move that we vote on Third Reading on Proposed Resolution No. 486.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
Printed copies of Proposed Resolution No. 486 were distributed on July 21, 1986 pursuant to Section 28, Rule VI of the Rules of the Constitutional Commission.
Voting on the proposed resolution on Third Reading is, therefore, in order.
The Secretary-General will read the title of the resolution.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: Proposed Resolution No. 486, entitled:
FIRST ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT: The body will now vote on this proposed resolution and the Secretary-General will call the roll.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
COMMISSIONER ROSARIO BRAID EXPLAINS HER VOTE
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Madam President, I vote yes but I would like to register my comment. The Bill of Rights which has expanded the notion of human rights is an excellent and progressive document, but I am quite disappointed because it has failed to address itself to the expanded notion of freedom of information. The latter states that the freedom of the individual must be accompanied by social responsibility, the State's responsibility, to protect these freedoms by providing equal opportunities to access of information through such mechanisms as appropriate decentralized structures so that the common man may have full participation.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
MR. FOZ: Madam President, I am voting yes but I would like to explain my vote.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Foz may proceed.
COMMISSIONER FOZ EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. FOZ: In connection with Section 7 of the Article on the Bill of Rights which states:
I should have said this during our voting on Third Reading on the provisions on the civil service regarding Section I on the scope of the civil service which reads:
The Civil Service embraces all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities and agencies of the Government, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters.
As I have said before, this is a general description of the scope or extent of what is known as civil service. We made the amendment that with reference to government-owned or controlled corporations those with original charters should be embraced by the civil service. That is all we said. We have never made any declaration that those in the civil service or in government-owned or controlled corporations have no right to organize or to enter into collective bargaining with their public employers. We were not making any declaration that they have no right to engage in concerted activities, including the right to strike.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, may I explain my vote.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong may proceed.
COMMISSIONER MAAMBONG EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. MAAMBONG: I vote yes, Madam President but I would just like to indicate for the Committee on Style that there is a misprint on page 3, Section 16 on the Third Reading copy of this Proposed Resolution No. 486. I think the proper word would be RECOGNIZANCE, not "cognizance."
THE PRESIDENT: That has been corrected.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you, Madam President.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Monsod
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, may I just have two minutes to explain my vote.
My vote is yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod may proceed.
COMMISSIONER MONSOD EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. MONSOD: I just want to clarify the criticism of that labor leader mentioned by Commissioner Foz who said that by adding "WITH ORIGINAL CHARTER" to the phrase "government-owned and controlled corporation," we prohibited those working in companies that do not have original charters from exercising any rights.
Madam President, it is the reverse. Those workers in corporations that do not have original charters have all the rights similar to those in private companies. That is the effect of that provision.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Natividad
MR. NATIVIDAD: Madam President, may I explain my vote?
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner has three minutes.
COMMISSIONER NATIVIDAD EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. NATIVIDAD: I vote yes, Madam President. I believe that this Bill of Rights is more dynamic than the one provided for in the 1973 Constitution although I failed to have one amendment inserted. This Bill of Rights contains vital provisions like: strict prohibition on hamletting and wiretapping, the provisions on release and recognizance, measures against filthy or inhuman conditions of our jails. and the prohibition on solitary confinement and holding prisoners incommunicado.
I think this Bill of Rights will be more responsive the needs of our people. Again, my vote is yes.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
COMMISSIONER PADILLA EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, I vote yes for the Bill of Rights which is absolutely necessary to protect the people from the possible abuses of the exercise the power of government. But I must state that I am disappointed at the abolition of the death penalty provided for in Section 20. While we will agree to the National Assembly to legislate on whether to retain or abolish the death penalty, Section 20, as worded, seen to be absurd in the sense that the Commission abolish the death penalty in the Constitution, and yet it allows the legislature to reinstate it. It should have been other wise — that we retain the death penalty and allow the legislature, in case circumstances so demand, either t retain or to abolish the death penalty.
The other point is with regard to the right to bail under Section 16. I would have preferred to retain the original provision: "All persons except those charger with capital offenses . . ." instead of "with offense punishable by reclusion perpetua," because a capital offense is not identical with capital punishment.
With regard to Section 7, there is the insertion of the phrase "public sector." As far as forming unions or self-organization is concerned, that has been approved. But there should be no right — at least not to be interprete as such — that because of the union of employees in the public sector or in the government, the employees now have the right to collective bargaining and the right to strike. It would be disastrous to public administration if employees in the civil service, especially those exercising governmental functions rather than proprietary functions, would be accorded the right to collective bargaining and, worse, the right to strike.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
COMMISSIONER QUESADA EXPLAINS HER VOTE
MS. QUESADA: I vote yes, but with that understanding clarified by Commissioner Foz.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
COMMISSIONER RODRIGO EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, I vote yes, although, like Commissioner Padilla, I am unhappy about the provision in Section 20 wherein by constitutional mandate we abolish the death penalty, but in the same breath or in the same sentence, we allow the legislature to reimpose it. It is my belief that the abolition of the death penalty should have been left entirely to the legislature.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
COMMISSIONER TADEO EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. TADEO: Ang boto ko ay oo, pero gusto ko pong magpaliwanag. Kung ang kalikasan ng ibon ay lumipad at ang kalikasan ng isda ay lumangoy, ang kalikasan naman ng tao ay ang magsama-sama. Ngunit hindi sapat ang pagkakaisa; inutil ang pagkakaisa kung walang sama-samang pagkilos. Kaya kaisa ako kay Commissioner Quesada.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
COMMISSIONER TINGSON EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, I joyfully vote yes with the observation that I am very happy. As far as I am concerned, this Bill of Rights of the new proposed charter seems to be much better than the provisions that we wrote in the 1973 and 1935 Constitutions.
Thank you.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
COMMISSIONER UKA EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. UKA: Madam President, I vote yes, but with the same observation as that of Commissioners Padilla and Rodrigo regarding Section 20. We speak the same language and I think the three of us have mental telepathy. (Laughter)
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Villacorta
COMMISSIONER VILLACORTA EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. VILLACORTA: Madam Presidents I vote in favor of the Article on the Bill of Rights with the under standing that Section 3 is not meant to be a censure of the legitimacy or detraction from the efficacy of the Presidential Commission on Good Government as it was liberally interpreted in the press.
I would like to place on record that I am one Commissioner who believes that the PCGG is a potent instrument for rectifying the abuses of the past dictatorial regime, and that the PCGG has, in large measure, been acting in good faith.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Villegas
COMMISSIONER VILLEGAS EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. VILLEGAS: I vote yes with the expectation that the reference to the fact that life starts at conception will be contained in another article. I just want to put on record that the idea that life starts at conception is not a sectarian one. As is very well known, one of the leading proponents for the inclusion of an anti-abortion provision in the Constitution is a non-Catholic, President Reagan, who said last week that he does not in any way try to remove a privilege from women even if he is against abortion because he does not think that women consider murder a privilege.
Thank you.
SECOND ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will conduct a second call for those who have not registered their votes.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 486
ON THIRD READING
(Article on Bill of Rights)
THE PRESIDENT: The results show 43 votes in favor, none against and no abstention.
Proposed Resolution No. 486 on the Bill of Rights, as amended, is approved on Third Reading.
MR. BENGZON: Finally, Madam President, I move that we vote on Third Reading on Proposed Resolution No. 530, the Article on Suffrage.
MR. REGALADO: Madam President, before we vote on this Article, may I just indicate for the benefit of the Committee on Style that the third paragraph of Section 1, which starts with the words "The National Assembly," having been overtaken by the events of yesterday, should be replaced either by the word LEGISLATURE or CONGRESS as the case may be.
THE PRESIDENT: We shall take note of the correction.
NOMINAL VOTING
ON PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 530
ON THIRD READING
(Article on Suffrage)
MR. BENGZON: I move that we vote on Third Reading on Proposed Resolution No. 530.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
Printed copies of Proposed Resolution No. 530 were distributed on July 21, 1986 pursuant to Section 28 Rule VI of the Rules of the Constitutional Commission.
Voting on the proposed resolution on Third Reading is, therefore, in order.
The Secretary-General will read the title of the resolution.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: Proposed Resolution No. 530, entitled:
FIRST ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT: The body will now vote on this proposed resolution and the Secretary-General will call the roll.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
COMMISSIONER DE CASTRO EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President, I abstain for the reason that those who do not know how to read or write are the best sources of electoral frauds. Nevertheless, these people can study how to read or write in a few nights through an adult education program.
I abstain, Madam President.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
COMMISSIONER PADILLA EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, I vote yes but I would like to adopt the observations of Commissioner de Castro on those who are not able to read or write.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
MR. RAMA: May I explain my vote, Madam President?
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner may proceed.
COMMISSIONER RAMA EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. RAMA: I would like to believe that one of the reasons we are here is to institute reforms in our system. I thought that one of the great evils in our system is cheating during elections. I believe if we have to institute reforms we must first look at the electoral process and find out what are the sources of cheating. The COMELEC itself through its Chairman, Ramon Felipe, then the Opposition representative to the COMELEC, has told this Commission that this provision that allows people who cannot read and write to vote is one of the major sources of cheating. According to Chief Justice Concepcion, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines has also called the attention of this Commission that this particular provision in the 1973 Constitution under Mr. Marcos which enfranchises the illiterate to vote is a great source of cheating. I, myself, observed that cheating had been committed because of this provision in the 1973 Constitution. The very least we could do is to listen to these people and to learn from experience. Therefore, we should have deleted this provision that enfranchises people who cannot read and write nor function as a voter in a democratic process.
So, I vote no.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
COMMISSIONER UKA EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. UKA: Madam President, I vote no because I am still waiting for the mechanism that will make the illiterate prepare their ballots secretly without the aid of someone. I am also waiting for the day when they will learn how to read and write, and that will not take a long time.
Thank you.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
MR. OPLE: Madam President, may I know how my vote was recorded?
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: The Commissioner voted yes.
MR. OPLE: May I explain my vote in a few words?
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner may proceed.
COMMISSIONER OPLE EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. OPLE: I think more than 600,000 Filipinos working overseas who are scattered in 117 countries of the world right now — I am referring to Filipinos on contract employment — will very gladly note the consideration demonstrated for them by the Constitutional Commission in explicitly acknowledging their right to exercise suffrage wherever they may be in accordance with one of the new provisions of the Article on Suffrage.
I am also very glad that the Constitutional Commission was able to prevent the cruel and unconscionable act of disenfranchising several million Filipinos who had been denied the opportunity to make themselves literate. I think that is also a very great service.
Thank you, Madam President.
SECOND ROLL CALL
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will conduct a second call for those who have not registered their votes.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
APPROVAL OF PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 530
ON THIRD READING
(Article on Suffrage)
THE PRESIDENT: The results show 40 votes in favor, 2 against and 1 abstention.
Proposed Resolution No. 530, as amended, is approved on Third Reading.
THE PRESIDENT: May I just make some announcements.
The Chair previously stated that in Proposed Resolution No. 468, there were only 43 affirmative votes. My vote was not recorded, but I voted. So, there should be 44 affirmative votes for Proposed Resolution No. 468.
In Proposed Resolution No. 469, Commissioner Davide approached the Chair and requested that he be permitted to cast his vote because he was out of the room.
Is there any objection to that request? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the request is granted.
May we now ask Commissioner Davide to cast his vote on Proposed Resolution No. 469, regarding the Commission on Audit.
MR. DAVIDE: Thank you, Madam President.
My vote on Proposed Resolution No. 469, entitled: RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE PROVISIONS ON THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION, is yes.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, before I move for a Suspension Of Session, I suggest that the Committee on Style organize its committees because there are enough materials for them to work on now.
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President, may I please inform the body that the Chairman of the Committee on Style, Commissioner Rodrigo, has already agreed with me that we will meet our respective committees early next week.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, I move that we suspend the session until this afternoon at two-thirty to continue the interpellations on the Article on the Legislative.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended until two-thirty in the afternoon.
It was 12:31 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 2:47 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: Madam President. I move that we continue the consideration of Committee Report No. 22. We are now in the period of sponsorship and debate on the Article on the Legislative. I ask that Commissioner Natividad be recognized to interpellate.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
Commissioner Natividad is recognized. The Chairman of the Committee on the Legislative, together with the members, is requested to please come forward.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Madam President, will the Chairman of the Committee yield to a few clarificatory questions?
MR. DAVIDE: Gladly, Madam President.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Section 16 on page 10 states the disqualifications of the Members of the National Assembly. It reads: "No Member of the National Assembly shall hold any other office or employment." Are they banned from practicing their profession? What is the concept here?
MR. DE LOS REYES: We have a new copy, the amended copy of the draft.
MR. NATIVIDAD: I see.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Does the Commissioner have it now?
MR. NATIVIDAD: I have it; but the sections have been changed.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, the Committee has submitted an amended Committee Report No. 22 incorporating some structural changes to conform with the decision of the Commission yesterday adopting the bicameral system. Copies of this report have already been distributed. May 1, therefore, move that this amended Committee Report No. 22 be formally considered as the draft Article on the Legislative Department to be the basis of further interpellations and amendments and that the same be incorporated into the Record.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none the motion is approved.
(The following is the whole text of Committee Report No. 22, as amended by the Committee )
COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 22
(AS AMENDED BY THE COMMITTEE)
Article_____
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
SECTION 1. The legislative power shall be vested in a Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the people by the provision of initiative and referendum.
SECTION 2. The Senate shall be composed of twenty-four Senators who shall be elected at large by the qualified voters of the Philippines, as may be provided by law.
SECTION 3. The term of office of Senators shall be four years and shall begin, unless otherwise provided by law, on the thirtieth day of June next following their election.
SECTION 4. No person shall be a Senator unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of the election, is at least thirty-five years of age, able to read and write, a registered voter, and a resident of the Philippines for not less than two years immediately preceding the day of the election.
SECTION 5. The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and fifty members who shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned among the provinces and cities in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected from the sectors and party list. The sectoral or party list representatives shall in no case exceed twenty percent of the entire membership of the House of Representatives.
Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact and adjacent territory, provided, however, that each city with a population of more than two hundred thousand, or each provinces shall have at least one representative.
Within three years following the return of every census, the Congress shall make a reapportionment of legislative districts based on the standards provided in this section.
SECTION 6. The Members of the House of Representatives shall be elected for a term of four years which shall begin, unless otherwise provided by law, at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following their election.
SECTION 7. No person shall be a Member of the House of Representatives unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of the election, is at least twenty-five years of age, able to read and write, and except the sectoral or party list representatives, a registered voter in the district in which he shall be elected, and a resident thereby for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the day of the election.
SECTION 8. Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular election of the Senators and the Members of the House of Representatives shall be held on the second Monday of May and every four years thereafter.
SECTION 9. In case a vacancy arises in the Senate or in the House of Representatives eighteen months or more before a regular election, the Commission on Elections shall call a special election to be held within sixty days after the vacancy occurs to elect the Senators or Members of the House of Representatives, as the case may be.
SECTION 10. The Congress shall convene once every year on the fourth Monday of July for its regular session, unless a different date is fixed by law, and shall continue to be in session for such number of days as it may determine until thirty days before the opening of its next regular session, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays. However, it may be called to session at any time by the President to consider such subjects or legislation as he may designate.
SECTION 11. (1) The Senate shall elect its President and the House of Representatives its Speaker, by a majority vote of all its respective Members.
Each House shall choose such other officers as each may deem necessary .
(2) A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day and may compel the attendance of absent. Members in such manner, and under such penalties, as such House may provide.
(3) Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly behavior, and with the concurrence of two-thirds of all its Members, suspend or expel a Member, but if the penalty is suspension, this shall not exceed sixty days.
(4) Each House shall keep a Journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may, in its judgment, affect national security; and the yeas and nays on any question shall, at the request of one-fifth of the Members present, be entered in the Journal.
(5) Neither House during the sessions of the Congress shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.
SECTION 12. The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective Members. Each Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of nine members. three of whom shall be Justices of the Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief Justice, and the remaining six shall be Members of the Senate or the House of Representatives. as the case may be, who shall be chosen on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties and/or sectors represented therein. The senior justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman.
SECTION 13. There shall be a Commission on Appointments consisting of twelve Senators and twelve Members of the House of Representatives, elected by each House on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties or sectors represented therein. The President of the Senate shall be the Chairman ex officio of the Commission, but shall not vote, except in case of tie.
SECTION 14. The Electoral Tribunals and the Commission on Appointments shall be constituted within thirty days after the Senate and the House of Representatives shall have been organized with the election of the President and the Speaker. The Commission on Appointments shall meet only while the Congress is in session, at the call of its Chairman or a majority of its members, to discharge such powers and functions as are herein conferred upon it.
SECTION 15. The Senators and the Members of the House of Representatives shall, unless otherwise provided by law, receive an annual compensation of _____________ thousand pesos each. No increase in said compensation shall take effect until after the expiration of the full term of all the Members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives approving such increase. Until otherwise provided by law, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall each receive an annual compensation of ________________ thousand pesos.
SECTION 16. The records and books of accounts of Congress shall be open to the public in accordance with law, and such books shall be audited by the Commission on Audit which shall publish annually the itemized expenditures for each Member.
SECTION 17. A Senator or Member of the House of Representatives shall, in all offenses punishable by not more than six years imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the Congress is in session; but each House shall surrender the Member involved to the custody of the law within twenty-four hours after its adjournment for a recess or for its next session, otherwise such privilege shall cease upon its failure to do so. A Member shall not be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in the Congress or in any committee thereof.
SECTION 18. No Senator or a Member of the House of Representatives shall hold any other office or employment in the government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations, during his tenure. Neither shall he be appointed during the term for which he was elected to any office which may have been created or the emoluments thereof increased while he was a Member of Congress.
SECTION 19. No Senator or Member of the House of the Representatives shall appear as counsel before any court which is not of collegiate composition, before any court in civil case wherein the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof is the adverse party, or in any criminal case wherein any officer or employee of the government is accused of an offense committed in relation to his office, before the Electoral Tribunals, or before any administrative body. Neither shall he, directly or indirectly, interested financially in any contract with, or in any franchise or special privilege granted by the government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including any government-owned or controlled corporation, during his term of office. He shall not intervene in any matter before any office of the government for his pecuniary benefit.
SECTION 20. There shall be a Question Hour at least once a month or as often as the Rules of the Senate or the House of Representatives may provide, which shall be included in the agenda of each House, during which the Members of the Cabinet and their deputies may be required to appear and answer questions and interpellations by Members of each House. Written questions shall be submitted to the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives at least three days before a scheduled Question Hour. Interpellations shall not be limited to written questions, but may cover matters related thereto. The agenda shall specify the subjects of the Question Hour. When the security of the State so requires and the President so states in writing, the Question Hour shall be conducted in executive session.
SECTION 21. The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of their respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. The rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected
SECTION 22. (1) No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by majority of all the Members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives.
(2) The Congress, by a vote of two-thirds of the Members of each House, shall have the sole power to declare the existence of a state of war.
SECTION 23. In times of war or other national emergency, the Congress may by law authorize the President, for a limited period and subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe, to exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy. Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such power shall cease upon the next adjournment thereof.
SECTION 24. All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing increase of the public debt, bills of local application, and private bills shall originate exclusively in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments.
SECTION 25. (1) The President shall submit to the Congress within thirty days from the opening of each regular session, as the basis of the general appropriations bill, a budget of receipts based on existing and proposed revenue measures, and of expenditures. The form, content, and manner of preparation of the budget shall be prescribed by law.
(2) No provision or enactment shall be embraced in the general appropriations bill unless it relates specifically to some particular appropriation therein. Any such provision enactment shall be limited in its operation to the appropriation therein. Any such provision or enactment shall be limited in its operation to the appropriation to which it relates.
(3) The procedure in approving appropriations for the Congress shall strictly follow the procedure for approving appropriations for other departments and agencies.
(4) A special appropriation bill shall specify the purpose for which it is intended, and shall be supported by funds actually available as. certified by the National Treasurer, or to be raised by a corresponding revenue proposal included therein.
(5) No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations; however, the President, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representative, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of Constitutional Commissions may by law be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriation, law for their respective offices from giving, in other items of their respective appropriations.
(6) If, by the end of any fiscal year; the Congress shall have failed to pass the general appropriations bill for the ensuing fiscal year, the general appropriation, law for the preceding fiscal year shall be deemed re-enacted and shall remain in force and effect until the general appropriation, bill is passed by the Congress.
SECTION 26. (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof.
(2) No bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it has passed three readings on separate days, and printed copies thereof in its final form have been distributed to its Members three days before its passage, except when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency. Upon the last reading of a bill, no amendment thereto shall be allowed, and the vote thereon shall be taken immediately thereafter, and the yeas and nays entered in the Journal.
SECTION 27. (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the President. If he approves the same, he shall sign it; otherwise, he shall veto it and return the same with his objections to the House where it originated, which shall enter the objections at large on its Journal and proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds of all the Members of such House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of all the Members of that House, it shall become a law. In all such cases, the votes of each House shall be determined by yeas or nays, and the names of the Members voting for or against shall be entered in its Journal. The President shall act on every bill passed by the Congress within thirty days after the date of receipt thereof; otherwise, it shall become a law as if he had signed it.
(2) The President shall have the power to veto any particular item or items in an appropriation, revenue, or tariff bill, but the veto shall not affect the item or items to which he does not object.
SECTION 28. (1) The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. The Congress shall evolve a progressive system of taxation.
(2) The Congress may by law authorize the President to fix within specified limits, and subject to such limitations and restrictions as it may impose, tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties or imposts.
(3) Charitable institutions, churches, and parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all lands, buildings, and improvements actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious, charitable, or educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation.
(4) No law granting any tax exemption shall be passed without the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of Congress.
SECTION 29. (1) No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriations made by law.
(2) No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, paid, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion or for the use, benefit, or support of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary as such, except when such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces, or to any penal institution, or government orphanage or leprosarium.
(3) All money collected on any tax levied for a special purpose shall be treated as a special fund and paid out for such purpose only. If the purpose for which a special fund was created has been fulfilled or abandoned, the balance, if any, shall be transferred to the general funds of the Government.
SECTION 30. No law granting a title of royalty or nobility shall be enacted.
SECTION 31. The Congress shall provide for a system of initiative and referendum, and the exceptions therefrom, whereby the people can directly propose and enact laws or approve or reject any act or law or part thereof passed by the Congress or local legislative body after the registration of a petition therefor signed by at least ten percent of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three percent of the registered voters thereof.
THE PRESIDENT: Has the Secretary-General distributed copies of the amended copy of Committee Report No. 22?
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: Yes, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Then, as requested by the honorable Chairman, Commissioner Davide, this amended copy will be the one used during this period of interpellations.
Commissioner Natividad is recognized.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Madam President, may I ask questions based on Section 18 on page 5 of the amended report. This section enumerates the disqualification of a Senator or Member of the House from holding any other office or employment in the government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations, during his tenure. Neither shall he be appointed, during the term for which he was elected, to any office which may have been created while he was a Member of Congress. Does this imply that a Member of Congress cannot practice his profession?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, it would be the pleasure of the Committee to request Commissioner de los Reyes to answer the question.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Madam President, there is nothing here about practice of profession. Perhaps, the Commissioner is referring to Section 19.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Yes. That includes also Section 19.
MR. DE LOS REYES: The prohibition in Section 18 is the holding of any other office or employment in the government.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Yes. In the practice of a profession, for example, as a lawyer, he might enter into a legal consultancy contract. Is that prohibited under this section?
MR. DE LOS REYES: The prohibition in Section 19 is to appear as counsel.
MR. NATIVIDAD: How about in Section 18? If the consultancy contract does not establish an employer-employee relationship, is this proscribed by Section 18?
MR. DE LOS REYES: Section 18 does not have anything to do with the practice of any profession in the government.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Yes, but the government might refer to a government bank like the Central Bank or any government-controlled financial institutions.
If, after being elected in Congress, a practicing lawyer is offered a legal consultancy contract in a government- controlled banking institution like the Central Bank, will this be proscribed or prohibited? If he enters into this legal consultancy contract with a government financial institution under the concept that he can practice his profession, will this be prohibited under Section 18?
MR. DE LOS REYES: There are two views on whether or not consultancy agreement is a form of employment. The Committee's intention is to consider legal consultancy in the government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporation as a form of employment and, therefore, prohibited.
MR. NATIVIDAD: In this case, usually a lawyer has his law office that enters into legal consultancy and it does not establish an employer-employee relationship. Again, may I ask the same question. Will the Commissioner's answer be the same? First, it is his law office. It is not personal as to him. That is a reality in law practice. A law office enters into a contract, and he happens to be a member of that law office, but he has been elected in the legislative branch of our government. Will that be proscribed or prohibited under Section 18?
MR. DE LOS REYES: As intended by the Committee, so that he cannot use the influence of his office.
That is really the intention but the distinction is really very, very splitting.
MR. NATIVIDAD: I understand from the history of these prohibitions against Members of Congress that they are prohibited because they might influence the agency, especially in the enactment of their appropriations. But in these agencies, the appropriations of these financially supervised institutions do not pass through Congress, through the legislature. And I cannot conceive of any occasion of a Member of the Congress being able to exert any amount of influence on them. So, I am just seeking clarification on this. Would that still be the answer?
MR. DE LOS REYES: We have in mind government-owned or controlled corporations such as the GSIS and the SSS. The intention of the Committee is not to allow a Member of Congress to be employed in the GSIS, for example.
MR. NATIVIDAD: No, not employed.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Or to be a legal consultant.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Of consultancy, yes, for the Central Bank, for example. Is that the view of the Committee?
MR. DE LOS REYES: That is the view of the Committee.
MR. NATIVIDAD: But as a whole, there is no tacit provision here that would proscribe the practice of a profession of a Member of Congress.
MR. DE LOS REYES: If there is none, he also has to live. He can practice and get private clients.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Under Section 19, page 6, it says:
No Senator or Member of the House of the Representatives shall appear as counsel before any court which is not of collegiate composition.
The Sandiganbayan is a collegiate composition. May a Senator or Member appear before the Sandiganbayan?
MR. DE LOS REYES: It will fall under lines 6 and 7 of the same section, or in any case wherein any officer or employee of the government is accused of an offense committed in relation to his office.
MR. NATIVIDAD: So, they cannot appear before the Sandiganbayan?
MR. DE LOS REYES: If the offended party is the government, and the employee or officer is the accused.
MR. NATIVIDAD: On line 10, it is stated:
. . . Neither shall he, directly or indirectly, interested financially in any contract with, or in any franchise . . .
MR. DE LOS REYES: Please insert the word BE after "he."
MR. NATIVIDAD: Yes. There is something lacking there.
MR. DE LOS REYES: That is a typographical omission.
MR. NATIVIDAD: There is an interregnum there.
May I continue?
. . . interested financially in any contract with, or in any franchise or special privilege granted by the government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, . . .
So, if a Member of Congress is a board member of a corporation with contracts with the government, he has to resign.
MR. DE LOS REYES: I beg the Gentleman's pardon?
MR. NATIVIDAD: If a Member of Congress is a member of the board of directors of a private corporation having a contract with the government, he has to resign under this provision.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Yes, Madam President.
MR. NATIVIDAD: A Member of Congress whose wife is a member of the board of directors of a corporation having a contract with the government also has to resign from the board?
MR. DE LOS REYES: Unless they are separated.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Even then, they are still husband and wife.
MR. DE LOS REYES: But if they are separated and the wife is trying to earn her own living, the provision does not apply.
MR. NATIVIDAD: But the Constitution says "in directly." What does the Committee say?
MR. DE LOS REYES: It really depends on the fact of each case.
MR. NATIVIDAD: But what is the general rule?
MR. DE LOS REYES: As a general rule, that will be an indirect form of being interested financially.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Because these are the questions we are interested in involving the practice of profession of Members of Congress, especially the lawyers.
MR. DE LOS REYES. Yes, Madam President.
MR. NATIVIDAD: So, they cannot be members of boards of directors of corporations with contracts with the government.
In the next section, the Question Hour has been less than perfect in the Batasang Pambansa principally because of the fact that many ministers would not try to grace the Question Hour. My query is: Would this preclude the new Congress or legislature to establish the Privilege Hour?
MR. DE LOS REYES: It will not. The Question Hour is an additional hour given to Congress. It is an adoption of a parliamentary feature without in any way foreclosing this Privilege Hour or Privilege Speech.
MR. NATIVIDAD: So, it is clear that despite the establishment of the Question Hour, the new Congress is not being proscribed from establishing the Privilege Hour?
MR. DE LOS REYES: Unless its rules shall provide otherwise.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Section 25, page 7, refers to the presidential budget, does it not?
MR. DE LOS REYES: Yes, the presidential budget.
MR. NATIVIDAD: May the Congress increase or decrease the presidential budget?
MR. DE LOS REYES: There is no prohibition.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Is there no prohibition to increase the presidential budget? The historic practice is that the presidential budget may be decreased but not increased. Is it good for the country and for the Congress to increase the presidential proposal for a budget?
MR. DE LOS REYES: That will be covered by lines 28 and 29 which state: "The form, content, and manner of preparation of the budget shall be prescribed by law."
MR. NATIVIDAD: So, if it is by law, it is by Congress; and if Congress wishes to increase the presidential budget, it can do so. Is that the concept?
MR. DE LOS REYES: That is the necessary consequence.
MR. NATIVIDAD: So, we have a situation where the President prepares the budget every year based on the expected receipts and earnings of the government. The Constitution gives the President that duty because the President knows the expected earnings of the government. Traditionally, Congress will decrease certain items of the budget but it is not constitutionally authorized to increase because if the various items in the budget will be increased, the earnings of the government as expected from the receipts and taxes may not be enough and there will be a big budget deficit.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, the further answer to the question is contained in the section itself, which reads:
The President shall submit to the Congress within thirty days from the opening of each regular session, as the basis of the general appropriations bill, a budget of receipts based on existing and proposed revenue measures, and of expenditures.
In other words, Congress cannot increase because there is a limitation; the budget should be based on existing and proposed revenue measures.
If the Commissioner will further notice, under paragraph (4) of the same section, there is a provision to the effect that a special appropriations bill shall specify the purpose for which it is intended, and shall be supported by funds actually available as certified by the National Treasurer, or to be raised by a corresponding revenue proposal included therein. So, necessarily, there is already a maximum limit over which Congress cannot anymore go beyond.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Paragraph (4) is a different matter, Madam President. This is a new proposal, like a public works bill, which one cannot present without the corresponding certification of availability of funds or the corresponding revenue proposal. But I would just like to clarify because the first response of the Committee is that the Congress may increase or decrease. The distinguished Chairman said Congress may not increase. So, which one is the right answer?
MR. DAVIDE: I think the Commissioner may have in mind reincorporating the limitation provided for under the 1935 Constitution, prohibiting specifically the Congress to increase the recommended appropriations made by the President. We can entertain that at the proper time although I would like to repeat that the requirement under lines 26 and 27 on page 7 — "a budget of receipts based on existing and proposed revenue measures" — which is actually proposed by the President himself cannot be exceeded by Congress.
MR. NATIVIDAD: As the Gentleman knows, the budget of receipts and proposed revenue measures is ambivalent. There is nothing sure about that because that is just a projection of future earnings and we do not know exactly if 80 percent will be realized or not. So, this is just a projection of the future earnings of the government.
MR. DAVIDE: That is exactly the reason why Congress cannot go beyond that because what may be collected of the expected revenues may be only very much less than 100 percent.
MR. NATIVIDAD: So, will the Committee be willing to consider an amendment in due time?
MR. DAVIDE: Just to clarify that requirement or that restriction on the legislature, would the Gentleman be willing to accommodate any proposal in that respect?
MR. NATIVIDAD: I cannot locate the specific section now. What is the provision on this proposed resolution on the increase of salaries of Members of Congress? May they increase their salaries, and if so, when does it take effect?
MR. DAVIDE: Page 5, Section 15, of the amended copy.
MR. NATIVIDAD: I am satisfied with Section 15. Who takes care of proclamation contests for the members of the House?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, we have a provision regarding the Electoral Tribunal.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Does it fall under the jurisdiction of the Electoral Tribunal?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, Madam President.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Proclamation contests?
MR. DE LOS REYES: This is on Section 12, page 4.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Yes, I know, but is that the concept?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Since the Floor Leader is already singling me, my last question is: What is the concept of progressive ratio for the record? What is the Gentleman’s concept of uniform and progressive ratio? How do we redistrict the entire Philippines on the basis of uniform and progressive ratio?
MR. DAVIDE: That would be covered by Section 5 of the Article on the Legislative which says:
The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and fifty member who shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned among the provinces and cities in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected from the sectors and party list.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Yes, just the uniform and progressive ratio. For the record, what does that term or phrase indicate?
MR. DAVIDE: I will consider first the initial composition of the legislative body. We foresee the possibility of having a ratio of one for every 300,000 inhabitants.
MR. NATIVIDAD: The draft resolution says "200,000."
MR. DAVIDE: We fixed that for a city or a province. Right now, under the 1984 apportionment, cities are classified into component cities and highly urbanized cities.
A highly urbanized city, as defined under the Local Government Code, is a city with an income of-not less than P30 million and a population of 150,000.
We sought to increase the requirement as to population to make it a minimum of 200,000. So, if a particular city will have more, then we also consider the progressive ratio of inhabitants.
By the way, we will be submitting to the Commission an ordinance to be appended to the Constitution on the apportionment of the seats for the regular Members of the Assembly. On that particular basis, we have studied the possibility of only having 198 regular Members for the first House of Representatives. So, the basis for that is one representative for every 300,000 depending on the compactness, contiguity and adjacence of territories consisting of municipalities and cities with less than 200,000 inhabitants within a given province.
MR. NATIVIDAD: We welcome that because several congresses failed to do that. We failed to make the redistricting because of controversies. But I think the Committee's proposal might go through. And what the old Congress failed to do, we might be able to do by simply adopting a fair, uniform and progressive ratio.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask for the recognition of Commissioner Tan.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tan is recognized.
SR. TAN: Madam President and members of the Committee, I refer to Section 31, line 9. How did the Committee arrive at 10 percent, which is a little more than two million of the registered voters?
MR. DAVIDE: The Vice-Chairman of the Committee, Madam President, will answer the question.
MR. AZCUNA: The figure of 10 percent was arrived at upon the recommendation of various proponents of this initiative. The Committee felt that this is a reasonable figure, as a minimum, to be required. Otherwise, we feel it would be too easy to get this initiative referendum. Other states require a bigger figure such as 20, 15 or 12 percent. We felt that 10 percent is reasonable as a minimum figure. Yes, that was how we arrived at the 10 percent — mainly on the basis of the proponents.
SR. TAN: On Section 22, line 6, as a layman, I do not know the difference between a treaty and an international agreement.
MR. AZCUNA: A treaty is ratified by the legislature. An international agreement may be an executive agreement, President to President only.
SR. TAN: Yes, but both are mentioned here.
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, in other words, we do not want executive agreements to go unratified. The philosophy here is that henceforth any international commitments of the country should have the ratification of the popular representatives of the people.
SR. TAN: Therefore, the legislature is getting more power, is that it?
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, it has more checks, a check on foreign relations for one. It is still basically an executive power, the conduct of foreign relations, but there is a requirement for concurrence in treaties and international agreements.
SR. TAN: How about simple cultural exchanges like what Imelda Marcos used to engage in?
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, even agreements on cultural exchanges would still constitute an international agreement. It should not be difficult to get the legislature to concur in this simple agreement. It is on the touchy ones, which cover sovereign rights, that I feel there would be some difficulty; but cultural exchanges should pass without difficulty.
SR. TAN: My third one is just an honest bewilderment, and that is on Section 28, page 10. The paragraph has some provisions on churches, convents and the religious. I am bewildered that churches owned by some religious who are very wealthy would be tax exempt. I cannot understand why the poor laborer would pay taxes on land but the religious does not pay taxes. I am bewildered about that. I am just talking about the Catholic Church, of course. Also, at this period of our national recovery, I think we should all be paying because we are bankrupt.
MR. AZCUNA: Yes.
SR. TAN: So, maybe in the period of amendments we might delete something.
Thank you.
MR. AZCUNA: I will just comment on that, Madam President. The main reason this was taken from the 1935 Constitution is that the power to tax is the power to destroy. If we want to promote the separation of Church and State and prevent the State from destroying the Church, we have to exempt the Church from taxation. That is the philosophy behind it.
SR. TAN: I think it is a very weak reason.
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, that is the philosophy because the power to tax can really destroy.
SR. TAN: Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Rosario Braid be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rosario Braid is recognized.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Will the sponsor yield to a few questions?
MR. DAVIDE: Willingly.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: On Section 9, page 2, line 29 up to the end of the section on page 3, what is the sanction if the Commission on Elections does not call for a special election in case a vacancy arises in the Senate?
MR. AZCUNA: I believe this is an instance where a petition for mandamus may lie against the Commission on Elections. Where there is a clear duty on the part of the COMELEC to schedule elections, a citizen may file a petition for mandamus to compel the COMELEC to call a special election. This has happened in the past local elections.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Will the sponsor consider amending this to make it mandatory?
MR. AZCUNA: It already says "shall" and usually "shall" is interpreted to mean mandatory. The Committee believes that if the grounds are there, that is, there is a vacancy, the COMELEC may be compelled by a writ of mandamus to hold the elections.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Thank you.
Section 30 on page 11 refers to granting of title or royalty. This is similar to a provision in the General Provisions. Would the Committee consider deleting this particular provision at the appropriate time?
MR. DE LOS REYES: This used to be in the Bill of Rights. But during the discussion on the Bill of Rights, we deleted the same provision to be transferred to any appropriate article. Considering that we are now discussing what the legislature can do, we deem it wise and proper to include this in the Article on the Legislative.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: The next question is on Section 7, page 2. I think Commissioner Nolledo has raised the same point that "resident" has been inter- preted at times as a matter of intention rather than actual residence.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Domicile.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Yes. So, would the Gentle- man consider at the proper time to go back to actual residence rather than mere intention to reside?
MR. DE LOS REYES: But we might encounter some difficulty especially considering that a provision in the Article on Suffrage says that Filipinos living abroad may vote as enacted by law. So, we have to stick to the original concept that it should be by domicile and not physical and actual residence.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: On Sections 6 and 8, does this mean that there will be a transitory provision to synchronize the election for the House of Representatives and the Senate?
MR. DE LOS REYES: That is contemplated, and we submitted this section subject to any appropriate amendment so that it will cover synchronization.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: In the Transitory Provisions?
MR. DE LOS REYES: In the Transitory Provisions or even in the Article on the Legislative.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Thank you very much, Madam President.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Thank you.
MR. RAMA. Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Sarmiento be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I be allowed to ask a few questions?
The first is on Section 25, about the budget and general appropriations bill. During the past administration, we all know that the substantial amount of the budget was allocated for the military at the expense of other ministries. May I know if we have sufficient safeguards in this draft resolution to prevent allocation of substantial amounts to the military or any ministry that will be favored by the President? I ask this question because I am thinking of proposing, at the appropriate time, the inclusion of a paragraph — for the wise consideration of the Committee — which will read: THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATION FOR NATIONAL DEFENSE, INCLUDING ALL COMPONENTS OF THE ARMED FORCES, SHALL NOT EXCEED TEN PER CENTUM OF THE TOTAL ANNUAL BUDGET OF THE GOVERNMENT EXCEPT WHEN THE PHILIPPINES IS INVOLVED IN A WAR.
What does the Committee say?
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, the Committee has not provided for specific safeguards against gargantuan budgets for the military. We do have a provision that the budget be a budget of receipts based on existing and proposed revenue measures and of expenditures, but the idea was not to tie the hands of the legislature and of the President. Also, there is no specific ceiling. We leave it also to their wisdom not to overdo it in case of grave abuse of discretion. There is a remedy, as the Gentleman knows, in the judicial power but there is none here.
MR. SARMIENTO: But to prevent a repetition of that past national experience, would the Committee be willing to consider the amendment I stated?
MR. AZCUNA: We feel that we might be overreacting to our previous experience. We already do have safe guards under the proposed executive power provision and regulations on fund transfers and all that. It might be too self-limiting to put ceilings because if we put a ceiling on the military, somebody will again want a ceiling on another provision and there will be no end to the limitations. We might have an executive tied down by too many ceilings and restrictions and when emergency comes, it will be too late.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I ask another question? My question is on Section 20 which provides for the Question Hour. Section 20, lines 21 to 23, partially reads:
MR. AZCUNA: We will consider such amendments when the time comes.
MR. SARMIENTO: Thank you very much.
Then Section 9 of the report reads:
In case a vacancy arises in the Senate or in the House of Representatives eighteen months or more before a regular election, the Commission on Elections shall call a special election . . .
Section 7, line 18, of the first draft includes the phrase "to serve the unexpired term." May I know the reason for the deletion of the words "to serve the unexpired term" ?
MR. AZCUNA: The phrase was omitted by inadvertence and we thank the Gentleman for calling our attention to it. It should be there. The Committee would take note of that — "to serve the unexpired term."
MR. SARMIENTO: I have one question in connection with Section 7, now Section 9, about the unexpired term. What if the unexpired term is only less than one year? Am I correct in understanding this section that the Commission on Elections shall still call a special election?
MR. AZCUNA: We do not see how that can arise since it is 18 months before the regular election and as envisioned, there is no staggered term for the Senate.
So, that situation cannot arise.
MR. SARMIENTO: Thank you.
May I proceed to Section 10, lines 9 to 11, which
reads:
MR. AZCUNA: We shall consider it, although this is the traditional concept. But we are open to new ideas.
MR. SARMIENTO: I have one last question. Section 25, paragraph (5) authorizes the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the President, the President of the Senate to augment any item in the General Appropriations Law. Do we have a limit in terms of percentage as to how much they should augment any item in the General Appropriations Law?
MR. AZCUNA: The limit is not in percentage but "from savings." So it is only to the extent of their savings.
MR. SARMIENTO: Thank you very much, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Maambong be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, members of the Committee, I will focus most of my questions only on one point, on the electoral tribunal. Did I hear the Committee correctly, in reply to one of the questions, that the electoral tribunal, either of the House or of the Senate, has jurisdiction over preproclamation contests?
MR. AZCUNA: Just a moment, Madam President; we are checking the word. It refers to contest.
MR. MAAMBONG: I will repeat the question. Does the electoral tribunal, either of the House or of the Senate, have jurisdiction over preproclamation contests? If I heard the answer correctly that it has jurisdiction over preproclamation contests, I would sincerely request a reconsideration of that answer because as far as I am concerned, based on previous experience, these electoral tribunals do not have jurisdiction over preproclamation contests. If that answer can be corrected, I will be happy with it: it will make my day.
MR. AZCUNA: If the answer had been made, then it should be corrected. This does not refer to preproclamation contests.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you.
My questions will be very basic so we can go as fast as we can. In the case of the electoral tribunal either of the House or of the Senate, is it correct to say that these tribunals are constitutional creations? I will distinguish these with the case of the Tanodbayan and the Sandiganbayan which are created by mandate of the Constitution but they are not constitutional creations. Is that a good distinction?
MR. AZCUNA: That is an excellent statement.
MR. MAAMBONG: Could we, therefore, say that either the Senate Electoral Tribunal or the House Electoral Tribunal is a constitutional body?
MR. AZCUNA: It is, Madam President.
MR. MAAMBONG: If it is a constitutional body, is it then subject to constitutional restrictions?
MR. AZCUNA: It would be subject to constitutional restrictions intended for that body.
MR. MAAMBONG: I see. But I want to find out if the ruling in the case of Vera vs. Avelino, 77 Phil. 192, will still be applicable to the present bodies we are creating since it ruled that the electoral tribunals are not separate departments of the government. Would that ruling still be valid?
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, they are not separate departments because the separate departments are the legislative, the executive and the judiciary; but they are constitutional bodies.
MR. MAAMBONG: Although they are not separate departments of government, I would like to know again if the ruling in Angara vs. Electoral Commission, 53 Phil. 139, would still be applicable to the present bodies we are deciding on, when the Supreme Court said that these electoral tribunals are independent from Congress, devoid of partisan influence or consideration and, therefore, Congress has no power to regulate proceedings of these electoral tribunals.
MR. AZCUNA: I think that is correct. They are independent although they are not a separate branch of government.
MR. MAAMBONG: There is a statement that in all parliaments of the world, the invariable rule is to leave unto themselves the determination of controversies with respect to the election and qualifications of their members, and precisely they have this Committee on Privileges which takes care of this particular controversy.
Would the Gentleman say that the creation of electoral tribunals is an exception to this rule because apparently we have an independent electoral tribunal?
MR. AZCUNA: To the extent that the electoral tribunals are independent, but the Gentleman will notice that the wordings say: "The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal." It is still the Senate Electoral Tribunal and the House Electoral Tribunal. So, technically, it is the tribunal of the House and tribunal of the Senate although they are independent.
MR. MAAMBONG: But both of them, as we have agreed on, are independent from both bodies?
MR. AZCUNA: That is correct.
MR. MAAMBONG: This is the bottom line of my question. How can we say that these bodies are independent when we still have six politicians sitting in both tribunals?
MR. AZCUNA: Politicians can be independent, Madam President.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, when we discussed a portion of this in the Committee on the Executive, there was a comment by Chief Justice Concepcion — Commissioner Concepcion — that there seems to be some in congruity in these electoral tribunals, considering that politicians still sit in the tribunals in spite of the fact that in the ruling in the case of Sanidad vs. Vera, Senate Electoral Tribunal Case No. I, they are supposed to act in accordance with law and justice with complete detachment from all political considerations. That is why I am asking now for the record how we could achieve such detachment when there are six politicians sitting there.
MR. AZCUNA: The same reason that the Gentleman, while chosen on behalf of the opposition, has, with sterling competence, shown independence in the proceedings of this Commission. I think we can also trust that the members of the tribunals will be independent.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you for that. But just for the information of the Committee, in the case of presidential and vice-presidential contests, previously the traditional tribunal is the Presidential Electoral Tribunal. In the committee report now before the Members of this Commission, we have changed this concept. We have now decided — at least the Committee on the Executive has decided — that presidential and vice-presidential electoral contests will be decided by the Supreme Court en banc. So, in effect, we are deviating in the case of electoral contests involving presidential and vice-presidential election contests. But as far as the Senate and the House of Representatives are concerned, we are still sticking to the traditional Senate Electoral Tribunal and the Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representatives.
MR. AZCUNA: That is correct.
MR. MAAMBONG: The next point is that considering the previous Senate Electoral Tribunal and the Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representatives, will the rules they had promulgated still apply to these present electoral bodies?
MR. AZCUNA: I believe they will have to adopt the rules anew if they want to apply them because these will be different bodies from those of the 1935 version.
MR. MAAMBONG: Another basic question is this: I think we had a discussion on the disqualification of Senators or Members of the House of Representatives. When a Member of the Senate or a Member of the House serves in the electoral tribunal of either body, would it not be a violation of Section 18 which says that no Senator or Member of the House of Representatives shall hold any other office or employment in the government? In this formulation of Section 18, I do not see any exception. I can understand that there are prohibitions of this nature in other parts of the Constitution, but it specifically provides "except as provided under this Constitution." Will it not violate the section?
MR. AZCUNA: We believe that the two sections should be construed together in line with established principles of statutory and constitutional interpretation. But for clarity, if the Gentleman finds a discordance between the two, the Committee would be glad to consider clarifying it.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you, Madam President.
One more question on this point: Could we make a general statement that the jurisdiction of this electoral tribunal, either of the Senate or of the House, is exclusive and unlimited and, therefore, there will be no appeal to the Supreme Court?
MR. AZCUNA: It is the sole judge. I think that further implies that there is no further appeal elsewhere.
MR. MAAMBONG: In other words, its judgment is final and not appealable.
MR. AZCUNA: Insofar as the qualifications, returns and elections are concerned.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you.
I would like to address my question now on apportionment to Commissioner Davide. I understand that the criteria in apportionment are based on contiguous territory and number of inhabitants. I will just ask one question on this and I will clarify it by referring to Cebu City.
In Cebu City? as the Gentleman knows, we have two representatives: one of them is now in the Supreme Court, Honorable Marcelo Fernan; and the other is the Minister for Political Affairs, Honorable Antonio Cuenco.
At the onset of apportionment, we know that in the province we have to group together municipalities based on their contiguity.-Specifically, is it the intention of the Committee that when we make the apportionment in the City of Cebu, the city will have to be cut into two legislative districts, considering that there are two representatives now, or will the two Members of the House of Representatives be voted at large in that configuration of the City of Cebu?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: Strictly, under the proposal, since the legislative districts have to be apportioned to provinces and cities, if a province, therefore, is to be districted if entitled to more than one representative district, the city will have to be apportioned into districts if it is entitled to one.
But I understand that there will be corresponding proposals later during the period of amendments that even if the city may be entitled to two or more, their representatives shall have to be voted at large, considering a small territory of the city even if the population would be several hundreds or thousands.
MR. MAAMBONG: To clarify that, in the case of the province, it is an inflexible rule that we should group together municipalities to form one district based on population. But in the city, it may not be divided into legislative districts; voting may be at large.
MR. DAVIDE: No, if no amendment is presented to the body and the proposal is not altered, there is no different rule for the city. There will be a districting also of the city itself.
MR. MAAMBONG: I see. May I know in advance what is the thinking of the Committee on that proposed amendment or has the Gentleman not yet formed any opinion on this?
MR. DAVIDE: We have not formulated any on that matter because it was not yet formally presented.
MR. MAAMBONG: In that case, I will not press the question.
Thank you very much, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Brocka be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Brocka is recognized.
MR. BROCKA: Thank you, Madam President.
Section 28, paragraph (3) on page 10 states:
MR. GUINGONA: This question was asked this morning but I presume the Gentleman was not present.
MR. BROCKA: No, I was here but there was no satisfactory answer given. Commissioner Suarez spoke about schools like FEU being exempted from it but there was no explanation given why they should be exempted from taxes.
MR. GUINGONA: We are talking here of realty taxes Madam President, and these refer to instances which are limited by the following words: "lands, buildings, and improvements actually, directly, and exclusively used . . . "
MR. BROCKA: Yes, I understand that. But in spite of the words "actually, directly, and exclusively used," it cannot be denied that some of these educational institutions are profit-making institutions. So, why should they be exempted from taxes?
MR. GUINGONA: As I said this morning, the focus of attention of the Committee has been the benefit that would be derived not by the educational institutions but by the students of those institutions.
MR. BROCKA: In what sense, Madam President?
MR. GUINGONA: First of all, there could be either a reduction of the fees which would have to be paid, or there would at least be no increase, whether the institution is stock or nonstock. The fact of the matter is that educational institutions, except state colleges and universities, depend primarily and almost exclusively on fees paid by students. Any relief that is granted to these educational institutions would, therefore, be indirectly benefitting the students. I am still talking of the fact that we are focusing our attention on the good of the students. The Gentleman is a member of the Committee on Human Resources and we have emphasized the fact that we are not only concerned about the right to education but we would like to see to it that the education provided by educational institutions — and I am talking of educational institutions without distinction — should be quality education.
MR. BROCKA: Yes, but I also remember that when we discussed that Article on Education, we made a clear distinction of nonstock and nonprofit educational institutions. We did not make a sweeping generalization.
MR. GUINGONA: Yes, but if the Gentleman will recall, that particular provision which we are presenting at the proper time refers to all taxes, including income taxes. Here, we are only talking of realty taxes.
MR. BROCKA: Yes, precisely.
MR. GUINGONA: In other words, this is limited in the sense that the theory here is that educational institutions, whether proprietary or the so-called nonstock, nonprofit, require assistance from the government if they are going to provide quality education. If our concern is to have students receive quality education, t we either provide this education through the state colleges or universities or through the private institutions.
MR. BROCKA: Yes, but Madam President, it does not follow that just because educational institutions are exempted from taxes, quality of education will go up. I think, right now, there is a prevailing sentiment among the private sector and the general public against profit-making institutions, and I do not think we should make any exemption as far as proprietary educational institutions are concerned.
MR. GUINGONA: I think the impression is not correct, Madam President, because in the first place, there is already an existing limitation to the return on investment. I mentioned at our meeting of the Subcommittee on Education that the Fund for Assistance to Private Education, which is a very prestigious organization, had conducted a survey and which was reported by the vice-president of that organization during one of our committee meetings. The survey shows that the average return on investment for the past year or so was only three percent. The problem here is that, if we push the private educational institutions — which according to the Gentleman are profit-making — to the wall, we will be forcing them, like what happened to the University of the East, to close. And once these private institutions close, the ones who will suffer will be the students, because the so-called nonprofit, nonstock educational institutions will not have the facilities to admit the students who will lose their opportunity to be admitted.
MR. BROCKA: As far as that is concerned, I think that is a bit questionable and debatable. I asked that particular question mainly because, let us face it, some educational institutions are very rich, and I do not think they should be exempted from paying taxes.
MR. GUINGONA: If by "rich" the Gentleman means the facilities, I can say that the so-called nonprofit, nonstock corporations have even more impressive facilities.
MR. BROCKA: If that is the case then, I do not think we should make any qualification, whether they are nonstock, profit or nonprofit. By all means, all educational institutions should not be exempted from paying taxes.
MR. GUINGONA: Yes, but what I am saying is, it is the students who will suffer in the long run. Until the State is able to provide the education that the students want and deserve to obtain, I think the private educational institutions should be supported. Once the State is in a position to provide quality education all by itself through its own funds, then there is no problem.
MR. BROCKA: I do not think I can agree with the t Gentleman on that point, Madam President. Anyway, I mentioned that because I would like to make an amendment later when the time comes.
The next question that I would like to ask is on page 11, line 9 of Section 31 which says:
MR. AZCUNA: It refers to the total number of registered voters, whether they voted or not.
MR. BROCKA: Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Rodrigo be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, I raise a prejudicial question regarding the term of office proposed in this report. The suggested term of office in this report is four years for the Members of the House and also four years for the Members of the Senate.
Madam President, I have in front of me Committee Report No. 26 of the Committee on the Executive and this report recommends six years as the term for the President. If four years is the term for the Members of Congress and six years is the term for the President, it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to synchronize our elections. So this is a prejudicial question. I think we better decide this now, otherwise, we will hold pending the term of the Members of Congress, while awaiting decision on the term of the President. On the other hand, the Committee on the Executive will be hanging in midair, too. So, I believe that this has to be decided right away, thus saving time. Have the Chamber set the term for both Committees to follow. Madam President, if the Committee's recommendation of six years for the President is approved, then the term for the Senators can be six years, and the term for Members of the House and local officials can be three years. But we better define this right away. Madam President.
May I ask the Chairman of the Committee what is his thinking on this matter?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, that issue was taken up in the Committee and it is the thinking of the Committee to consider it really as a prejudicial question. And so, I second the motion.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair would suggest that the Chairman of the Committee on the Legislative confer with the Chairman of the Committee on the Executive about this matter, but in the meantime we can go to other issues which are not related to the term of office.
Are there other issues that can be discussed independently of the term of office, Mr. Floor Leader?
MR. RAMA: There are still five Commissioners who would like to interpellate, and I would like that we move to the period of amendments. Before we can do that, probably we can determine this prejudicial question on the term of the legislators.
THE PRESIDENT: Do we understand then that they have no more interpellations on other issues?
Commissioner Monsod is seeking recognition.
MR. MONSOD: I can wait for my turn, Madam President, but I have some questions on some of the provisions.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: May I interject at this point. May I suggest that in the conference between the Chairman of the Committee on the Legislative and the Chairman of the Committee on the Executive, our Chairman of the Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions be included in that conference because we are also considering the interim term of the incumbent President and Vice-President, Madam President.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.
It was 3:59 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 5:09 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I would like to announce to the body that we will have a caucus at six o'clock on the terms of the President, the legislators and the others for synchronization purposes, as well as their compensation, as suggested by Commissioner Concepcion.
We would like to finish in the meantime the interpellations so that tomorrow we will be ready for the period of amendments before we go to a caucus.
THE PRESIDENT: Who will be the next interpellator?
MR. RAMA: I would like to ask the Chair to recognize Commissioner Ople.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: Thank you very much.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, the Vice-Chairman of the Committee will answer for the Committee.
MR. OPLE: Will the sponsors yield to two or three questions?
MR. AZCUNA: Willingly, Madam President.
MR. OPLE: Thank you, Madam President.
Sections 18 and 19 of the proposed Article deal with conflict of interests. I think this is a good attempt between the two sections to hold the Members of the legislature accountable for the integrity of their commitment to the public interest so that conflict of interests can be prevented or avoided. However, I wanted to ask the Committee whether they had thought of adding to the set of safeguards a requirement for full disclosure of the financial and business interests and in the case of professionals, the history of their professional affiliations and associations in the past. So that when these financial business and professional interests are disclosed, the public will have a way of knowing whether they had used their offices in the Congress and demanded of the people to aggrandize their own interest. And, perhaps, in the rules of either House, they can provide for certain additional disclosures that may involve conflict of interests which can be placed under the purview of the disciplinary action of the House. Will the Committee, at the proper time, consider such a provision for full disclosure of the financial and business and professional interests of Members of both Houses of Congress, so that this may provide the public and the Houses themselves with the basis for determining whether in the initiation of bills or in the voting on the same, conflict of interests had occurred or taken place?
MR. AZCUNA: Madam President, the Committee will be happy to consider such an amendment at the proper time.
MR. OPLE: May I also know whether these conflict of interest provisions in Sections 18 and 19 are understood to apply to the future sectoral representative and those who will become Members of the Congress through party list?
MR. AZCUNA: The intention, Madam President, is to apply to all Senators and Members of the House of Representatives, regardless of whether they represent sector or were elected through the party list system or the ordinary system. There should be no difference as far as these accountability provisions are concerned.
MR. OPLE: Having in mind potential conflict of interests in the case of sectoral representatives who are heads of their own organizations — let us say, a labor organization, a farmers' organization, a women's organization or a veterans' organization — in the contemplation of the Committee, will they have to resign to be in full conformity with Sections 18 and 19 and a full disclosure policy? Will they have to resign as heads o their respective organization, because otherwise, there will be a commingling of their identities as heads o such organizations with interest to pursue, especially in government and as representatives of the people owing allegiance only to the people in the House of Representatives, for example?
MR. AZCUNA: Madam President, we do not envision a general rule of resignation because prohibited interest here are very specific. They refer to contracts o franchises or special privileges actually granted by the government, or a matter actually pending before and office or government wherein the member may act for his pecuniary benefit. So being merely a representative of the sector does not necessarily mean that there will be conflict of interests. It will have to be judged on a case-to-case basis.
MR. OPLE: Thank you, Madam President.
I suppose that if they are lawyers, let us say, practicing in the Ministry of Labor and in the agrarian courts, they will be subject to the same restraints in Sections 18 and 19 as the other regularly elected Members of the House of Representatives.
MR. AZCUNA: That is correct, Madam President.
MR. OPLE: Thank you.
I have another question concerning Section 22 on treaties and international agreements. May I know why the Committee would involve both the Senate and the House of Representatives in the ratification of a treaty or an international agreement; whereas under the previous Constitutions prevailing until the 1973 Constitution and in accordance with the practice worldwide, it is the Senate that ratifies treaties?
MR. AZCUNA: The Committee will be happy to entertain any proposal to amend this portion. But the reason for the inclusion of the House of Representatives in the concurrence on treaties is that the Committee believes that the House of Representatives represents the districts directly, the more populous representation of the people. We believe in institutionalizing people power, that treaties should be submitted to the representatives of the people, especially because these treaties may concern sovereignty and sovereign rights. But that will be open to amendments.
MR. OPLE: Thank you very much for indicating openness on this matter.
I always thought that the Senate and the House enjoy a kind of symmetry of exclusive powers. Appropriations bills may originate only in the House but by tradition, the Senate is the treaty-ratifying Chamber. Is it correct to say that according to Section 22, even executive agreements will have to be passed upon by the legislature?
MR. AZCUNA: That is correct.
MR. OPLE: An executive agreement may take the form of, let us say, the military bases agreement which is, from the standpoint of the United States, a mere executive agreement, but from the standpoint of the Philippines, a treaty fully ratified by the Senate of the Philippines with the binding force and effect of law on the Philippines. Would that be an example of an executive agreement?
MR. AZCUNA: Yes.
MR. OPLE: Since Section 22 provides that even such agreements should be subject to ratification by Congress, will this not lead to a repetition of the ignominious situation of 1947 where the Philippines ratified a bases treaty? And on the other hand, the United States refused even to submit this agreement to the American Senate for ratification. So that, in effect, we have an asymmetry of indignity as I had occasion to refer to it earlier.
Considering that there are many countries in the world, presumably including the foremost trading partners of the Philippines like Europe and Japan, which by law and tradition do not submit their executive agreements to their parliaments or legislature for ratification, would there not be a kind of asymmetry again and a certain auditing, not counting the concrete disadvantages for this country? And executive agreement, let us say, with the Western European community is submitted to our Senate for ratification and is given the dignity and force and effect of a complete treaty, while this is viewed, let us say, in Brussels as just one in a series of routine and perfunctory agreements they arrived at with other countries. Is that not a possibility?
MR. AZCUNA: It is a possibility, and we will be happy to welcome suggestions, whether by way of requiring reciprocity or some other way to avoid such disparity.
MR. OPLE: Thank you very much.
My last question will have to do with Section 28. This is about taxes and exemption from taxes such as in the case of religious, charitable and educational institutions, but my concern really is about the uniform standard of taxation. Elsewhere in the Constitutional Commission, especially in the Committee on Local Governments and, perhaps, in other committees as well, is a strong trend for decentralization or the grant of autonomy to regions and to specific cultural communities. Part of such grant is the power of taxation. But I do recall in the past and the lawyers know better about this, there were the recent cases in the Supreme Court. Was there not such a case in Ormoc City where the city government decided to exercise its autonomous power of taxation and then it was brought to the Supreme Court? I think they lost the case on a technicality. They were not violating a uniform tax standard required by the Constitution. They just forgot to speak in the plural of all the sugar centrals there, instead of designating by name for purposes of taxation, the only sugar mill in Ormoc City.
In order to prevent further disputes of this nature, and in order to align Section 28 with the requirements of local autonomy, including the power of taxation at the local level, would the Committee consider at the proper time an amendment that would explicitly recognize the taxation power of local municipalities as part of a grant of autonomy, without having to violate the constitutional uniform taxation standard?
MR. AZCUNA: The Committee will, Madam President.
MR. OPLE: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Rigos be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rigos is recognized.
REV. RIGOS: Madam President, my question has something to do with line 7 on page 2 of the committee report. Let me begin with line 4 which says:
MR. AZCUNA: The Committee means more than 200,000. If the city has more than 200,000, then it shall have at least one representative.
REV. RIGOS: Suppose it has 500,000, that is more than . . .
MR. AZCUNA: It can have more than one. It should have at least one representative.
REV. RIGOS: The wording here is "with a population of more than two hundred thousand." But, 500,000 is more than 200,000.
MR. AZCUNA: Yes.
REV. RIGOS: So, it will have one.
MR. AZCUNA: At least one; it may have more.
REV. RIGOS: On page 4, Section 13, line 17, says:
MR. AZCUNA: That is correct, plus the ex officio Chairman, so 25 members.
REV. RIGOS: Perhaps it is better to put the President of the Senate in that line so that the reader of this Section will know right away that there are 25, rather than 24, members of the Commission on Appointments.
MR. AZCUNA: We will entertain an amendment to clarify the points raised by the Gentleman.
REV. RIGOS: Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, we have two more interpellators. I would like to ask the Chair to recognize Commissioner Monsod.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, may I just ask the Committee a clarificatory question regarding Section 25 which talks about a budget of receipts based on existing and proposed revenue measures and of expenditures. There seems to be a presumption that it is always going to be a balanced budget.
MR. AZCUNA: This is really based on what they call "pay-as-you-go" basis, Madam President. Yes, that would be the presumption.
MR. MONSOD: Would this section then preclude what they would call a growth budget, where there is a deficit financed through issuance of money by purchases by the Central Bank of debt notes from the government? The reason 1 am asking this, Madam President. is that this year. there was a budget deficit ranging from P22 to P26 billion. and if we were to apply Section 25, can I conclude that such a budget would not be authorized?
MR. AZCUNA: It may come under special appropriations but not under the General Appropriations Bill because there is a provision on special appropriations also under Section 25 (4).
MR. MONSOD: But Section 25 (4) also says:
MR. AZCUNA: If it is not a revenue proposal, then it would not be allowed.
MR. MONSOD: My apprehension, Madam President, is that under the principles of government budgeting, this limitation would be unduly restrictive of a growth budget. If we prime the economy, like the present state of our economy, there are ways of doing it and one of the more effective ways is by an expansionary monetary policy. This formulation might be unduly restrictive of the government options and flexibility in managing the economy.
MR. AZCUNA: We will be happy to entertain amendments to that effect, Madam President.
MR. MONSOD: Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, for the last interpellator, I ask that Commissioner Gascon be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Gascon is recognized.
MR. GASCON: Thank you, Madam President.
I beg to ask the members of the Committee very brief questions with regard to Section 2 which says:
MR. AZCUNA: It is not expressly stated, Madam President, but if there is an amendment to that effect, we will be happy to consider it, especially because the party list system is most fit where there is a representation at large of a constituency rather than of single-member district.
MR. GASCON: Does the Gentleman mean to say that a party list system is easily applicable on a national level, even more so than on a district-wide level?
MR. AZCUNA: On a level where there is multirepresentation such as the Senate elected at large. It is very easy to fit in a party list system of proportional representation because there is a bigger number elected from the same constituency. So, we can easily reckon. Let us say, 10 percent of 24 — if we get 10 percent of the votes, then we get 10 percent of 24.
MR. GASCON: So if we implement a party list system to the Senate that would provide for, let us say, greater access to more political parties in the Senate and would avoid monopoly of one, or dominance of one political party. Is that correct?
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, because under the traditional method of voting, for example, we vote for the Senate at large, a party that gets 51 percent of the votes gets all the 24 seats.
MR. GASCON: Winner-take-all.
MR. AZCUNA: It is a winner-take-all. So, the 49 percent of the voters do not get any seat at all, whereas in a proportional representation, one version of which is the party list method, if a party gets or a group gets 10 percent of the votes, then they get 10 percent of the 24 seats.
MR. GASCON: They are entitled to 10 percent of the 24 seats?
MR. AZCUNA: They are entitled to 10 percent which, of course, is a fraction — 2.4 — but there will have to be mechanics on how to allocate fractions.
MR. GASCON: Does the Gentleman think it is easier to implement on that level?
MR. AZCUNA: It is normally easier to implement the party list or proportional representation system where there is a multiple representation of a single constituency.
MR. GASCON: Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Madam President. I ask that Commissioner Monsod be recognized to ask one forgotten question, as he stated.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: I just wanted to make a comment on the question of Commissioner Gascon. Actually, in the Senate we do not need to apply the party list system because it is already nationwide and from a political tactician's point of view, there are ways to get the proportional representation. For a sectoral group, there are 24 seats available, then get the sector to just vote for one; that is a negative for the 23.
MR. GASCON: Let us concentrate on that issue on proportional representation. If it does not have to be a party list system so long as I shall see the Senate representation based on a proportionate number of votes cast for that particular candidate, then I can be assured that even a minority of five or 10 percent who voted for this particular candidate would be represented in the Senate. This would be very helpful in establishing democracy.
MR. MONSOD: Actually, for the 24 Senators, a four-percent or five-percent vote gets only one seat.
MR. GASCON: Thank you.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, with regard to Section 22, I just want to clarify something on international agreement. Would the Committee include there the restructuring agreement on our external debt with the consortium of banks?
MR. AZCUNA: If it is a government-to-government agreement, Madam President, it would be included — but not private bank-to-bank agreement.
MR. MONSOD: There could be financial institutions within the consortium which are government agencies.
MR. AZCUNA: For instance, .
MR. MONSOD: EXIM Bank.
MR. AZCUNA: ... if it is with the IMF or EXIM Bank, these are not international subjects under international law. These would not be covered. We are referring here to agreements between subjects of international law.
MR. MONSOD: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, may I be recognized to ask some questions of Commissioner Monsod?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Madam President.
We are still on the subject of sectoral representation. There are two provisions which may be affected by this percentaging — one of them is with respect to the creation of the Commission on Appointments. This is affected by proportional representation, specially as it affects the multisectoral representation. We are operating on a 20-percent basis and, as proposed, there are 24 members in the Commission on Appointments. There is a provision directing that the appointments should be on the basis of proportional representation. DO I take it to mean that out of the 24 members in the Commission on Appointments at least 20 percent of 24 would come from the sectors?
MR. MONSOD: Essentially, what we are saying is, there are 12 members of the House of Representatives and, therefore, every bloc of 8 percent would get one seat.
MR. SUAREZ: Therefore, 20 percent of 12 will be about 2.4 and we would . . .
MR. MONSOD: Maybe two, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: And what is one more seat among friends? Could we get two or three? We go to the matter of the creation of the electoral tribunal which is composed of nine members, six of whom will come from the Congress. So, again, invoking the 20 percent representation for the multisectoral groups, we would have 1.2 representation — 20 percent of 6 would be 1.2 representatio — from the multisectoral sector.
MR. MONSOD: That is arithmetically correct, but at this point we do not know the composition of the 20 percent. It may well be that 60 percent of the 20 percent may come from two political parties because there is a maximum of, say, 30 percent of the 50 for each party. So it is possible that two parties may have 60 percent of 20 percent or 60 percent of 50 or 30 seats. So, it would depend on how the 50 party list representatives realign among themselves.
MR. SUAREZ: For the benefit of the future Members of both the Senate and the House of Representatives, what do we do with the fractional representation like .2 and .8, or .4?
MR. MONSOD: Does the Gentleman mean in determining the allocation within the 20 percent?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, Madam President.
MR. MONSOD: Then, the way to do that is to list down everybody who has 2.5 percent at least. List them down and then divide the 50 by those within the list.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Madam President.
ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION
MR. RAMA: Madam President, to enable the Members to hold a caucus, I move for adjournment until tomorrow at nine-thirty in the morning.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is adjourned until tomorrow at nine-thirty in the morning. Let us all proceed to South Caucus Rooms A and B for our caucus.
It was 5:42 p.m.
* Appeared after the roll call.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is called to order.
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please rise to sing the National Anthem.
Everybody rose to sing the National Anthem.
THE PRESIDENT: Everybody will please remain standing for the Prayer to be led by the Honorable Ricardo J. Romulo.
Everybody remained standing for the Prayer.
MR. ROMULO: Dear Lord, we beseech You to grant us the faith to believe that we can do the task assigned to us; the hope that our people will find our work worthy of ratification; and the charity to accept graciously the will of the majority in our deliberations.
In the silence of our hearts, let us now pray for our own intentions and the intentions of one another. Amen.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will please call the roll.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
| Abubakar | Present* | Colayco | Present |
| Alonto | Present | Concepcion | Present |
| Aquino | Present | Davide | Present |
| Azcuna | Present* | Foz | Present |
| Bacani | Present | Garcia | Present* |
| Bengzon | Present* | Gascon | Present |
| Bennagen | Present* | Guingona | Present |
| Bernas | Present | Jamir | Present |
| Rosario Braid | Present | Laurel | Present* |
| Brocka | Present* | Lerum | Present* |
| Calderon | Present* | Maambong | Present* |
| Castro de | Present | Monsod | Present* |
| Natividad | Present* | Rosales | Present |
| Nieva | Present* | Sarmiento | Present* |
| Nolledo | Present* | Suarez | Present |
| Ople | Present* | Sumulong | Present |
| Padilla | Present | Tadeo | Present* |
| Quesada | Present* | Tan | Present |
| Rama | Present | Tingson | Present* |
| Regalado | Present | Treñas | Present |
| Reyes de los | Present* | Uka | Present* |
| Rigos | Present | Villacorta | Present |
| Rodrigo | Present | Villegas | Present |
| Romulo | Present |
The President is present.
The roll call shows 27 Members responded to the call.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair declares the presence of a quorum.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I move that we dispense with the reading of the Journal of yesterday's session.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I move that we approve the Journal of yesterday's session.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I move that we proceed to the Reference of Business.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
The Secretary-General will read the Reference of Business.
The Secretary-General read the following Communications and Committee Report, the President making the corresponding references:
Communication from Mr. Salustiano G. Tengonciang of 13 Maginhawa, U.P. Village, Quezon City, proposing provisions that would provide for the development of a national language for understanding and unity, and saying that "bilingual education concentrates too much of our efforts in learning a language rather than on instilling in the youth nationalistic values."
(Communication No. 267 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on General Provisions.
Communication from Mr. Bonifacio M. Lacdoo of 9-A Monserrat St., "MBS" Caloocan City, proposing a legislature composed of all provincial governors.
(Communication No. 268 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on the Legislative.
Letter from Mr. Delfin R. Manlapaz of 1707 E. Rodriguez, Sr. Boulevard, Cubao, Quezon City, Metro Manila, proposing an amendment to Proposed Resolution No. 496 (Committee Report No. 24), which would provide for the creation of a citizen-owned Reservoir of National Credit.
(Communication No. 269 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on the National Economy and Patrimony.
Communication from Mr. Cesar C. Sanchez of 19 ACSIE Avenue, Severina Industrial Estate, Km. 16, West Bicutan, Parañaque, Metro Manila, proposing a provision that will require elected national officials headed by the President to come up with an Economic Development Program, embodying a general plan based on priorities for implementation within a specific period of time.
(Communication No. 270 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on the National Economy and Patrimony.
Position paper of the American Chamber of Commerce of the Philippines, Inc., in support of Proposed Resolution No. 389, introduced by the Honorable Ambrosio Padilla, entitled: "RESOLUTION PROPOSING A PROVISION ALLOWING FOREIGN INVESTORS TO ACQUIRE, HOLD OR OWN LOTS WITH LIMITED AREA REQUIRED FOR THE OPERATION OF EXPORT-ORIENTED INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES."
(Communication No. 271 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on the National Economy and Patrimony.
Position paper of the American Chamber of Commerce of the Philippines, Inc. on foreign investments and multinational corporations role in rebuilding the Philippine economy.
(Communication No. 272 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on the National Economy and Patrimony.
Resolution No. 1, series of 1986, of the Archbishop Luis del Rosario Assembly, Pagadian City, proposing a provision in the Declaration of Principles that the basic and fundamental unit of the nation as a body politic is the family institution and that the preservation of its solidarity, development and strength is the primordial concern of the State.
(Communication No. 273 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and Declaration of Principles.
Resolution No. 2, series of 1986, of the Archbishop Luis del Rosario Assembly, Pagadian City, proposing a provision for the retention of the U.S. military bases in the Philippines.
(Communication No. 274 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on General Provisions.
Letter from the Alliance of Farmers Union in Zamboanga del Sur, signed by Mr. Wilfredo Alinton, submitting a program for genuine land reform.
(Communication No. 275 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Social Justice.
Resolution No. 115 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Negros Oriental, expressing its objection to the disregard of the proprietary rights of the province and suggesting that this be corrected through a provision promoting local autonomy.
(Communication No. 276 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Local Governments.
Letter from Mr. Custodio C. Lauron of Bacuag, Surigao del Norte, suggesting provisions on citizenship, suffrage, qualifications of local candidates, retention of death penalty, sessions of Congress from January to November, fiscal year to coincide with the calendar year, and approval of the budget before Congress adjourns, among others.
(Communication No. 277 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Steering Committee.
An article by the honorable Commissioners Yusup R. Abubakar, Lugum L. Uka, and Ahmad Domocao Alonto, entitled: "VICE-PRESIDENT LAUREL'S TRIP TO SPAIN UNDERSCORES THE ARABIC INFLUENCE IN THE SPANISH LANGUAGE AND HISTORY — Islam is a universal faith: 55 million Moslems coexist with 700 million Buddhists in China, 30 million Moslems live in friendship with the Russians, 9 percent of the population in Yugoslavia are Moslems — we had religious unity way back in 1930 but Marcos, pursuing the policy of divide and rule, promoted religious strife."
(Communication No. 278 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Human Resources.
A detailed list of native folk songs to be taught in the elementary and high school levels, to be furnished all Members of the Commission for their favorable consideration, respectfully submitted by the honorable Commissioners Hilario G. Davide, Jr., Yusup R. Abubakar, Napoleon G. Rama, Regalado E. Maambong and Lugum L. Uka who are among the authors of Proposed Resolution No. 451, for a better understanding of the implementation of Section 19 thereof.
(Communication No. 279 — Constitutional Commission of 1986)
To the Committee on Human Resources.
Committee Report No. 32 on Proposed Resolution No. 533, prepared by the Committee on the National Economy and Patrimony, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE ARTICLE ON NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY A PROVISION ON ANCESTRAL LANDS,recommending its approval in substitution of Proposed Resolution Nos. 375 and 378.
Sponsored by Hon. Villegas, Tadeo, Bacani, Bengzon, Jr., Bennagen, Foz, Gascon, Monsod, Natividad, Ople, Romulo, Sarmiento, Suarez, Uka and Villacorta.
To the Steering Committee.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
(Article on the Legislative/National Assembly)
Continuation
PERIOD OF SPONSORSHIP AND DEBATE
MR. RAMA: I move that we continue the consideration of Committee Report No. 22 on the Article on the Legislative/National Assembly.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
The body will now proceed to the consideration on Second Reading of the Article on the Legislative/National Assembly.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Rodrigo be recognized to interpellate the sponsor.
THE PRESIDENT: May we request Commissioner Davide, Chairman of the Committee on the Legislative, to occupy the rostrum, and the members of the Committee to please join Commissioner Davide.
Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, first of all, I would like to announce that I am a member of this Committee, but I signed the report with reservations on two grounds. I had my reservation on the report of the Committee for the unicameral system of legislature and also on the novel provisions on election by sector and party list and also on the reserved powers of initiative and referendum.
May I premise my question with certain statements. Madam President, I am not against the idea of election by sector and party list; it is a good idea. But the problem is the mechanics, how to implement it. From the time this was suggested by certain groups and certain Members of this Commission, I already requested them to submit a plan whereby this idea can be implemented in a practical way. Up to now, I have not seen nor heard any practical way of implementing this election by sector and party list.
As to initiative and referendum, I am also in favor of the idea because this is direct democracy, reserved power of the people to act directly instead of through elected representatives. But, again, there is the practical difficulty. Even the UP Law Constitution Project which recommends initiative and referendum calls attention to this practical difficulty, and I quote:
Practical considerations are also important in viewing initiative and referendum. If they were extended to the national level, the same practical difficulties already noted above would obtain. The difficulty, for example, in obtaining the required number of signatures, as well as the difficulty of verifying the number and authenticity of the signatures, could hamper the effective use of these powers by the people.In another page, that same report of UP states, and I quote:
Like recall, the exercise of these powers, namely, initiative and referendum is potentially difficult, disruptive and expensive.But it justifies the inclusion of this in the Constitution by the following statement, and I quote:
A Constitution is, however, envisioned as a system of first principles governing the individual and the social relations of people on a political community for a long time. In this age of rapid technological advances, it is highly likely that soon an efficient mechanical and inexpensive device will be available that would solve the practical difficulties that would at present attend the exercise of these processes.Section 2, page 6 provides:
The National Assembly shall be composed of not more than two hundred and fifty members who shall be elected from legislative districts . . . and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected from the sectors and party list.My question is: Is this provision mandatory or merely directory to the legislature?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, the Committee itself has decided to discuss the effects of this particular provision. So the issue was whether it would be mandatory or directory, whether it would only be an authority to be granted to the legislature. What prevailed was that it should only be an authority to be granted to the legislature, and so we do not qualify it as either directory or mandatory.
MR. RODRIGO: Thank you very much.
On page 14, Section 27, lines 20 to 21, reads: "The National Assembly shall provide for a system of initiative and referendum." Is this mandatory or directory?
MR. DAVIDE: The Committee would only say that that is a power or authority vested upon the legislature in order to implement a desired policy to allow people power to be institutionalized in the Constitution.
MR. RODRIGO: Yes, if and when the Members of the legislature think that the time is right for it.
MR. DAVIDE: That would be the effect, Madam President.
MR. RODRIGO: Thank you very much.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Foz be recognized to interpellate.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Foz is recognized.
MR. FOZ: Madam President, I have at least two questions, if the Committee is willing to entertain them. I would like to refer to Section 16 of the proposed resolution on the Article on the National Assembly. It says here, and I quote:
No Member of the National Assembly shall hold any other office or employment in the government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations during his tenure.My question is: Does this mean that a member of the National Assembly cannot be appointed to any other office in the government or he can be appointed but he forfeits his position in the legislature?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, we used the word "tenure" instead of "term." So, necessarily, if he vacates his office as a Member of the National Assembly, resigns or is removed from such office, then he may thereafter be appointed to any other office provided that such office is not covered by the second sentence.
MR. FOZ: What I am after is whether this disqualification of holding any other office in the government is absolute, meaning, that no appointment whatsoever can be extended to him by the President, or he can be appointed but he loses or forfeits his membership in the National Assembly.
MR. DAVIDE: In view of the fact, Madam President, that the prohibition extends to the period during his tenure, it would follow that if a Member accepts any position within the period for which he was elected, he should vacate his position in the National Assembly because that exceeds his tenure.
MR. FOZ: So his acceptance of a position outside the legislature would result in the loss of his membership in the legislature.
MR. DAVIDE. Yes, Madam President.
MR. FOZ: Thank you.
I have a related question here. The sponsor will recall that in our provisions on the Civil Service Commission, we have a more or less similar provision about disability or disqualification. I call attention to Section 4 in our draft on the Civil Service Commission provision, which reads:
No elective official shall be eligible for appointment or designation in any capacity to any public office or position during his tenure.Will the sponsor consider that this provision and Section 16 of the proposed resolution are more or less similar as to the extent and scope of the disqualification?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, Madam President, but if the idea is to delete this because it is already covered by that particular provision, we believe this should be retained because it would apply specifically to the Members of the National Assembly.
MR. FOZ: Will the sponsor not agree that Section 4 of the Civil Service Commission provision, which uses particularly the phrase "in any capacity to any public office or position," would be a more-embracing extent or scope than what is now contained in Section 16 of the resolution?
MR. DAVIDE: The interpretation would be practically the same, because the prohibition is:
No Member of the National Assembly shall hold any other office or employment in the government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporation during his tenure.
It means the holding in any capacity.
MR. FOZ: What about the term "government-owned or controlled corporations"? Does this cover the subsidiaries of these government corporations?
MR. DAVIDE: That is the intention of the Committee. We prepared this report before the amendments to the concept of government-owned or controlled corporation were taken up by the Commission pursuant to the amendment of Commissioners Romulo and Ople. So at the proper time, probably we could entertain any amendment for symmetry.
MR. FOZ: Is the sponsor saying that possibly we should amend this to include the phrase which was proposed by Commissioner Romulo in the draft on the Civil Service Commission provision which reads: "including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters"?
MR. DAVIDE: That is what I have just said, Madam President. We will entertain any proposal to achieve symmetry between that provision and Section 16 of the proposed resolution.
MR. FOZ: But does the sponsor not think, Madam President, that if we do that we would delimit the extent of the prohibition, so that Members of the National Assembly could be appointed and could accept positions in the subsidiaries of these government corporations?
MR. DAVIDE: I think the amendment of Commissioners Romulo and Ople was to include the phrase: "government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters and their subsidiaries." But we could get the true input of that upon inquiry from Commissioner Romulo.
We would like so seek the assistance of Commissioner Romulo, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Romulo is recognized.
MR. ROMULO: Our amendment to the provision on the Civil Service Commission was restricted to those government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters. Therefore, those government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters would continue to fall within the ambit of the Civil Service Commission. However, the subsidiaries of those corporations with original charters would be exempt from the Civil Service.
MR. DAVIDE: From the Civil Service or from the Commission on Audit because there were two, if I remember correctly?
MR. ROMULO: No, only from the Civil Service.
MR. DAVIDE: From the Civil Service.
MR. ROMULO: Yes.
MR. DAVIDE: Then at the proper time, Madam President, the Committee will be prepared to entertain amendments to reflect the intention of the Commission.
MR. FOZ: Would adoption of such an amendment, Madam President, mean that Members of the National Assembly may be appointed, let us say, to directorship of subsidiaries of government-owned or controlled corporations?
MR. DAVIDE: Unless there is an amendment to include their subsidiaries, it can be interpreted to mean that they may be, but the real intention of the Committee is not to allow them.
MR. FOZ: In that case, the Committee will not accept any proposed amendment that would not exclude subsidiaries of these government corporations?
MR. DAVIDE: That "would not exclude" them from being appointed to subsidiaries.
MR. FOZ: In other words, the intention is really to extend the coverage of the disqualification even to subsidiaries?
MR. DAVIDE: That is our intention, and we will welcome any proposal at the proper time, Madam President, to amend this section.
MR. FOZ: In that connection, Madam President, the same term "government-owned or controlled corporations during his term of office'' appears in the following section, Section 17, in connection with the financial interest of the Members in any contract or any franchise or special privilege with the government. Would the same intention of the Committee apply in this case that the prohibition or disqualification be made applicable even to subsidiaries of government-owned or controlled corporations?
MR. DAVIDE: If the subsidiaries have the authority or the power to grant any franchise or special privilege or to enter into any contract with any other party, the prohibition will extend to them.
MR. FOZ: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner de Castro be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner de Castro is recognized.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you, Madam President. Will the sponsor yield to a few questions?
MR. DAVIDE: Very gladly, Madam President.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you.
I notice that the Committee maintained the Commission on Appointments consisting of 24 members, as provided for in the 1935 Constitution. In maintaining this agency, has the Committee considered the many misfeasance and nonfeasance of the Commission on Appointments? I will say that misfeasance and nonfeasance are still light words to use considering the many misdeeds that the Commission on Appointments had brought upon the appointees of the President for confirmation.
MR. DAVIDE: Commissioner de los Reyes will answer the question.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Yes. Undoubtedly, there are misfeasance and nonfeasance committed by the members of the Commission on Appointments, but the evil is greater if there is no Commission on Appointments because there will be a unilateral appointment by the President.
MR. DE CASTRO: Since the Commissioner has admitted the evil of the Commission on Appointments, is he willing to substitute it with a more prestigious body to pass upon presidential appointments?
MR. DE LOS REYES: It may also be a Commission on Appointments but with a different composition if that is the idea so that it will not be exclusively composed of politicians.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you.
MR. DE LOS REYES: I think that is the idea of the Commissioner.
MR. DE CASTRO: I would only like to put on record the many sad experiences we in the Armed Forces suffered in the hands of the Commission on Appointments. There is no question that the Armed Forces is one of our mainstays for the democratic stability of our country.
Sometime in 1960, when I was a member of the AFP Promotions Board, we bypassed one lieutenant colonel because he was not fit for the next rank of full colonel. We submitted the list, through the President, to the Commission on Appointments. The presiding officer, upon reading the long list of lieutenant colonels to be confirmed to full colonels, found out that his man was not there so he put the list under his desk and told the majority floor leader of the Commission on Appointments to be absent. Only two days were left for the Congress to meet, so there was hurried work. The Promotions Board was in a hurry as it was under pressure to include that man so that the long list of lieutenant colonels may not be prejudiced. As Chairman of the Committee, I was constrained to include that man. And when the Chairman of the Commission on Appointments saw the name of his man, he approved the list on the last day. I do not know whether or not it passed the scrutiny of the Commission on Appointments. That man was promoted and confirmed to full colonel, and later, again by political attachment, became a general of the Armed Forces, but he could not be given a command because he could not really command men.
We are insulating the Armed Forces from partisan politics. We want the Armed Forces to be free from anything that will include political interference because we found out that political influence destroys the morale of the Armed Forces. We want a new Armed Forces today. We do not want a man who will bend on his knees to the Commission on Appointments so he can be confirmed and we do not want the Commission on Appointments a stepping stone for a star. So we thought of other means by which the officers of the Armed Forces may be confirmed when appointed by the President.
I would like to state also my little experience, if the honorable Chairman permits. The question with me is I am old enough to have so many experiences. I was appointed Chairman of the Police Commission in 1966. My name was submitted for confirmation by the Commission on Appointments. One member of the Commission, a Senator, told me to see him. I was quite busy at that time because we were professionalizing the police force, so I asked him if we could deal with the matter on the telephone. Considering the tenor of his order and my temperament, I did not see him. I was bypassed.
The next year, that Senator was in the Commission again; the same situation happened. His temperament and my temperament could not meet. I was again bypassed.
For seven years of my stay in the Police Commission, I was twice bypassed but always reappointed. I cannot with bended knees, stay in a position where I have to beg. I was confirmed only on the last day when martial law was declared and the Senate was already to be abolished the following day.
Madam President, is this the way our Commission on Appointments shall deal with the appointees of the President? I understand that what that Senator wanted was to put his men in the police force, whether qualified or not, under the Police Act. He recommended 50 permanent employees and 50 casual employees.
Madam President, let us not maintain this system. Let us, for the first time, be honorable in our position.
I filed Proposed Resolution No. 330 which seeks to create a Committee on Appointments, in place of the Commission on Appointments, the same recommendation of the UP Law Center, which was referred to the Committee on Constitutional Commissions and Agencies. I do not know whether or not the Committee has taken action on this, but I have not had the honor to be invited and asked about this resolution. I think it is still in the dead file or somewhere. The UP Law Center recommends that this Commission be under the executive. I do not know whether this may fit in the Committee on the Legislative as a Committee on Appointments in lieu of the Commission on Appointments. Can this be part of the Committee on the Legislative, not of the Committee on the Executive or the Committee on Constitutional Commissions and Agencies?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, that particular resolution as stated by the Honorable de Castro was referred to the Committee on Constitutional Commissions and Agencies, so it was not referred to our Committee. Anyway, we will try our best to answer or comment on the observations just made.
We expect, of course, some injustices which will be committed by a commission. But restoring the Commission cannot be prevented simply because of some occasional errors committed by it before. We consider the fact that appointments to the government by the President, without the approval by the Commission on Appointments, may result in what we had just witnessed in the last years when only the President exercised the power to appoint without any check by any other department of the government. So the evils sought to be avoided by the existence of a Commission on Appointments are far lesser than the evils which may be produced without the existence of a Commission on Appointments.
MR. DE CASTRO: I agree with the sponsor.
MR. DAVIDE: If the things which the Commissioner has enumerated happened before, it was probably because of the rules of the Commission which would require the concurrence of all its members before an appointment may be approved. Probably, we can have a relaxation of the rule as to the number of members of the Commission who will vote in order that an appointment may be considered as confirmed. Perhaps, a lesser number will do. Yesterday, we restored a bicameral system of legislature. With the restoration of the Senate, we look forward to a new Congress of the Philippines with more responsible people, with people who would now consider and take into account people power itself. So, perhaps, there will be no repetition of what happened in the past.
MR. DE CASTRO: I hope so, and I fully agree with the honorable sponsor that there must be a check and balance on the appointments made by the President. Will the honorable sponsor welcome certain amendments to the Commission on Appointments at the proper time?
MR. DAVIDE: We will welcome any proposal, Madam President, because we have not incorporated in this Article the manner of how the Commission on Appointments shall vote on a given appointment to be confirmed or otherwise by it.
MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you.
For the information of the body, the Commission on Appointments — may the soul of Congressman Crisologo rest in peace — had been the subject of great talk for two years when one man refused to meet him.
Thank you, Madam President. In due time, we will make the proper amendments.
MR. DAVIDE: Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Bacani be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: Will the members of the Committee yield to a few questions?
MR. DAVIDE: Very gladly, Madam President.
BISHOP BACANI: Thank you.
In Section 2, we set the number of Members of the National Assembly at not more than 250. I would like to ask whether this will remain even with the change introduced yesterday.
MR. DAVIDE: It will remain unless amended during the period of amendments because the Senate will be an entirely different House to be composed, as proposed by the Committee, of 24 Members.
BISHOP BACANI: Suppose the population of the Philippines increases in the year 2025, does the sponsor not foresee any flexibility in it?
MR. DAVIDE: As provided for here the maximum is 250 Members. Of course, we have a provision here which states:
Within three years following the return of every census, the National Assembly shall make a reapportionment of legislative districts based on the standards provided in the preceding section.
Of course, if the intention is to provide for a flexibility of the composition depending on the increase in population, meaning, we maintain the ratio of population to Representative as in the initial National Assembly, perhaps, we could add in Section 2 the clause UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OR THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
BISHOP BACANI: So will the sponsor be amenable to such a change?
MR. DAVIDE: The Committee will entertain any amendment on Section 2, Madam President.
BISHOP BACANI: Yes, thank you. I would like to be clarified as to the meaning of "sectoral and party list representative." What is embraced within the scope of these words?
MR. DAVIDE: The main proponent for the sectoral representation is Commissioner Villacorta and for the party list, Commissioner Monsod. May I request, Madam President, that we recognize Commissioner Villacorta to be followed by Commissioner Monsod.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Villacorta will make the necessary explanation.
MR. VILLACORTA: Madam President, if I understand it right, the Chairman of the Committee on the Legislative would want me to elaborate on the concept of sectoral representation. The idea of giving meaningful representation, particularly to the farmers and the workers, would be our Commission's humble gesture of extending protection to the interests of these groups which are not adequately attended to in normal legislative deliberations. Sectoral representation is a necessity, especially in these times when the people are giving the democratic process another chance, if not its last chance. Providing for mechanisms which would enhance the chances of marginalized sectors in electing their Representatives to the National Assembly will keep their hopes alive in the principle of peaceful change. This imperative becomes more urgent when this Commission recently adopted a bicameral system of legislature. We have heard apprehensions that the Upper House might be monopolized by the moneyed sectors and might protect vested property interests. Therefore, I would like to know if the Committee on the Legislative would consider identifying the mechanics of multiparty and multisectoral representation in the Constitution instead of leaving the mechanics to the legislature and, therefore, unnecessarily make our masses wait much longer before they are sectorally represented in the legislature. Contrary to the claim of Commissioner Rodrigo that the proponents of this sectoral representation idea have not submitted a single proposal for the mechanics, in fact, there have been two resolutions which were submitted and considered by the Committee. The first was submitted by Commissioners Monsod, Romulo and Foz and the second was actually an amendment of the first by this humble Member, together with Commissioners Aquino, Ople, Nieva, Suarez, Davide, Sarmiento, Uka, Quesada, Azcuna, Jamir, Tadeo, Garcia, Rosario Braid, Bennagen and Villegas. The proposals incorporate the concept of sectoral representation with that of the multiparty system, and since the Committee is calling on Commissioner Monsod to explain the mechanics of the multiparty system, I will leave it to the honorable Commissioner to explain the details of that system. But I would like to point out that the UP Law Center, in its voluminous reference materials, also referred to the merits of multisectoral representation.
On page 31 of Volume 1, annotated provisions of the UP Law Center's draft, the advantages of sectoral representation include:
First, it encourages interest in political affairs on the part of a large number of citizens who feel they do not have the opportunity to elect satisfactory spokesmen under the present system. Many who do not vote when the result is a foregone conclusion will do so when they have the assurance that their vote will likely affect the result.
Second, the minority groups are not forced to resort to extraparliamentary means to express their interest and to influence governmental policies, since every citizen is given a substantial representation which stands to develop a feeling of cooperation among all groups.
There are many other advantages, and I would like to emphasize that the UP Law Center devoted almost five pages defending the sectoral representation as against one page describing the drawbacks of such an idea.
I believe, Madam President, that for as long as the sectors, particularly the marginalized sectors, have a voice and the ability to influence legislation through their direct representatives, the masses will not have to seek recourse in institutions and practices that are outside the purview of the law.
Moreover, sectoral representation will lead to a more dynamic and vibrant democracy. It will engender the rise of nontraditional political parties and greater participation of people's organizations. There will likewise be more genuine grass-roots consultation. The people will have direct and firsthand experience in electoral process, for sectoral representation merges the features and dynamics of both direct and representative democracy.
At huli sa lahat, ibig ko sanang basahin ang ilang verses na sinulat ng aking hinahangaang makata, Commissioner Soc Rodrigo:
Ang pagseserbisyo sa ating Inang BayanLeafing through this brilliant book of poems of our honorable Commissioner, I found the following thoughts of our poet:
Ay 'di lang sa loob ng pamahalaan,
O sa bulwagan lang ng ating Batasan,
Bagkus kahit saang sulok ng lipunan.
Ang sinumang anak nitong Inang Bansa
Mayaman, mahirap, maharlika, dukha
Guro, magsasaka, tsuper, mangingisda
Ay bayaning lingkod ng bayang tanging mutya.
Ang kailangan lamang ay maging taimtim
Sa kanyang pagtupad ng mga tungkulin
Upang makatulong ng kahit katiting
Sa ikauunlad ng bayan natin.
Kapag ang minorya sa ating BatasanTherefore, 54 appeal to all my colleagues in this Commission, including the honorable Commissioner Soc Rodrigo, even if my reading did not do justice to his beautiful poems: We have to consolidate this new social and political order that we are presenting as our gift to the people. Let us institutionalize people power through sectoral representation. Otherwise, ang mangyayari, my honorable Commissioners, ay ang sinulat ni Honorable Soc Rodrigo:
Ay aapoyohan ng tinig ng bayan,
Magiging mabisa ang pakikilaban
Kontra sa abuso ng pangasiwaan,
Kahit ang minorya ay talo sa bilang.
Ang mga panglunas ng pangasiwaanHarinawa, honorable Commissioners, ang Konstitusyong ito ay hindi lamang "iniba ang tatak at balutan."
Nitong labingwalong taong nakaraan
Na mas nagpalubha sa sakit ng bayan
Ay siya pa ring hatol sa kasalukuyan,
Iniba nga lang ang tatak at balutan.
Marami pong salamat.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Commissioner Bacani is recognized.
BISHOP BACANI: I thank the Honorable Villacorta for the very beautiful defense of the idea of a sectoral representation, but I am already in basic sympathy with that. I want that myself. Only, I want to ask what sectors will be included. Will it be the farmers, teachers, et cetera? What will be the criteria or the bases for the creation of recognition of the sectors that will be represented in the Assembly?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, on the matter of the sectoral representation and the mechanics for the implementation thereof, the Committee had left it to a law to implement the same. That is why the provision here reads: "and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected from the sectors and party list." The law itself implementing this will provide which sectors to be represented.
BISHOP BACANI: How will we determine these sectors?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, since this is also on the matter of the party list, may we seek the recognition of Commissioner Monsod for the question of Commissioner Bacani?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: Thank you, Madam President.
I would like to make a distinction from the beginning that the proposal for the party list system is not synonymous with that of the sectoral representation. Precisely, the party list system seeks to avoid the dilemma of choice of sectors and who constitute the members of the sectors. In making the proposal on the party list system, we were made aware of the problems precisely cited by Commissioner Bacani of which sectors will have reserved seats. In effect, a sectoral representation in the Assembly would mean that certain sectors would have reserved seats; that they will choose among themselves who would sit in those reserved seats. And then, we have the problem of which sector because as we will notice in Proclamation No. 9, the sectors cited were the farmers, fishermen, workers, students, professionals, business, military, academic, ethnic and other similar groups. So these are the nine sectors that were identified here as "sectoral representatives" to be represented in this Commission. The problem we had in trying to approach sectoral representation in the Assembly was whether to stop at these nine sectors or include other sectors. And we went through the exercise in a caucus of which sector should be included which went up to 14 sectors. And as we all know, the longer we make our enumeration, the more limiting the law become because when we make an enumeration we exclude those who are not in the enumeration. Second, we had the problem of who comprise the farmers. Let us just say the farmers and the laborers. These days, there are many citizens who are called "hyphenated citizens." A doctor may be a farmer; a lawyer may also be a farmer. And so, it is up to the discretion of the person to say "I am a farmer" so he would be included in that sector.
The third problem is that when we go into a reserved seat system of sectoral representation in the Assembly, we are, in effect, giving some people two votes and other people one vote. We sought to avoid these problems by presenting a party list system. Under the party list system, there are no reserved seats for sectors. Let us say, laborers and farmers can form a sectoral party or a sectoral organization that will then register and present candidates of their party. How do the mechanics go? Essentially, under the party list system, every voter has two votes, so there is no discrimination. First, he will vote for the representative of his legislative district. That is one vote. In that same ballot, he will be asked: What party or organization or coalition do you wish to be represented in the Assembly? And here will be attached a list of the parties, organizations or coalitions that have been registered with the COMELEC and are entitled to be put in that list. This can be a regional party, a sectoral party, a national party, UNIDO, Magsasaka or a regional party in Mindanao. One need not be a farmer to say that he wants the farmers' party to be represented in the Assembly. Any citizen can vote for any party. At the end of the day, the COMELEC will then tabulate the votes that had been garnered by each party or each organization — one does not have to be a political party and register in order to participate as a party — and count the votes and from there derive the percentage of the votes that had been cast in favor of a party, organization or coalition.
When such parties register with the COMELEC, we are assuming that 50 of the 250 seats will be for the party list system. So, we have a limit of 30 percent of 50. That means' that the maximum that any party can get out of these 50 seats is 15. When the parties register they then submit a list of 15 names. They have to submit these names because these nominees have to meet the minimum qualifications of a Member of the National Assembly. At the end of the day, when the votes are tabulated, one gets the percentages. Let us say, UNIDO gets 10 percent or 15 percent of the votes; KMU gets 5 percent; a women's party gets 2 1/2 percent and anybody who has at least 2 1/2 percent of the vote qualifies and the 50 seats are apportioned among all of these parties who get at least 2 1/2 percent of the vote.
What does that mean? It means that any group or party who has a constituency of, say, 500,0()0 nationwide gets a seat in the National Assembly. What is the justification for that? When we allocate legislative districts, we are saying that any district that has 200,000 votes gets a seat. There is no reason why a group that has a national constituency, even if it is a sectoral or special interest group, should not have a voice in the National Assembly. It also means that, let us say, there are three or four labor groups, they all register as a party or as a group. If each of them gets only one percent or five of them get one percent, they are not entitled to any representative. So, they will begin to think that if they really have a common interest, they should band together, form a coalition and get five percent of the vote and, therefore, have two seats in the Assembly. Those are the dynamics of a party list system.
We feel that this approach gets around the mechanics of sectoral representation while at the same time making sure that those who really have a national constituency or sectoral constituency will get a chance to have a seat in the National Assembly. These sectors or these groups may not have the constituency to win a seat on a legislative district basis. They may not be able to win a seat on a district basis but surely, they will have votes on a nationwide basis.
The purpose of this is to open the system. In the past elections, we found out that there were certain groups or parties that, if we count their votes nationwide; have about 1,000,000 or 1,500,000 votes. But they were always third place or fourth place in each of the districts. So, they have no voice in the Assembly. But this way, they would have five or six representatives in the Assembly even if they would not win individually in legislative districts. So, that is essentially the mechanics, the purpose and objectives of the party list system.
BISHOP BACANI: Madam President, am I right in interpreting that when we speak now of party list system though we refer to sectors, we would be referring to sectoral party list rather than sectors and party list?
MR. MONSOD: As a matter of fact, if this body accepts the party list system, we do not even have to mention sectors because the sectors would be included in the party list system. They can be sectoral parties within the party list system.
BISHOP BACANI: Thank you very much.
Madam President, I have two more brief questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, please proceed.
BISHOP BACANI: In Section 17, lines 22 and 24 read: "He shall not intervene in any matter before any office of the government for his pecuniary benefit." It seems the phrase "for his pecuniary benefit" was not in the 1973 Constitution. Would it be good to revert to the 1973 Constitution's formulation so that there will be no need to prove that such intervention was done for pecuniary benefit because that might be a hard thing to prove?
MR. DAVIDE: At the proper time, Madam President, meaning, during the period of amendments, the Committee will entertain any proposal.
BISHOP BACANI: Thank you very much.
And then on Section 18, we speak of the Question Hour for the members of the Cabinet and their deputies. Is this limited to them? How about heads of government corporations and other functionaries not related to any specific ministry? Would they not be also comprised within this?
MR. DAVIDE: Under the proposal and traditionally, as a concept in a parliamentary system of government, the Question Hour is limited only to the Cabinet members.
BISHOP BACANI: Thank you.
MR. DAVIDE: But the proposal may be taken up during the period of amendments.
BISHOP BACANI: Thank you very much.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, may I ask that Commissioner Nolledo be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Nolledo is recognized.
MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you, Madam President.
Will the Chairman and members of the Committee please yield to interpellations?
MR. DAVIDE: Willingly, Madam President.
MR. NOLLEDO: With respect to Section 5, I remember that in the 1971 Constitutional Convention, there was an attempt to require candidates for the Assembly to be actual residents in the place not less than one year immediately preceding the day of the elections. So, my question is what is the Committee's concept of residence of a candidate for the legislature? Is it actual residence or is it the concept of domicile or constructive residence?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, insofar as the regular Members of the National Assembly are concerned, the proposed section merely provides, among others, "and a resident thereof"; that is, in the district, for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the day of the election. This was, in effect, lifted from the 1973 Constitution. I understand that in the 1973 Constitution, the interpretation given to it was domicile.
MR. NOLLEDO: That is correct because I understand also that the word "actual" was deleted by the 1971 Constitutional Convention in a plenary session.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, Madam President.
MR. NOLLEDO: With respect to the words on line 3 of Section 5, "on the day of the election," would the sponsor consider a candidate who turned 25 years old three days after the election but before his proclamation as a winner qualified as a Member of the legislature?
MR. DAVIDE: The requirement is on the day of the election as fixed by law which, under this proposal, would be the second Monday of May.
MR. NOLLEDO: And so, it should really be on the day of the election.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes.
MR. NOLLEDO: Because there was an opinion before that as long as one is not yet proclaimed and he reached the age before proclamation, the qualification will retroact to the date of the election. So, the Committee has abandoned that rule.
MR. DAVIDE: It is not abandoning that rule. This is also taken from the 1973 Constitution. If we allow the proposal, that is, reckoning the age requirement as of the day of proclamation, it would become uncertain. An individual who is not really qualified may participate in the election but delay his proclamation in order to be able to become a Member of the National Assembly.
MR. NOLLEDO: With respect to Section 9, subsection 3, on page 8, it is stated that the National Assembly may punish its Members for disorderly behavior, and with the concurrence of two-thirds of all its Members, suspend or expel a Member. But if the penalty is suspension, this shall not exceed 60 days.
My question is this: May the erring Member or the Member suspended or expelled appeal to the Supreme Court on the ground that his suspension or expulsion does not have any legal basis?
MR. DAVIDE: If my recollection is correct, in the case of Senator Osmeña, the Supreme Court considered it as a political question. The Rules provided for by the Congress of the Philippines on expulsion or suspension of its Members is within the exclusive prerogative of that body. However, I do not know its effect in view of the approval by this Commission of the Article on the Judiciary relating precisely to a definition of judicial power wherein political questions could no longer be an obstacle to a judicial determination of an issue.
MR. NOLLEDO: It is precisely with respect to that approved report of the Committee on the Judiciary that I am asking this question, because it may turn out that the Member suspended or expelled belongs to the minority party and by sheer majority vote of the majority party, he was suspended for reasons that are not sufficient for suspension.
MR. DAVIDE: By the clear intendment of the Article on the Judiciary, specifically on political questions, I believe that that matter may be inquired into. In other words, in this particular case, the doctrine of a political question may no longer be available.
MR. NOLLEDO: I agree with the sponsor especially if the suspended Member raises the question of abuse of discretion amounting to excess of jurisdiction.
With respect to Sections 10 and 11 on page 8, I understand that the Committee has also created an Electoral Tribunal in the Senate and a Commission on Appointments which may cover membership from both Houses. But my question is: It seems to me that the committee report does not indicate which body should promulgate the rules that shall govern the Electoral Tribunal and the Commission on Appointments. Who shall then promulgate the rules of these bodies?
MR. DAVIDE: The Electoral Tribunal itself will establish and promulgate its rules because it is a body distinct and independent already from the House, and so with the Commission on Appointments also. It will have the authority to promulgate its own rules.
MR. NOLLEDO: With respect to Section 21, page 11, authorizing the legislature by law to grant to the President powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy in times of war or other national emergency, may I ask about the extent of these powers? Do these powers include the right to legislate?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, in times of war or national emergency, we have to consider certain situations. In times of war, there may be martial law proclaimed by the President, of course, with the concurrence of the legislature.
In the draft Article on the Executive, one of the effects of a proclamation of martial law is that the legislature and any other legislative body are not supplanted, meaning, they continue their functions and the exercise of their authority. So, necessarily, it would follow that under Section 21, we presuppose a situation where the National Assembly can continue to exercise its functions. Logically then, the areas over which the National Assembly may delegate to the President certain authority must be very limited to meet the exigency of the emergency.
MR. NOLLEDO: Do I understand that the rules to be promulgated by the President should be coextensive with the existence of war or emergency, after which emergency or war these rules shall cease to have effect?
MR. DAVIDE: No, because one has to consider the last paragraph which reads:
Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the National Assembly, such power shall cease upon the next adjournment of the National Assembly.
So, it will automatically be set aside upon the next adjournment, if there is no resolution revoking it earlier.
MR. NOLLEDO: I have two more questions, Madam President, if the sponsor does not mind. The first question refers to Section 22, subsection 5, page 12 of the committee report about the provision that "No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations." This provision was set forth in the 1973 Constitution, inspired by the illegal fund transfer of P26.2 million that Senator Padilla was talking about yesterday which was made by President Marcos in order to benefit the Members of the Lower House so that his pet bills would find smooth sailing. I am concerned about the discretionary funds being given to the President every year under the budget. Do we have any provision setting forth some guidelines for the President in using these discretionary funds? I understand Mr. Marcos abused this authority. He would transfer a fund from one item to another in the guise of using it to suppress insurgency. What does the sponsor say about this?
MR. DAVIDE: If Mr. Marcos was able to do that, it was precisely because of the general appropriations measure allowing the President to transfer funds. And even under P.D. No. 1177 where the President was also given that authority, technically speaking, the provision of the proposed draft would necessarily prevent that, Mr. Marcos was able to do it because of the decrees which he promulgated, but the Committee would welcome any proposal at the proper time to totally prevent abuse in the disbursements of discretionary funds of the President.
MR. NOLLEDO: My last question, Madam President, is with respect to Section 25, subsection 3, on page 13, of the report of the Committee. I know that the members of the Committee are aware that educating the citizens is a basic purpose of the State. And the private schools, including the Catholic schools, are playing, I should say, an important role in the attainment of this objective of educating the youth of the land. Would the sponsor please justify the written statement of the 1935 constitutional provision granting exemption from realty tax to private educational institutions?
MR. DAVIDE: Before answering that, we should qualify the property which would be subject to the real estate tax and for which the educational institution may now be exempt. Only buildings and lands or improvements which are actually, directly and exclusively used for religious, charitable or educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation. So, for the justification on why we would now want educational institutions to be exempted from real estate taxes with respect to lands, buildings and improvements owned by them but which are actually, directly and exclusively used for educational purposes, may I request the recognition of Commissioner Guingona, the main proponent, who is a member of the Committee, to speak for the Committee?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Guingona is recognized.
MR. GUINGONA: I think the honorable Commissioner Nolledo has already given the justification when he spoke on the importance of education. In other words, the concern of the Committee is the benefit that will be derived by the students from this proviso. Our focus of attention, therefore, is the students because the assistance that may be given to educational institutions is expected to redound to the benefit of the students, either in the matter of reduction of fees or the improvement of the quality of education. As a matter of fact, that is one of the main concerns of the Subcommittee on Education. We did not only provide for education; we also included a proviso regarding the need to ensure quality education in our educational institutions.
MR. NOLLEDO: I extend my thanks to the Chairman and members of the Committee.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner Quesada be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Quesada is recognized.
MS. QUESADA: I would like to ask some clarificatory questions, Madam President.
I would like to raise some questions on Section 16, page 10. Earlier, Commissioner Foz already asked if this particular limitation to legislators of holding any office or employment in the government or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations during their tenure would also include appointments to board of regents, board of trustees, board of directors of state universities and colleges. It has been done in the past; and so, we would like to find out if this particular provision will preclude them from any such appointment.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, Madam President. during the tenure of the Member of the National Assembly.
MS. QUESADA: Thank you.
In Section 17, a prohibition on a Member of the National Assembly appearing as counsel has been specified. Would this also include making representation not as a counsel but just making personal representation before any court?
MR. DAVIDE: Would the Commissioner kindly specially what kind of representation it will be?
MS. QUESADA: The sponsor knows our "pakiusap," "nilalakad" or influence-peddling.
MR. DAVIDE: I think we have RA 3019, the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. I do not know if there is any corresponding provision regarding influence-peddling or a prohibition against influence-peddling.
MS. QUESADA: So, the sponsor thinks that this is covered in that particular republic act?
MR. DAVIDE: I believe so, if that influence, say, on an administrative official or an official exercising judicial functions would cause to prevail upon to render any particular decision which would be manifestly unjust or prejudicial or would cause undue disadvantage or prejudice to another party. I think that would be covered by RA 3019, as amended.
MS. QUESADA: As a follow-up question, lines 17 to 24 talk of pecuniary interest. It states: "neither he shall, directly or indirectly, be interested financially in any contract with, . . ." I wonder now whether this prohibition includes retainership of local and foreign monopolies. For instance, a Member of the legislature may not be directly getting into any government contract but may be actually retained in monopolies or some other business interests.
MR. DAVIDE: That matter of retainership of a multinational corporation would not be covered by the sentence from lines 17 to 22 for the reason that this is strictly limited to direct or indirect financial interests in any contract with or in any franchise or special privilege granted by the government or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations during his term of office.
MS. QUESADA: Would the sponsor not consider this retainership as an indirect way of exerting influence in the legislation of bills? Some legislators would initiate bills which would tend to promote the interest of their client-firms to the detriment of the public welfare.
MR. DAVIDE: If that would be a pure case of a conflict of interest, I think that would mean it can fall under indirect interest, and if it is in relation to his office, probably we could consider it as, say, an indirect appearance before any administrative body or an indirect intervention in any matter before any office of the government.
MS. QUESADA: I am not just referring to direct representation but actually on how they would be able to influence the passage or initiation of legislation that would favor the client-firms.
MR. DAVIDE: He could be disciplined. That may be a misbehavior committed by the individual member and, therefore, that matter can be the proper subject of an inquiry or investigation by the National Assembly itself, and he could be expelled or suspended, for that particular act amounts really to a conflict of interest on a matter over which the legislature may be called upon to act.
MS. QUESADA: So these are provisions that the legislature shall insure that such a breach of public trust is not broken by any of the Members of the National Assembly?
MR. DAVIDE: The National Assembly, under its rules on discipline. may provide a disciplinary measure or penalty on cases or matters which would cause an assault on the integrity of the Assembly itself.
MS. QUESADA: Thank you.
Another point that I would like to have some clarification on is Section 15, page 9 which reads:
A Member of the National Assembly shall, in all offenses punishable by not more than six years imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the National Assembly is in session; but the National Assembly shall surrender the Member involved to the custody of the law within twenty-four hours after its adjournment for a recess or for its next session, otherwise such privilege shall cease upon its failure to do so. A Member shall not be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in the National Assembly or in any committee thereof.
Has the Committee in its deliberations considered some mechanism by which this particular immunity granted to Members of the National Assembly shall not be abused?
MRs DAVIDE: Madam President may I request the recognition of Commissioner Jamir to answer for the Committee?
MR. JAMIR: Of course, the Committee will be willing to consider such matters as will prevent the abuse of these privileges granted to them.
MS. QUESADA: Yes, because there is the position that the granting of such immunity could lead to contempt on the part of legislators who, as representatives of the people, ought to hold themselves as examples in respecting rules demanded by an orderly society. As to privilege speech, a Member shall not be questioned or be held liable in any other place for a speech or debate in the National Assembly or any committee thereof. There is the fear that the broadening of this freedom of speech extended to legislators in the halls of legislation may be used to abuse officials and private individuals by making statements that hurt reputations and feelings. So I was wondering if the Committee has provided for any mechanism like, for example, a statement on the waiver of such immunity which would then allow the special committee of the legislature to discipline a Member who abuses his parliamentary privileges.
MR. JAMIR: At the proper time, the Committee will be willing to hear and consider proposals for the amendment of this in order to avoid abuse of those privileges. But may we inform the Commissioner that the privilege to the Members of the legislature has been given in order to prevent their being harassed in the performance of their duties. This is way back in the history of the House of Commons as well as in the United States Congress. This privilege, is granted in order that the Members of the legislature may perform their duties without fear of harassment and persecution.
MS. QUESADA: Yes, we do recognize that. On the other hand, we also think of balancing these privileges which could be exercised to the detriment of other citizens who have just as much right to be heard or be protected.
The final point for clarification is on page 13, Section 25, subparagraph (3). I came late when Commissioner Nolledo did talk about line 13 which says that charitable institutions, churches, etc., performing educational purposes shall be exempted from taxation. Would this cover schools which will claim that they are nonprofit? Would such an exemption be granted to institutions which might claim that they are charitable because they are not raking profits?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, what is exempted is not the institution itself. Under lines 28 to 30, those exempted from real estate taxes are lands, buildings and improvements actually, directly and exclusively used for religious, charitable or educational purposes. So, if that particular nonprofit educational institution has a land or a building or an improvement actually, directly and exclusively used for educational purposes, that educational institution is exempt from the payment of realty taxes on such land, building and improvement.
MS. QUESADA: So the exemption covers educational institutions which might claim that they are charitable institutions and would have all these functions that were mentioned on lines 23 to 25?
MR. DAVIDE: Insofar as charitable institutions, churches and parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, mosques and nonprofit cemeteries are concerned, they are totally exempt from taxation.
MS. QUESADA: The sponsor has not answered my question: Would charitable institutions include non-profit educational institutions?
MR. DAVIDE: No, because a nonprofit educational institution is for educational purposes.
MS. QUESADA: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam Presidents I ask that Commissioner Suarez be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Madam President.
I am sorry that I have to go through the full spectrum of the Article, but may I start with Section 1. I take it that Section I has to be interpreted with Section 27. Is my understanding correct, especially as regards the last sentence?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President. that is correct. The exception there has reference really to the provision on initiative and referendum which is specifically Section 27 of the proposed draft.
MR. SUAREZ: Because the general rule is, the legislative power is vested only in the National Assembly or in whatever Houses we are going to set up under the Constitution. And this system of recall and initiative in Section 27 would constitute the exception to that general rule.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: And Section 27 contemplates a situation where the people themselves would enact legislation.
MR. DAVIDE: Or disapprove or reject legislations.
MR. SUAREZ: That is right. To carry it to its logical conclusion, would this development necessitate a presidential approval as required in the case of a law enacted by the National Assembly?
MR. DAVIDE: That would depend on the law implementing Section 27, although the proposals of the principal authors on initiative and referendum established already the necessary mechanics for the full implementation of these two concepts.
MR. SUAREZ: But under Section 27, therein it expressly provides that the National Assembly shall provide for a system of initiative and referendum. In other words, the mechanism for instituting the system of, initiative and referendum is vested in the National Assembly. But the procedure for the final approval or veto of whatever may be instituted in pursuance to the system of initiative and referendum has not been provided under the draft Article.
MR. DAVIDE: We have not, although we believe that under Section 27, the law itself, which will be enacted by the National Assembly, will provide for everything in respect to the full implementation of the two concepts.
MR. SUAREZ: In other words, the Committee will leave that to the discretion of the National Assembly, including the exercise of the veto or approval power of the President, which is a constitutional precept or principle.
MR. DAVIDE: I think the National Assembly will consider that matter in the passage of the implementing law.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
Let me go to Section 2. This provision is about electing the 200 Members at the least from legislative districts apportioned among the provinces and cities in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants. With respect to the first Members of the National Assembly to be elected from legislative districts, did the Committee append an ordinance to the Constitution in order to determine the legislative districts contemplated under Section 2?
MR. DAVIDE: The Committee intends to approve a resolution to append an ordinance on the apportionment to the Constitution. But we felt that since we are still working on it, the Commission will have to take that up sometime later.
MR. SUAREZ: But does the Committee feel that that is essential before calling the first elections for the Members of the National Assembly?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, Madam President. And we hope that by next week, we can come up already with the ordinance to be appended to the Constitution. With the assistance of the Commission on Elections, by Friday, we will be ready with the apportionment of the seats.
MR. SUAREZ: For all the provinces and cities?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: When one says "cities," we have problems with respect to the so-called "highly urbanized cities" because of the ordinance appended to the 1973 Constitution in 1984. I have gone over this ordinance and I saw that there were seven highly urbanized cities consisting of Baguio, Olongapo, Cebu, Zamboanga, Cagayan de Oro, Davao and Iligan. But after that, for political maneuvering purposes, the City of Angeles was included and declared as a highly urbanized city. So, would the Committee consider all of these factors when they provide for the apportionment of the National Assembly by districts?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, Madam President. And we would earnestly solicit the assistance of the Commissioner in the preparation of the apportionment bill. We would like to call the attention of the body, however, that under the last paragraph of Section 2, it is provided that each legislative district shall comprise as far as practicable contiguous, compact and adjacent territory, provided, however, that each city with a population of more than 200,000, or each province shall have at least one representative. So, cities with a population of more than 200,000 will perhaps be entitled to more than one representation. In short, under this proposal, a city itself may be districted.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, and I would feel comfortable if the Committee will avoid gerrymandering for political purposes in setting up these legislative districts.
MR. DAVIDE: It is the special asset of this Commission that we according to our conscience. We will not gerrymander anything.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
Let me go to Section 18, the matter of a possible Question Hour for Members of the National Assembly to enjoy, as a right, calling upon Cabinet members. I take it that we are setting up a presidential system of government. Is my understanding correct?
MR. DAVIDE: That is correct, and we felt that the incorporation of this strictly parliamentary government concept into a presidential form of government would be very, very helpful and conducive to a further check on the executive.
MR. SUAREZ: But would it not violate the principle of separation of powers considering that in a presidential system of government, it is the President who is accountable to the electorate and he is not accountable to the National. Assembly which is an independent political instrumentality?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, we respectfully submit that it would not infringe upon that principle of separation of powers because that principle would not insulate one organ of the government from the other. Precisely, it is correlated with another principle of check and balance.
MR. SUAREZ: So, the sponsor would want to integrate this in a presidential system of government notwithstanding the fact that it is essentially a characteristic of a parliamentary system of government.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, because while it is a characteristic of the parliamentary system of government, we do submit that it is essential for the enhancement and the strengthening of the doctrine of check and balance.
MR. SUAREZ: And when one contemplates the appearance of a member of the Cabinet and his deputy to answer questions and interpellations by Members of the National Assembly, will it require a presidential approval considering that his Cabinet members are only extensions of the personality of the President?
MR. DAVIDE: No prior approval is necessary. The only authority of the President under this provision is on the last sentence which says:
When the security of the State so requires and the President so states in writing, the question hour shall be conducted in executive session.
MR. SUAREZ: In other words, notwithstanding this last sentence, it is mandatorily required that when summoned, the Cabinet Members must appear. But in a situation where there is a necessity to call them in an executive session, it must be so conducted.
MR. DAVIDE: That is correct.
MR. SUAREZ: In other words, the duty to appear remains.
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, but it is mandatory.
MR. SUAREZ: But whether they will be conducting a public hearing or an executive session is the matter at hand.
MR. DAVIDE: Not a public hearing but a public session.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
The next point is on Section 25, subparagraph (3). This has already been asked by at least two Commissioners, because this is bothering quite a number of Members. Since under the 1935 Constitution there is a similar or identical provision but this was completely deleted in the 1973 Constitution, would the sponsor like to resuscitate it, revive it and reincorporate it under the new Constitution? Is that the meaning, Madam President?
MR. DAVIDE: No, Madam President, because it is not true that this particular provision was deleted in the 1973 Constitution. The 1935 provision on this matter was only modified in the 1973 Constitution. For instance, mosques and nonprofit cemeteries are all 1973 amendments to the 1935 Constitution. The words "actually" and "directly" are also 1973 words. Of course, in the 1973 Constitution, the word "educational," referring to line 30, did not appear.
MR. SUAREZ: That is exactly the most bothersome portion, restoring the word "educational" under this particular subsection. But let me clarify only if this is the intention of the members of the Committee. When one says "for educational purposes," lands, buildings and improvements are exempted from the payment of realty taxes, is that the thrust of this provision?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes. Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: And as an example, that means practically that the lands and buildings of the Far Eastern University, the Centro Escolar University, the University of Santo Tomas, the De La Salle University, the Philippine Women's University would all be exempt from the payment of realty taxes?
MR. DAVIDE: Subject to the qualifications mentioned. The three qualifications must be together or simultaneous, not individually. So, before any exemption can be availed of, it must be shown that the lands, buildings or the improvements are actually, directly and exclusively used for religious, charitable or educational purposes.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.
Let us go to Section 26, subparagraph (2). In the 1973 Constitution, there were no exceptions; and now, it was included here the exception when a priest, preacher, minister or dignitary is assigned to the Armed Forces, or to any penal institution, or government orphanage or leprosarium. This is again substantially a reflection of the 1935 Constitution.
MR. DAVIDE: And the 1973 Constitution.
MR. SUAREZ: The 1973 Constitution, excuse me. May we know the reasons for proposing the inclusion of these exceptions?
MR. DAVIDE: The reason is that when a priest, preacher, minister or dignitary is assigned to the Armed Forces of the Philippines, he is actually serving the interest of the Armed Forces of the Philippines or the army of the people, or if he is assigned to a penal institution, necessarily, he is performing a duty which ought to be a duty of the government; so, in short, for a time he is being divorced from being just an ordinary member of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian institution or system of religion.
MR. SUAREZ: The last question is: Why did the Committee qualify orphanage with "government" when there are private orphanages that deserve the help and assistance of the government?
MR. DAVIDE: May I have that again, Madam President?
MR. SUAREZ: In this proposal, the Committee is qualifying orphanage with the word "government." Is it not a fact that there are private orphanages which deserve more aid and assistance than government orphanages?
MR. DAVIDE: That could probably be a subject of an amendment, although we feel that this particular subsection of Section 26 would refer to public money or property.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you for the clarifications, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I ask for the recognition of Commissioner Bengzon.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Bengzon is recognized.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, may I suggest that, at this point in time, we suspend interpellations on the report of the Committee on the Legislative to be continued this afternoon.
In the meantime, I move that we vote on Third Reading on the committee reports on Suffrage, Constitutional Commissions and Bill of Rights.
I so move, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
The Secretary-General is requested to ring the bell so that those who may be in the lounge may come in for the voting.
ON PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 468
ON THIRD READING
(Article on the Constitutional Commissions —
Common Provisions and Civil Service Commission)
MR. BENGZON: I move that we vote on Third Reading on Proposed Resolution No. 468.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
Printed copies of Proposed Resolution No. 468 were distributed on July 18, 1986 pursuant to Section 28, Rule VI of the Rules of the Constitutional Commission.
Voting on the proposed resolution on Third Reading is, therefore, in order.
The Secretary-General will read the title of the resolution.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: Proposed Resolution No. 468, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE CONSTITUTION AN ARTICLE ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS.
THE PRESIDENT: The body will now vote on this proposed resolution and the Secretary-General will call the roll.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
| Abubakar | Yes | Rosario Braid | Yes |
| Alonto | Yes | Brocka | Yes |
| Aquino | Yes | Calderon | |
| Azcuna | Castro de | Yes | |
| Bacani | Yes | Colayco | Yes |
| Bengzon | Yes | Concepcion | Yes |
| Bennagen | Yes | Davide | Yes |
| Berna | Yes | Foz | Yes |
| Garcia | Yes | Guingona | |
| Gascon |
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President, I would like to be clarified. During the deliberations we divided the Article on the Constitutional Commissions into the Common Provisions, the Commission on Civil Service, the Commission on Audit and the Commission on Elections. Are we voting on the entire Article on constitutional bodies?
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, we are voting on Proposed Resolution No. 468. There are three other resolutions on that respect. We have separate resolutions for the COMELEC, the Civil Service Commission and the Commission on Audit. Proposed Resolution No. 468 refers to the Common Provisions and the Civil Service Commission.
MR. GUINGONA: I vote yes, Madam President.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
| Jamir | Yes | Rigos | Yes |
| Laurel | Yes | Rodrigo | Yes |
| Lerum | Yes | Romulo | Yes |
| Maambong | Yes | Rosales | |
| Monsod | Yes | Sarmiento | Yes |
| Natividad | Yes | Suarez | Yes |
| Nieva | Yes | Sumulong | Yes |
| Nolledo | Yes | Tadeo | Yes |
| Ople | Yes | Tan | Yes |
| Padilla | Yes | Tingson | Yes |
| Muños | Palma | Treñas | Yes |
| Quesada | Yes | Uka | Yes |
| Rama | Yes | Villacorta | Yes |
| Regalado | Yes | Villegas | Yes |
| Reyes de los | Yes |
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will conduct a second call for those who have not registered their votes.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
| Azcuna | Gascon | ||
| Calderon | Rosales |
ON THIRD READING
(Article on the Constitutional Commissions —
Common Provisions and Civil Service Commission)
THE PRESIDENT: The results show 43 votes in favor and none against.
Proposed Resolution No. 468, as amended, is approved on Third Reading.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, I move that we vote on Third Reading on Proposed Resolution No. 521.
MR. FOZ: Madam President, there are certain errors which cropped up in the Third Reading copy. They are not exactly for the Committee on Style to correct. I think we should correct them before we take a vote on Third Reading.
THE PRESIDENT: Which one?
MR. FOZ: This is a minor correction on page 2, second line of the last paragraph. The word "on" should be OR.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other correction?
MR. FOZ: There are more on page 3.
THE PRESIDENT: There is already a corrected copy.
MR. FOZ: Has that already been corrected?
What about on page 3, subsection (10), which reads: "Perform such other functions as may be provided by law"? Has that been eliminated? That has been transposed to the Common Provisions on the Constitutional Commissions.
THE PRESIDENT: How should it read, please?
MR. FOZ: Subsection (10) on page 3, which reads: "Perform such other functions as may be provided by law" should be deleted.
THE PRESIDENT: Let the proper deletion be made on the corrected copy.
MR. FOZ: Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand the Secretariat distributed this corrected copy yesterday.
I would suggest that the pages leave the copies on the tables. Even if the Commissioners and I are absent, any document for distribution should be left on our respective tables.
ON PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 521
ON THIRD READING
(Article on the Constitutional Commissions —
Commission on Elections)
MR. BENGZON: I move that we vote on Third Reading on Proposed Resolution No. 521.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
Printed copies of Proposed Resolution No. 521 were distributed on July 18, 1986 pursuant to Section 28, Rule VI of the Rules of the Constitutional Commission. Voting on the proposed resolution on Third Reading is, therefore, in order.
The Secretary-General will read the title of the resolution.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: Proposed Resolution No. 521, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION THE PROVISIONS ON THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS.
THE PRESIDENT: The body will now vote on this proposed resolution and the Secretary-General will call the roll.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
| Abubakar | Yes | Natividad | Yes |
| Alonto | Yes | Nieva | Yes |
| Aquino | Yes | Nolledo | Yes |
| Azcuna | Ople | Yes | |
| Bacani | Yes | Padilla | Yes |
| Bengzon | Yes | Muños Palma | Yes |
| Bennagen | Yes | Quesada | Yes |
| Bernas | Yes | Rama | Yes |
| Rosario Braid | Yes | Regalado | Yes |
| Brocka | Yes | Reyes de los | Yes |
| Calderon | Rigos | Yes | |
| Castro de | Yes | Rodrigo | Yes |
| Colayco | Yes | Romulo | Yes |
| Concepcion | Yes | Rosales | |
| Davide | Yes | Sarmiento | Yes |
| Foz | Yes | Suarez | Yes |
| Garcia | Yes | Sumulong | Yes |
| Gascon | Tadeo | Yes | |
| Guingona | Yes | Tan | Yes |
| Jamir | Yes | Tingson | Yes |
| Laurel | Yes | Treñas | Yes |
| Lerum | Yes | Uka | Yes |
| Maambong | Yes | Villacorta | Yes |
| Monsod | Yes | Villegas | Yes |
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will conduct a second call for those who have not registered their votes.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
| Azcuna | Gascon |
| Calderon | Rosales |
ON THIRD READING
(Article on the Constitutional Commissions—
Commission on Elections)
THE PRESIDENT: The results show 44 votes in favor and none against.
Proposed Resolution No. 521, as amended, is approved on Third Reading.
ON PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 469
ON THIRD READING
(Article on the Constitutional Commissions —
Commission on Audit)
MR. BENGZON: I move that we vote on Third Reading on Proposed Resolution No. 469.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
Printed copies of Proposed Resolution No. 469 were distributed on July 18, 1986 pursuant to Section 28, Rule VI of the Rules of the Constitutional Commission.
Voting on the proposed resolution on Third Reading is, therefore, in order.
The Secretary-General will read the title of the resolution.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: Proposed Resolution No. 469, entitled:
RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE PROVISIONS ON THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION.
THE PRESIDENT: The body will now vote on this proposed resolution and the Secretary-General will call the roll.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
| Abubakar | Yes | Calderon | |
| Alonto | Yes | Castro de | Yes |
| Aquino | Yes | Colayco | Yes |
| Azcuna | Concepcion | Yes | |
| Bacani | Yes | Davide | |
| Bengzon | Yes | Foz | Yes |
| Bennagen | Yes | Garcia | Yes |
| Bernas | Yes | Gascon | |
| Rosario Braid | Yes | Guingona | |
| Brocka | Yes |
MR. GUINGONA: I abstain, Madam President. May I please explain my vote.
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner may proceed.
COMMISSIONER GUINGONA EXPLAINS HIS VOTE
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President, it is the opinion of this Member that the function of the Commission on Audit to serve as guardian of the people's money has been unduly restricted with regard to nongovernmental entities receiving subsidy or equity from the government, even where the government's equity in such entities as well as the amount of subsidy thereof might be substantial.
Thank you.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
| Jamir | Yes | Rigos | Yes |
| Laurel | Yes | Rodrigo | Yes |
| Lerum | Yes | Romulo | Yes |
| Maambong | Yes | Rosales | |
| Monsod | Yes | Sarmiento | Yes |
| Natividad | Yes | Suarez | Yes |
| Nieva | Yes | Sumulong | Yes |
| Nolledo | Yes | Tadeo | Yes |
| Ople | Yes | Tan | Yes |
| Padilla | Yes | Tingson | Yes |
| Muñoz Palma | Yes | Treñas | Yes |
| Quesada | Yes | Uka | |
| Rama | Yes | Villacorta | Yes |
| Regalado | Yes | Villegas | Yes |
| Reyes de los | Yes |
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will conduct a second call for those who have not registered their votes.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
| Azcuna | Gascon | ||
| Calderon | Rosales | ||
| Davide |
ON THIRD READING
(Article on the Constitutional Commissions —
Commission on Audit)
THE PRESIDENT: The results show 42 votes in favor, none against and one abstention.
Proposed Resolution No. 469, as amended, is approved on Third Reading.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, I move that we vote on Third Reading on Proposed Resolution No. 486 on the Bill of Rights.
MR. BROCKA: Madam President, just a minor correction on page 2, Section 9 which reads: "No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble . . ." Could we not modify this phrase "or the right of the people peaceably to assemble" to read as follows: "or the right of the people to peaceably assemble"?
THE PRESIDENT: Page 2, Section 6?
MS. QUESADA: Point of clarification. Would the approval of this Bill of Rights on Third Reading preclude the request that we had earlier for the expansion of the Bill of Rights to include social, cultural and economic rights which we are going to address to the Committee on Style?
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, that can be taken up in the Article on Social Justice.
THE PRESIDENT: I beg the Commissioner's pardon?
MS. QUESADA: My inquiry is: Would the approval of this Bill of Rights preclude any expansion of the Article on the Bill of Rights to include social, cultural and economic rights as we had proposed earlier?
THE PRESIDENT: What does the Chairman of the Steering Committee say?
MR. BENGZON: It will not.
MS. QUESADA: It will not. So, it will all be contained in the Social Justice provisions.
THE PRESIDENT: If this is approved on Third Reading, it is approved as is, unless the body approves it with that reservation.
MS. QUESADA: For another clarification from the Committee. This is on the section on the right to strike. Is this part of the right to form organizations? Would the right to form associations exempt the right to strike?
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.
It was 11:59 a.m.
At 12:02 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
MS. QUESADA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Quesada is recognized.
MS. QUESADA: I would like to withdraw my clarification; I have already been clarified.
THE PRESIDENT: So, we can proceed to vote on Proposed Resolution No. 486 on the Bill of Rights.
The Acting Floor Leader is recognized.
ON PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 486
ON THIRD READING
(Article on Bill of Rights)
MR. BENGZON: I move that we vote on Third Reading on Proposed Resolution No. 486.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
Printed copies of Proposed Resolution No. 486 were distributed on July 21, 1986 pursuant to Section 28, Rule VI of the Rules of the Constitutional Commission.
Voting on the proposed resolution on Third Reading is, therefore, in order.
The Secretary-General will read the title of the resolution.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: Proposed Resolution No. 486, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION AN ARTICLE ON THE BILL OF RIGHTS.
THE PRESIDENT: The body will now vote on this proposed resolution and the Secretary-General will call the roll.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
| Abubakar | Yes | Bengzon | Yes |
| Alonto | Bennagen | Yes | |
| Aquino | Yes | Bernas | Yes |
| Azcuna | Rosario Braid | ||
| Bacani | Yes |
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Madam President, I vote yes but I would like to register my comment. The Bill of Rights which has expanded the notion of human rights is an excellent and progressive document, but I am quite disappointed because it has failed to address itself to the expanded notion of freedom of information. The latter states that the freedom of the individual must be accompanied by social responsibility, the State's responsibility, to protect these freedoms by providing equal opportunities to access of information through such mechanisms as appropriate decentralized structures so that the common man may have full participation.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
| Brocka | Yes | Concepcion | Yes |
| Calderon | Davide | Yes | |
| Castro de | Yes | Foz | |
| Colayco | Yes |
MR. FOZ: Madam President, I am voting yes but I would like to explain my vote.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Foz may proceed.
MR. FOZ: In connection with Section 7 of the Article on the Bill of Rights which states:
The right of the people including those employed in the public and private sectors to form associations, unions, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged,I would like to say that in answer to certain statements here and in the press expressing fear that with this provision, employees in the public sector are precluded from engaging in concerted activities, Madam President, this is not so; that precisely the provision as now worded gives those in the public sector the right to form unions. This right to organize themselves carries with it the right to engage in concerted activities. We can make a listing of these concerted activities that public employees can get involved in, and among them is the right to strike which is an ultimate weapon of labor, if all else fail in their negotiations with management.
I should have said this during our voting on Third Reading on the provisions on the civil service regarding Section I on the scope of the civil service which reads:
The Civil Service embraces all branches, subdivisions, instrumentalities and agencies of the Government, including government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters.
As I have said before, this is a general description of the scope or extent of what is known as civil service. We made the amendment that with reference to government-owned or controlled corporations those with original charters should be embraced by the civil service. That is all we said. We have never made any declaration that those in the civil service or in government-owned or controlled corporations have no right to organize or to enter into collective bargaining with their public employers. We were not making any declaration that they have no right to engage in concerted activities, including the right to strike.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
| Garcia | Yes | Laurel | Yes |
| Gascon | Lerum | Yes | |
| Guingona | Yes | Maambong | |
| Jamir | Yes |
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, may I explain my vote.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong may proceed.
MR. MAAMBONG: I vote yes, Madam President but I would just like to indicate for the Committee on Style that there is a misprint on page 3, Section 16 on the Third Reading copy of this Proposed Resolution No. 486. I think the proper word would be RECOGNIZANCE, not "cognizance."
THE PRESIDENT: That has been corrected.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you, Madam President.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Monsod
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, may I just have two minutes to explain my vote.
My vote is yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod may proceed.
MR. MONSOD: I just want to clarify the criticism of that labor leader mentioned by Commissioner Foz who said that by adding "WITH ORIGINAL CHARTER" to the phrase "government-owned and controlled corporation," we prohibited those working in companies that do not have original charters from exercising any rights.
Madam President, it is the reverse. Those workers in corporations that do not have original charters have all the rights similar to those in private companies. That is the effect of that provision.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Natividad
MR. NATIVIDAD: Madam President, may I explain my vote?
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner has three minutes.
MR. NATIVIDAD: I vote yes, Madam President. I believe that this Bill of Rights is more dynamic than the one provided for in the 1973 Constitution although I failed to have one amendment inserted. This Bill of Rights contains vital provisions like: strict prohibition on hamletting and wiretapping, the provisions on release and recognizance, measures against filthy or inhuman conditions of our jails. and the prohibition on solitary confinement and holding prisoners incommunicado.
I think this Bill of Rights will be more responsive the needs of our people. Again, my vote is yes.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
| Nieva | Yes | Ople | Yes |
| Nolledo | Yes | Padilla | Yes |
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, I vote yes for the Bill of Rights which is absolutely necessary to protect the people from the possible abuses of the exercise the power of government. But I must state that I am disappointed at the abolition of the death penalty provided for in Section 20. While we will agree to the National Assembly to legislate on whether to retain or abolish the death penalty, Section 20, as worded, seen to be absurd in the sense that the Commission abolish the death penalty in the Constitution, and yet it allows the legislature to reinstate it. It should have been other wise — that we retain the death penalty and allow the legislature, in case circumstances so demand, either t retain or to abolish the death penalty.
The other point is with regard to the right to bail under Section 16. I would have preferred to retain the original provision: "All persons except those charger with capital offenses . . ." instead of "with offense punishable by reclusion perpetua," because a capital offense is not identical with capital punishment.
With regard to Section 7, there is the insertion of the phrase "public sector." As far as forming unions or self-organization is concerned, that has been approved. But there should be no right — at least not to be interprete as such — that because of the union of employees in the public sector or in the government, the employees now have the right to collective bargaining and the right to strike. It would be disastrous to public administration if employees in the civil service, especially those exercising governmental functions rather than proprietary functions, would be accorded the right to collective bargaining and, worse, the right to strike.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
| Muñoz Palma | Yes | Quesada |
MS. QUESADA: I vote yes, but with that understanding clarified by Commissioner Foz.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
| Rama | Yes | Rigos | Yes |
| Regalado | Yes | Rodrigo | |
| Reyes de los | Yes |
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, I vote yes, although, like Commissioner Padilla, I am unhappy about the provision in Section 20 wherein by constitutional mandate we abolish the death penalty, but in the same breath or in the same sentence, we allow the legislature to reimpose it. It is my belief that the abolition of the death penalty should have been left entirely to the legislature.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
| Romulo | Yes | Suarez | Yes |
| Rosales | Sumulong | Yes | |
| Sarmiento | Yes | Tadeo |
MR. TADEO: Ang boto ko ay oo, pero gusto ko pong magpaliwanag. Kung ang kalikasan ng ibon ay lumipad at ang kalikasan ng isda ay lumangoy, ang kalikasan naman ng tao ay ang magsama-sama. Ngunit hindi sapat ang pagkakaisa; inutil ang pagkakaisa kung walang sama-samang pagkilos. Kaya kaisa ako kay Commissioner Quesada.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
| Tan | Yes | Tingson |
MR. TINGSON: Madam President, I joyfully vote yes with the observation that I am very happy. As far as I am concerned, this Bill of Rights of the new proposed charter seems to be much better than the provisions that we wrote in the 1973 and 1935 Constitutions.
Thank you.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
| Treñas | Yes | Uka |
MR. UKA: Madam President, I vote yes, but with the same observation as that of Commissioners Padilla and Rodrigo regarding Section 20. We speak the same language and I think the three of us have mental telepathy. (Laughter)
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Villacorta
MR. VILLACORTA: Madam Presidents I vote in favor of the Article on the Bill of Rights with the under standing that Section 3 is not meant to be a censure of the legitimacy or detraction from the efficacy of the Presidential Commission on Good Government as it was liberally interpreted in the press.
I would like to place on record that I am one Commissioner who believes that the PCGG is a potent instrument for rectifying the abuses of the past dictatorial regime, and that the PCGG has, in large measure, been acting in good faith.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
Villegas
MR. VILLEGAS: I vote yes with the expectation that the reference to the fact that life starts at conception will be contained in another article. I just want to put on record that the idea that life starts at conception is not a sectarian one. As is very well known, one of the leading proponents for the inclusion of an anti-abortion provision in the Constitution is a non-Catholic, President Reagan, who said last week that he does not in any way try to remove a privilege from women even if he is against abortion because he does not think that women consider murder a privilege.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will conduct a second call for those who have not registered their votes.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
| Alonto | Gascon | ||
| Azcuna | Rosales | ||
| Calderon |
ON THIRD READING
(Article on Bill of Rights)
THE PRESIDENT: The results show 43 votes in favor, none against and no abstention.
Proposed Resolution No. 486 on the Bill of Rights, as amended, is approved on Third Reading.
MR. BENGZON: Finally, Madam President, I move that we vote on Third Reading on Proposed Resolution No. 530, the Article on Suffrage.
MR. REGALADO: Madam President, before we vote on this Article, may I just indicate for the benefit of the Committee on Style that the third paragraph of Section 1, which starts with the words "The National Assembly," having been overtaken by the events of yesterday, should be replaced either by the word LEGISLATURE or CONGRESS as the case may be.
THE PRESIDENT: We shall take note of the correction.
ON PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 530
ON THIRD READING
(Article on Suffrage)
MR. BENGZON: I move that we vote on Third Reading on Proposed Resolution No. 530.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
Printed copies of Proposed Resolution No. 530 were distributed on July 21, 1986 pursuant to Section 28 Rule VI of the Rules of the Constitutional Commission.
Voting on the proposed resolution on Third Reading is, therefore, in order.
The Secretary-General will read the title of the resolution.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: Proposed Resolution No. 530, entitled:
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION AN ARTICLE ON SUFFRAGE.
THE PRESIDENT: The body will now vote on this proposed resolution and the Secretary-General will call the roll.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
| Abubakar | Yes | Bennagen | Yes |
| Alonto | Bernas | Yes | |
| Aquino | Yes | Rosario Braid | Yes |
| Azcuna | Brocka | Yes | |
| Bacani | Yes | Calderon | |
| Bengzon | Yes | Castro de |
MR. DE CASTRO: Madam President, I abstain for the reason that those who do not know how to read or write are the best sources of electoral frauds. Nevertheless, these people can study how to read or write in a few nights through an adult education program.
I abstain, Madam President.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
| Colayco | Yes | Gascon | |
| Concepcion | Yes | Guingona | Yes |
| Davide | Yes | Jamir | Yes |
| Foz | Yes | Laurel | Yes |
| Garcia | Yes | Lerum | Yes |
| Maambong | Yes | Nolledo | Yes |
| Monsod | Yes | Ople | Yes |
| Natividad | Yes | Padilla | |
| Nieva | Yes |
MR. PADILLA: Madam President, I vote yes but I would like to adopt the observations of Commissioner de Castro on those who are not able to read or write.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
| Muñoz Palma | Yes | Rama | |
| Quesada | Yes |
MR. RAMA: May I explain my vote, Madam President?
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner may proceed.
MR. RAMA: I would like to believe that one of the reasons we are here is to institute reforms in our system. I thought that one of the great evils in our system is cheating during elections. I believe if we have to institute reforms we must first look at the electoral process and find out what are the sources of cheating. The COMELEC itself through its Chairman, Ramon Felipe, then the Opposition representative to the COMELEC, has told this Commission that this provision that allows people who cannot read and write to vote is one of the major sources of cheating. According to Chief Justice Concepcion, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines has also called the attention of this Commission that this particular provision in the 1973 Constitution under Mr. Marcos which enfranchises the illiterate to vote is a great source of cheating. I, myself, observed that cheating had been committed because of this provision in the 1973 Constitution. The very least we could do is to listen to these people and to learn from experience. Therefore, we should have deleted this provision that enfranchises people who cannot read and write nor function as a voter in a democratic process.
So, I vote no.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
| Regalado | Yes | Suarez | Yes |
| Reyes de los | Yes | Sumulong | Yes |
| Rigos | Yes | Tadeo | Yes |
| Rodrigo | Yes | Tan | Yes |
| Romulo | Yes | Tingson | Yes |
| Rosales | Yes | Treñas | Yes |
| Sarmiento | Yes | Uka |
MR. UKA: Madam President, I vote no because I am still waiting for the mechanism that will make the illiterate prepare their ballots secretly without the aid of someone. I am also waiting for the day when they will learn how to read and write, and that will not take a long time.
Thank you.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
| Villacorta | Yes | Villegas | Yes |
MR. OPLE: Madam President, may I know how my vote was recorded?
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: The Commissioner voted yes.
MR. OPLE: May I explain my vote in a few words?
THE PRESIDENT: The Commissioner may proceed.
MR. OPLE: I think more than 600,000 Filipinos working overseas who are scattered in 117 countries of the world right now — I am referring to Filipinos on contract employment — will very gladly note the consideration demonstrated for them by the Constitutional Commission in explicitly acknowledging their right to exercise suffrage wherever they may be in accordance with one of the new provisions of the Article on Suffrage.
I am also very glad that the Constitutional Commission was able to prevent the cruel and unconscionable act of disenfranchising several million Filipinos who had been denied the opportunity to make themselves literate. I think that is also a very great service.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will conduct a second call for those who have not registered their votes.
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:
| Alonto | Gascon | ||
| Azcuna | Rosales | ||
| Calderon |
ON THIRD READING
(Article on Suffrage)
THE PRESIDENT: The results show 40 votes in favor, 2 against and 1 abstention.
Proposed Resolution No. 530, as amended, is approved on Third Reading.
THE PRESIDENT: May I just make some announcements.
The Chair previously stated that in Proposed Resolution No. 468, there were only 43 affirmative votes. My vote was not recorded, but I voted. So, there should be 44 affirmative votes for Proposed Resolution No. 468.
In Proposed Resolution No. 469, Commissioner Davide approached the Chair and requested that he be permitted to cast his vote because he was out of the room.
Is there any objection to that request? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the request is granted.
May we now ask Commissioner Davide to cast his vote on Proposed Resolution No. 469, regarding the Commission on Audit.
MR. DAVIDE: Thank you, Madam President.
My vote on Proposed Resolution No. 469, entitled: RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE PROVISIONS ON THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION, is yes.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, before I move for a Suspension Of Session, I suggest that the Committee on Style organize its committees because there are enough materials for them to work on now.
MR. GUINGONA: Madam President, may I please inform the body that the Chairman of the Committee on Style, Commissioner Rodrigo, has already agreed with me that we will meet our respective committees early next week.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
MR. BENGZON: Madam President, I move that we suspend the session until this afternoon at two-thirty to continue the interpellations on the Article on the Legislative.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended until two-thirty in the afternoon.
It was 12:31 p.m.
At 2:47 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is recognized.
CONSIDERATION OF C.R. NO. 22
(Article on the Legislative/National Assembly)
Continuation
PERIOD OF SPONSORSHIP AND DEBATE
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is approved.
Commissioner Natividad is recognized. The Chairman of the Committee on the Legislative, together with the members, is requested to please come forward.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Madam President, will the Chairman of the Committee yield to a few clarificatory questions?
MR. DAVIDE: Gladly, Madam President.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Section 16 on page 10 states the disqualifications of the Members of the National Assembly. It reads: "No Member of the National Assembly shall hold any other office or employment." Are they banned from practicing their profession? What is the concept here?
MR. DE LOS REYES: We have a new copy, the amended copy of the draft.
MR. NATIVIDAD: I see.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Does the Commissioner have it now?
MR. NATIVIDAD: I have it; but the sections have been changed.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, the Committee has submitted an amended Committee Report No. 22 incorporating some structural changes to conform with the decision of the Commission yesterday adopting the bicameral system. Copies of this report have already been distributed. May 1, therefore, move that this amended Committee Report No. 22 be formally considered as the draft Article on the Legislative Department to be the basis of further interpellations and amendments and that the same be incorporated into the Record.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none the motion is approved.
(The following is the whole text of Committee Report No. 22, as amended by the Committee )
(AS AMENDED BY THE COMMITTEE)
RESOLUTION TO INCORPORATE IN THE NEW CONSTITUTION AN ARTICLE ON THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT.Be it resolved as it is hereby resolved, by the Constitutional Commission in session assembled to incorporate in the new Constitution, the following provisions:
LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
SECTION 1. The legislative power shall be vested in a Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives, except to the extent reserved to the people by the provision of initiative and referendum.
SECTION 2. The Senate shall be composed of twenty-four Senators who shall be elected at large by the qualified voters of the Philippines, as may be provided by law.
SECTION 3. The term of office of Senators shall be four years and shall begin, unless otherwise provided by law, on the thirtieth day of June next following their election.
SECTION 4. No person shall be a Senator unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of the election, is at least thirty-five years of age, able to read and write, a registered voter, and a resident of the Philippines for not less than two years immediately preceding the day of the election.
SECTION 5. The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and fifty members who shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned among the provinces and cities in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected from the sectors and party list. The sectoral or party list representatives shall in no case exceed twenty percent of the entire membership of the House of Representatives.
Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact and adjacent territory, provided, however, that each city with a population of more than two hundred thousand, or each provinces shall have at least one representative.
Within three years following the return of every census, the Congress shall make a reapportionment of legislative districts based on the standards provided in this section.
SECTION 6. The Members of the House of Representatives shall be elected for a term of four years which shall begin, unless otherwise provided by law, at noon on the thirtieth day of June next following their election.
SECTION 7. No person shall be a Member of the House of Representatives unless he is a natural-born citizen of the Philippines and, on the day of the election, is at least twenty-five years of age, able to read and write, and except the sectoral or party list representatives, a registered voter in the district in which he shall be elected, and a resident thereby for a period of not less than one year immediately preceding the day of the election.
SECTION 8. Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular election of the Senators and the Members of the House of Representatives shall be held on the second Monday of May and every four years thereafter.
SECTION 9. In case a vacancy arises in the Senate or in the House of Representatives eighteen months or more before a regular election, the Commission on Elections shall call a special election to be held within sixty days after the vacancy occurs to elect the Senators or Members of the House of Representatives, as the case may be.
SECTION 10. The Congress shall convene once every year on the fourth Monday of July for its regular session, unless a different date is fixed by law, and shall continue to be in session for such number of days as it may determine until thirty days before the opening of its next regular session, exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays. However, it may be called to session at any time by the President to consider such subjects or legislation as he may designate.
SECTION 11. (1) The Senate shall elect its President and the House of Representatives its Speaker, by a majority vote of all its respective Members.
Each House shall choose such other officers as each may deem necessary .
(2) A majority of each House shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day and may compel the attendance of absent. Members in such manner, and under such penalties, as such House may provide.
(3) Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly behavior, and with the concurrence of two-thirds of all its Members, suspend or expel a Member, but if the penalty is suspension, this shall not exceed sixty days.
(4) Each House shall keep a Journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may, in its judgment, affect national security; and the yeas and nays on any question shall, at the request of one-fifth of the Members present, be entered in the Journal.
(5) Neither House during the sessions of the Congress shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.
SECTION 12. The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective Members. Each Electoral Tribunal shall be composed of nine members. three of whom shall be Justices of the Supreme Court to be designated by the Chief Justice, and the remaining six shall be Members of the Senate or the House of Representatives. as the case may be, who shall be chosen on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties and/or sectors represented therein. The senior justice in the Electoral Tribunal shall be its Chairman.
SECTION 13. There shall be a Commission on Appointments consisting of twelve Senators and twelve Members of the House of Representatives, elected by each House on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties or sectors represented therein. The President of the Senate shall be the Chairman ex officio of the Commission, but shall not vote, except in case of tie.
SECTION 14. The Electoral Tribunals and the Commission on Appointments shall be constituted within thirty days after the Senate and the House of Representatives shall have been organized with the election of the President and the Speaker. The Commission on Appointments shall meet only while the Congress is in session, at the call of its Chairman or a majority of its members, to discharge such powers and functions as are herein conferred upon it.
SECTION 15. The Senators and the Members of the House of Representatives shall, unless otherwise provided by law, receive an annual compensation of _____________ thousand pesos each. No increase in said compensation shall take effect until after the expiration of the full term of all the Members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives approving such increase. Until otherwise provided by law, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall each receive an annual compensation of ________________ thousand pesos.
SECTION 16. The records and books of accounts of Congress shall be open to the public in accordance with law, and such books shall be audited by the Commission on Audit which shall publish annually the itemized expenditures for each Member.
SECTION 17. A Senator or Member of the House of Representatives shall, in all offenses punishable by not more than six years imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the Congress is in session; but each House shall surrender the Member involved to the custody of the law within twenty-four hours after its adjournment for a recess or for its next session, otherwise such privilege shall cease upon its failure to do so. A Member shall not be questioned nor be held liable in any other place for any speech or debate in the Congress or in any committee thereof.
SECTION 18. No Senator or a Member of the House of Representatives shall hold any other office or employment in the government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations, during his tenure. Neither shall he be appointed during the term for which he was elected to any office which may have been created or the emoluments thereof increased while he was a Member of Congress.
SECTION 19. No Senator or Member of the House of the Representatives shall appear as counsel before any court which is not of collegiate composition, before any court in civil case wherein the Government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof is the adverse party, or in any criminal case wherein any officer or employee of the government is accused of an offense committed in relation to his office, before the Electoral Tribunals, or before any administrative body. Neither shall he, directly or indirectly, interested financially in any contract with, or in any franchise or special privilege granted by the government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including any government-owned or controlled corporation, during his term of office. He shall not intervene in any matter before any office of the government for his pecuniary benefit.
SECTION 20. There shall be a Question Hour at least once a month or as often as the Rules of the Senate or the House of Representatives may provide, which shall be included in the agenda of each House, during which the Members of the Cabinet and their deputies may be required to appear and answer questions and interpellations by Members of each House. Written questions shall be submitted to the President of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of Representatives at least three days before a scheduled Question Hour. Interpellations shall not be limited to written questions, but may cover matters related thereto. The agenda shall specify the subjects of the Question Hour. When the security of the State so requires and the President so states in writing, the Question Hour shall be conducted in executive session.
SECTION 21. The Senate or the House of Representatives or any of their respective committees may conduct inquiries in aid of legislation in accordance with its duly published rules of procedure. The rights of persons appearing in or affected by such inquiries shall be respected
SECTION 22. (1) No treaty or international agreement shall be valid and effective unless concurred in by majority of all the Members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives.
(2) The Congress, by a vote of two-thirds of the Members of each House, shall have the sole power to declare the existence of a state of war.
SECTION 23. In times of war or other national emergency, the Congress may by law authorize the President, for a limited period and subject to such restrictions as it may prescribe, to exercise powers necessary and proper to carry out a declared national policy. Unless sooner withdrawn by resolution of the Congress, such power shall cease upon the next adjournment thereof.
SECTION 24. All appropriation, revenue or tariff bills, bills authorizing increase of the public debt, bills of local application, and private bills shall originate exclusively in the House of Representatives, but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments.
SECTION 25. (1) The President shall submit to the Congress within thirty days from the opening of each regular session, as the basis of the general appropriations bill, a budget of receipts based on existing and proposed revenue measures, and of expenditures. The form, content, and manner of preparation of the budget shall be prescribed by law.
(2) No provision or enactment shall be embraced in the general appropriations bill unless it relates specifically to some particular appropriation therein. Any such provision enactment shall be limited in its operation to the appropriation therein. Any such provision or enactment shall be limited in its operation to the appropriation to which it relates.
(3) The procedure in approving appropriations for the Congress shall strictly follow the procedure for approving appropriations for other departments and agencies.
(4) A special appropriation bill shall specify the purpose for which it is intended, and shall be supported by funds actually available as. certified by the National Treasurer, or to be raised by a corresponding revenue proposal included therein.
(5) No law shall be passed authorizing any transfer of appropriations; however, the President, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representative, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the heads of Constitutional Commissions may by law be authorized to augment any item in the general appropriation, law for their respective offices from giving, in other items of their respective appropriations.
(6) If, by the end of any fiscal year; the Congress shall have failed to pass the general appropriations bill for the ensuing fiscal year, the general appropriation, law for the preceding fiscal year shall be deemed re-enacted and shall remain in force and effect until the general appropriation, bill is passed by the Congress.
SECTION 26. (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof.
(2) No bill passed by either House shall become a law unless it has passed three readings on separate days, and printed copies thereof in its final form have been distributed to its Members three days before its passage, except when the President certifies to the necessity of its immediate enactment to meet a public calamity or emergency. Upon the last reading of a bill, no amendment thereto shall be allowed, and the vote thereon shall be taken immediately thereafter, and the yeas and nays entered in the Journal.
SECTION 27. (1) Every bill passed by the Congress shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the President. If he approves the same, he shall sign it; otherwise, he shall veto it and return the same with his objections to the House where it originated, which shall enter the objections at large on its Journal and proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds of all the Members of such House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of all the Members of that House, it shall become a law. In all such cases, the votes of each House shall be determined by yeas or nays, and the names of the Members voting for or against shall be entered in its Journal. The President shall act on every bill passed by the Congress within thirty days after the date of receipt thereof; otherwise, it shall become a law as if he had signed it.
(2) The President shall have the power to veto any particular item or items in an appropriation, revenue, or tariff bill, but the veto shall not affect the item or items to which he does not object.
SECTION 28. (1) The rule of taxation shall be uniform and equitable. The Congress shall evolve a progressive system of taxation.
(2) The Congress may by law authorize the President to fix within specified limits, and subject to such limitations and restrictions as it may impose, tariff rates, import and export quotas, tonnage and wharfage dues, and other duties or imposts.
(3) Charitable institutions, churches, and parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all lands, buildings, and improvements actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious, charitable, or educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation.
(4) No law granting any tax exemption shall be passed without the concurrence of a majority of all the Members of Congress.
SECTION 29. (1) No money shall be paid out of the Treasury except in pursuance of an appropriations made by law.
(2) No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, paid, or used, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian institution, or system of religion or for the use, benefit, or support of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher or dignitary as such, except when such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the armed forces, or to any penal institution, or government orphanage or leprosarium.
(3) All money collected on any tax levied for a special purpose shall be treated as a special fund and paid out for such purpose only. If the purpose for which a special fund was created has been fulfilled or abandoned, the balance, if any, shall be transferred to the general funds of the Government.
SECTION 30. No law granting a title of royalty or nobility shall be enacted.
SECTION 31. The Congress shall provide for a system of initiative and referendum, and the exceptions therefrom, whereby the people can directly propose and enact laws or approve or reject any act or law or part thereof passed by the Congress or local legislative body after the registration of a petition therefor signed by at least ten percent of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three percent of the registered voters thereof.
THE PRESIDENT: Has the Secretary-General distributed copies of the amended copy of Committee Report No. 22?
THE SECRETARY-GENERAL: Yes, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Then, as requested by the honorable Chairman, Commissioner Davide, this amended copy will be the one used during this period of interpellations.
Commissioner Natividad is recognized.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Madam President, may I ask questions based on Section 18 on page 5 of the amended report. This section enumerates the disqualification of a Senator or Member of the House from holding any other office or employment in the government, or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporations, during his tenure. Neither shall he be appointed, during the term for which he was elected, to any office which may have been created while he was a Member of Congress. Does this imply that a Member of Congress cannot practice his profession?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, it would be the pleasure of the Committee to request Commissioner de los Reyes to answer the question.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Madam President, there is nothing here about practice of profession. Perhaps, the Commissioner is referring to Section 19.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Yes. That includes also Section 19.
MR. DE LOS REYES: The prohibition in Section 18 is the holding of any other office or employment in the government.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Yes. In the practice of a profession, for example, as a lawyer, he might enter into a legal consultancy contract. Is that prohibited under this section?
MR. DE LOS REYES: The prohibition in Section 19 is to appear as counsel.
MR. NATIVIDAD: How about in Section 18? If the consultancy contract does not establish an employer-employee relationship, is this proscribed by Section 18?
MR. DE LOS REYES: Section 18 does not have anything to do with the practice of any profession in the government.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Yes, but the government might refer to a government bank like the Central Bank or any government-controlled financial institutions.
If, after being elected in Congress, a practicing lawyer is offered a legal consultancy contract in a government- controlled banking institution like the Central Bank, will this be proscribed or prohibited? If he enters into this legal consultancy contract with a government financial institution under the concept that he can practice his profession, will this be prohibited under Section 18?
MR. DE LOS REYES: There are two views on whether or not consultancy agreement is a form of employment. The Committee's intention is to consider legal consultancy in the government or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or controlled corporation as a form of employment and, therefore, prohibited.
MR. NATIVIDAD: In this case, usually a lawyer has his law office that enters into legal consultancy and it does not establish an employer-employee relationship. Again, may I ask the same question. Will the Commissioner's answer be the same? First, it is his law office. It is not personal as to him. That is a reality in law practice. A law office enters into a contract, and he happens to be a member of that law office, but he has been elected in the legislative branch of our government. Will that be proscribed or prohibited under Section 18?
MR. DE LOS REYES: As intended by the Committee, so that he cannot use the influence of his office.
That is really the intention but the distinction is really very, very splitting.
MR. NATIVIDAD: I understand from the history of these prohibitions against Members of Congress that they are prohibited because they might influence the agency, especially in the enactment of their appropriations. But in these agencies, the appropriations of these financially supervised institutions do not pass through Congress, through the legislature. And I cannot conceive of any occasion of a Member of the Congress being able to exert any amount of influence on them. So, I am just seeking clarification on this. Would that still be the answer?
MR. DE LOS REYES: We have in mind government-owned or controlled corporations such as the GSIS and the SSS. The intention of the Committee is not to allow a Member of Congress to be employed in the GSIS, for example.
MR. NATIVIDAD: No, not employed.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Or to be a legal consultant.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Of consultancy, yes, for the Central Bank, for example. Is that the view of the Committee?
MR. DE LOS REYES: That is the view of the Committee.
MR. NATIVIDAD: But as a whole, there is no tacit provision here that would proscribe the practice of a profession of a Member of Congress.
MR. DE LOS REYES: If there is none, he also has to live. He can practice and get private clients.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Under Section 19, page 6, it says:
No Senator or Member of the House of the Representatives shall appear as counsel before any court which is not of collegiate composition.
The Sandiganbayan is a collegiate composition. May a Senator or Member appear before the Sandiganbayan?
MR. DE LOS REYES: It will fall under lines 6 and 7 of the same section, or in any case wherein any officer or employee of the government is accused of an offense committed in relation to his office.
MR. NATIVIDAD: So, they cannot appear before the Sandiganbayan?
MR. DE LOS REYES: If the offended party is the government, and the employee or officer is the accused.
MR. NATIVIDAD: On line 10, it is stated:
. . . Neither shall he, directly or indirectly, interested financially in any contract with, or in any franchise . . .
MR. DE LOS REYES: Please insert the word BE after "he."
MR. NATIVIDAD: Yes. There is something lacking there.
MR. DE LOS REYES: That is a typographical omission.
MR. NATIVIDAD: There is an interregnum there.
May I continue?
. . . interested financially in any contract with, or in any franchise or special privilege granted by the government, or any subdivision, agency, or instrumentality thereof, . . .
So, if a Member of Congress is a board member of a corporation with contracts with the government, he has to resign.
MR. DE LOS REYES: I beg the Gentleman's pardon?
MR. NATIVIDAD: If a Member of Congress is a member of the board of directors of a private corporation having a contract with the government, he has to resign under this provision.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Yes, Madam President.
MR. NATIVIDAD: A Member of Congress whose wife is a member of the board of directors of a corporation having a contract with the government also has to resign from the board?
MR. DE LOS REYES: Unless they are separated.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Even then, they are still husband and wife.
MR. DE LOS REYES: But if they are separated and the wife is trying to earn her own living, the provision does not apply.
MR. NATIVIDAD: But the Constitution says "in directly." What does the Committee say?
MR. DE LOS REYES: It really depends on the fact of each case.
MR. NATIVIDAD: But what is the general rule?
MR. DE LOS REYES: As a general rule, that will be an indirect form of being interested financially.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Because these are the questions we are interested in involving the practice of profession of Members of Congress, especially the lawyers.
MR. DE LOS REYES. Yes, Madam President.
MR. NATIVIDAD: So, they cannot be members of boards of directors of corporations with contracts with the government.
In the next section, the Question Hour has been less than perfect in the Batasang Pambansa principally because of the fact that many ministers would not try to grace the Question Hour. My query is: Would this preclude the new Congress or legislature to establish the Privilege Hour?
MR. DE LOS REYES: It will not. The Question Hour is an additional hour given to Congress. It is an adoption of a parliamentary feature without in any way foreclosing this Privilege Hour or Privilege Speech.
MR. NATIVIDAD: So, it is clear that despite the establishment of the Question Hour, the new Congress is not being proscribed from establishing the Privilege Hour?
MR. DE LOS REYES: Unless its rules shall provide otherwise.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Section 25, page 7, refers to the presidential budget, does it not?
MR. DE LOS REYES: Yes, the presidential budget.
MR. NATIVIDAD: May the Congress increase or decrease the presidential budget?
MR. DE LOS REYES: There is no prohibition.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Is there no prohibition to increase the presidential budget? The historic practice is that the presidential budget may be decreased but not increased. Is it good for the country and for the Congress to increase the presidential proposal for a budget?
MR. DE LOS REYES: That will be covered by lines 28 and 29 which state: "The form, content, and manner of preparation of the budget shall be prescribed by law."
MR. NATIVIDAD: So, if it is by law, it is by Congress; and if Congress wishes to increase the presidential budget, it can do so. Is that the concept?
MR. DE LOS REYES: That is the necessary consequence.
MR. NATIVIDAD: So, we have a situation where the President prepares the budget every year based on the expected receipts and earnings of the government. The Constitution gives the President that duty because the President knows the expected earnings of the government. Traditionally, Congress will decrease certain items of the budget but it is not constitutionally authorized to increase because if the various items in the budget will be increased, the earnings of the government as expected from the receipts and taxes may not be enough and there will be a big budget deficit.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, the further answer to the question is contained in the section itself, which reads:
The President shall submit to the Congress within thirty days from the opening of each regular session, as the basis of the general appropriations bill, a budget of receipts based on existing and proposed revenue measures, and of expenditures.
In other words, Congress cannot increase because there is a limitation; the budget should be based on existing and proposed revenue measures.
If the Commissioner will further notice, under paragraph (4) of the same section, there is a provision to the effect that a special appropriations bill shall specify the purpose for which it is intended, and shall be supported by funds actually available as certified by the National Treasurer, or to be raised by a corresponding revenue proposal included therein. So, necessarily, there is already a maximum limit over which Congress cannot anymore go beyond.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Paragraph (4) is a different matter, Madam President. This is a new proposal, like a public works bill, which one cannot present without the corresponding certification of availability of funds or the corresponding revenue proposal. But I would just like to clarify because the first response of the Committee is that the Congress may increase or decrease. The distinguished Chairman said Congress may not increase. So, which one is the right answer?
MR. DAVIDE: I think the Commissioner may have in mind reincorporating the limitation provided for under the 1935 Constitution, prohibiting specifically the Congress to increase the recommended appropriations made by the President. We can entertain that at the proper time although I would like to repeat that the requirement under lines 26 and 27 on page 7 — "a budget of receipts based on existing and proposed revenue measures" — which is actually proposed by the President himself cannot be exceeded by Congress.
MR. NATIVIDAD: As the Gentleman knows, the budget of receipts and proposed revenue measures is ambivalent. There is nothing sure about that because that is just a projection of future earnings and we do not know exactly if 80 percent will be realized or not. So, this is just a projection of the future earnings of the government.
MR. DAVIDE: That is exactly the reason why Congress cannot go beyond that because what may be collected of the expected revenues may be only very much less than 100 percent.
MR. NATIVIDAD: So, will the Committee be willing to consider an amendment in due time?
MR. DAVIDE: Just to clarify that requirement or that restriction on the legislature, would the Gentleman be willing to accommodate any proposal in that respect?
MR. NATIVIDAD: I cannot locate the specific section now. What is the provision on this proposed resolution on the increase of salaries of Members of Congress? May they increase their salaries, and if so, when does it take effect?
MR. DAVIDE: Page 5, Section 15, of the amended copy.
MR. NATIVIDAD: I am satisfied with Section 15. Who takes care of proclamation contests for the members of the House?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, we have a provision regarding the Electoral Tribunal.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Does it fall under the jurisdiction of the Electoral Tribunal?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes, Madam President.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Proclamation contests?
MR. DE LOS REYES: This is on Section 12, page 4.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Yes, I know, but is that the concept?
MR. DAVIDE: Yes.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Since the Floor Leader is already singling me, my last question is: What is the concept of progressive ratio for the record? What is the Gentleman’s concept of uniform and progressive ratio? How do we redistrict the entire Philippines on the basis of uniform and progressive ratio?
MR. DAVIDE: That would be covered by Section 5 of the Article on the Legislative which says:
The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than two hundred and fifty member who shall be elected from legislative districts apportioned among the provinces and cities in accordance with the number of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected from the sectors and party list.
MR. NATIVIDAD: Yes, just the uniform and progressive ratio. For the record, what does that term or phrase indicate?
MR. DAVIDE: I will consider first the initial composition of the legislative body. We foresee the possibility of having a ratio of one for every 300,000 inhabitants.
MR. NATIVIDAD: The draft resolution says "200,000."
MR. DAVIDE: We fixed that for a city or a province. Right now, under the 1984 apportionment, cities are classified into component cities and highly urbanized cities.
A highly urbanized city, as defined under the Local Government Code, is a city with an income of-not less than P30 million and a population of 150,000.
We sought to increase the requirement as to population to make it a minimum of 200,000. So, if a particular city will have more, then we also consider the progressive ratio of inhabitants.
By the way, we will be submitting to the Commission an ordinance to be appended to the Constitution on the apportionment of the seats for the regular Members of the Assembly. On that particular basis, we have studied the possibility of only having 198 regular Members for the first House of Representatives. So, the basis for that is one representative for every 300,000 depending on the compactness, contiguity and adjacence of territories consisting of municipalities and cities with less than 200,000 inhabitants within a given province.
MR. NATIVIDAD: We welcome that because several congresses failed to do that. We failed to make the redistricting because of controversies. But I think the Committee's proposal might go through. And what the old Congress failed to do, we might be able to do by simply adopting a fair, uniform and progressive ratio.
Thank you, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask for the recognition of Commissioner Tan.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tan is recognized.
SR. TAN: Madam President and members of the Committee, I refer to Section 31, line 9. How did the Committee arrive at 10 percent, which is a little more than two million of the registered voters?
MR. DAVIDE: The Vice-Chairman of the Committee, Madam President, will answer the question.
MR. AZCUNA: The figure of 10 percent was arrived at upon the recommendation of various proponents of this initiative. The Committee felt that this is a reasonable figure, as a minimum, to be required. Otherwise, we feel it would be too easy to get this initiative referendum. Other states require a bigger figure such as 20, 15 or 12 percent. We felt that 10 percent is reasonable as a minimum figure. Yes, that was how we arrived at the 10 percent — mainly on the basis of the proponents.
SR. TAN: On Section 22, line 6, as a layman, I do not know the difference between a treaty and an international agreement.
MR. AZCUNA: A treaty is ratified by the legislature. An international agreement may be an executive agreement, President to President only.
SR. TAN: Yes, but both are mentioned here.
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, in other words, we do not want executive agreements to go unratified. The philosophy here is that henceforth any international commitments of the country should have the ratification of the popular representatives of the people.
SR. TAN: Therefore, the legislature is getting more power, is that it?
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, it has more checks, a check on foreign relations for one. It is still basically an executive power, the conduct of foreign relations, but there is a requirement for concurrence in treaties and international agreements.
SR. TAN: How about simple cultural exchanges like what Imelda Marcos used to engage in?
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, even agreements on cultural exchanges would still constitute an international agreement. It should not be difficult to get the legislature to concur in this simple agreement. It is on the touchy ones, which cover sovereign rights, that I feel there would be some difficulty; but cultural exchanges should pass without difficulty.
SR. TAN: My third one is just an honest bewilderment, and that is on Section 28, page 10. The paragraph has some provisions on churches, convents and the religious. I am bewildered that churches owned by some religious who are very wealthy would be tax exempt. I cannot understand why the poor laborer would pay taxes on land but the religious does not pay taxes. I am bewildered about that. I am just talking about the Catholic Church, of course. Also, at this period of our national recovery, I think we should all be paying because we are bankrupt.
MR. AZCUNA: Yes.
SR. TAN: So, maybe in the period of amendments we might delete something.
Thank you.
MR. AZCUNA: I will just comment on that, Madam President. The main reason this was taken from the 1935 Constitution is that the power to tax is the power to destroy. If we want to promote the separation of Church and State and prevent the State from destroying the Church, we have to exempt the Church from taxation. That is the philosophy behind it.
SR. TAN: I think it is a very weak reason.
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, that is the philosophy because the power to tax can really destroy.
SR. TAN: Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Rosario Braid be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rosario Braid is recognized.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Will the sponsor yield to a few questions?
MR. DAVIDE: Willingly.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: On Section 9, page 2, line 29 up to the end of the section on page 3, what is the sanction if the Commission on Elections does not call for a special election in case a vacancy arises in the Senate?
MR. AZCUNA: I believe this is an instance where a petition for mandamus may lie against the Commission on Elections. Where there is a clear duty on the part of the COMELEC to schedule elections, a citizen may file a petition for mandamus to compel the COMELEC to call a special election. This has happened in the past local elections.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Will the sponsor consider amending this to make it mandatory?
MR. AZCUNA: It already says "shall" and usually "shall" is interpreted to mean mandatory. The Committee believes that if the grounds are there, that is, there is a vacancy, the COMELEC may be compelled by a writ of mandamus to hold the elections.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Thank you.
Section 30 on page 11 refers to granting of title or royalty. This is similar to a provision in the General Provisions. Would the Committee consider deleting this particular provision at the appropriate time?
MR. DE LOS REYES: This used to be in the Bill of Rights. But during the discussion on the Bill of Rights, we deleted the same provision to be transferred to any appropriate article. Considering that we are now discussing what the legislature can do, we deem it wise and proper to include this in the Article on the Legislative.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: The next question is on Section 7, page 2. I think Commissioner Nolledo has raised the same point that "resident" has been inter- preted at times as a matter of intention rather than actual residence.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Domicile.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Yes. So, would the Gentle- man consider at the proper time to go back to actual residence rather than mere intention to reside?
MR. DE LOS REYES: But we might encounter some difficulty especially considering that a provision in the Article on Suffrage says that Filipinos living abroad may vote as enacted by law. So, we have to stick to the original concept that it should be by domicile and not physical and actual residence.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: On Sections 6 and 8, does this mean that there will be a transitory provision to synchronize the election for the House of Representatives and the Senate?
MR. DE LOS REYES: That is contemplated, and we submitted this section subject to any appropriate amendment so that it will cover synchronization.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: In the Transitory Provisions?
MR. DE LOS REYES: In the Transitory Provisions or even in the Article on the Legislative.
MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Thank you very much, Madam President.
MR. DE LOS REYES: Thank you.
MR. RAMA. Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Sarmiento be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Sarmiento is recognized.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I be allowed to ask a few questions?
The first is on Section 25, about the budget and general appropriations bill. During the past administration, we all know that the substantial amount of the budget was allocated for the military at the expense of other ministries. May I know if we have sufficient safeguards in this draft resolution to prevent allocation of substantial amounts to the military or any ministry that will be favored by the President? I ask this question because I am thinking of proposing, at the appropriate time, the inclusion of a paragraph — for the wise consideration of the Committee — which will read: THE ANNUAL APPROPRIATION FOR NATIONAL DEFENSE, INCLUDING ALL COMPONENTS OF THE ARMED FORCES, SHALL NOT EXCEED TEN PER CENTUM OF THE TOTAL ANNUAL BUDGET OF THE GOVERNMENT EXCEPT WHEN THE PHILIPPINES IS INVOLVED IN A WAR.
What does the Committee say?
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, the Committee has not provided for specific safeguards against gargantuan budgets for the military. We do have a provision that the budget be a budget of receipts based on existing and proposed revenue measures and of expenditures, but the idea was not to tie the hands of the legislature and of the President. Also, there is no specific ceiling. We leave it also to their wisdom not to overdo it in case of grave abuse of discretion. There is a remedy, as the Gentleman knows, in the judicial power but there is none here.
MR. SARMIENTO: But to prevent a repetition of that past national experience, would the Committee be willing to consider the amendment I stated?
MR. AZCUNA: We feel that we might be overreacting to our previous experience. We already do have safe guards under the proposed executive power provision and regulations on fund transfers and all that. It might be too self-limiting to put ceilings because if we put a ceiling on the military, somebody will again want a ceiling on another provision and there will be no end to the limitations. We might have an executive tied down by too many ceilings and restrictions and when emergency comes, it will be too late.
MR. SARMIENTO: May I ask another question? My question is on Section 20 which provides for the Question Hour. Section 20, lines 21 to 23, partially reads:
. . . during which the Members of the Cabinet and their deputies may be required to appear and answer questions and interpellations by Members of each House.It appears that members of the Cabinet and their deputies may appear before Congress only if they are required. What if members of the Cabinet and their deputies, upon their own initiative, want to appear before Congress? Would the Committee consider the inclusion of the phrase UPON THEIR INITIATIVE, not only upon the summons served upon them by Congress?
MR. AZCUNA: We will consider such amendments when the time comes.
MR. SARMIENTO: Thank you very much.
Then Section 9 of the report reads:
In case a vacancy arises in the Senate or in the House of Representatives eighteen months or more before a regular election, the Commission on Elections shall call a special election . . .
Section 7, line 18, of the first draft includes the phrase "to serve the unexpired term." May I know the reason for the deletion of the words "to serve the unexpired term" ?
MR. AZCUNA: The phrase was omitted by inadvertence and we thank the Gentleman for calling our attention to it. It should be there. The Committee would take note of that — "to serve the unexpired term."
MR. SARMIENTO: I have one question in connection with Section 7, now Section 9, about the unexpired term. What if the unexpired term is only less than one year? Am I correct in understanding this section that the Commission on Elections shall still call a special election?
MR. AZCUNA: We do not see how that can arise since it is 18 months before the regular election and as envisioned, there is no staggered term for the Senate.
So, that situation cannot arise.
MR. SARMIENTO: Thank you.
May I proceed to Section 10, lines 9 to 11, which
reads:
. . . However, it may be called to session at any time by the President to consider such subjects or legislation as he may designate.Is it the President alone who is empowered to call the session at any time, or can the Members of Congress, say, 25 percent of them, call the Congress to session at any time? Would the members of the Committee consider this proposal at an appropriate time?
MR. AZCUNA: We shall consider it, although this is the traditional concept. But we are open to new ideas.
MR. SARMIENTO: I have one last question. Section 25, paragraph (5) authorizes the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the President, the President of the Senate to augment any item in the General Appropriations Law. Do we have a limit in terms of percentage as to how much they should augment any item in the General Appropriations Law?
MR. AZCUNA: The limit is not in percentage but "from savings." So it is only to the extent of their savings.
MR. SARMIENTO: Thank you very much, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Maambong be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, members of the Committee, I will focus most of my questions only on one point, on the electoral tribunal. Did I hear the Committee correctly, in reply to one of the questions, that the electoral tribunal, either of the House or of the Senate, has jurisdiction over preproclamation contests?
MR. AZCUNA: Just a moment, Madam President; we are checking the word. It refers to contest.
MR. MAAMBONG: I will repeat the question. Does the electoral tribunal, either of the House or of the Senate, have jurisdiction over preproclamation contests? If I heard the answer correctly that it has jurisdiction over preproclamation contests, I would sincerely request a reconsideration of that answer because as far as I am concerned, based on previous experience, these electoral tribunals do not have jurisdiction over preproclamation contests. If that answer can be corrected, I will be happy with it: it will make my day.
MR. AZCUNA: If the answer had been made, then it should be corrected. This does not refer to preproclamation contests.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you.
My questions will be very basic so we can go as fast as we can. In the case of the electoral tribunal either of the House or of the Senate, is it correct to say that these tribunals are constitutional creations? I will distinguish these with the case of the Tanodbayan and the Sandiganbayan which are created by mandate of the Constitution but they are not constitutional creations. Is that a good distinction?
MR. AZCUNA: That is an excellent statement.
MR. MAAMBONG: Could we, therefore, say that either the Senate Electoral Tribunal or the House Electoral Tribunal is a constitutional body?
MR. AZCUNA: It is, Madam President.
MR. MAAMBONG: If it is a constitutional body, is it then subject to constitutional restrictions?
MR. AZCUNA: It would be subject to constitutional restrictions intended for that body.
MR. MAAMBONG: I see. But I want to find out if the ruling in the case of Vera vs. Avelino, 77 Phil. 192, will still be applicable to the present bodies we are creating since it ruled that the electoral tribunals are not separate departments of the government. Would that ruling still be valid?
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, they are not separate departments because the separate departments are the legislative, the executive and the judiciary; but they are constitutional bodies.
MR. MAAMBONG: Although they are not separate departments of government, I would like to know again if the ruling in Angara vs. Electoral Commission, 53 Phil. 139, would still be applicable to the present bodies we are deciding on, when the Supreme Court said that these electoral tribunals are independent from Congress, devoid of partisan influence or consideration and, therefore, Congress has no power to regulate proceedings of these electoral tribunals.
MR. AZCUNA: I think that is correct. They are independent although they are not a separate branch of government.
MR. MAAMBONG: There is a statement that in all parliaments of the world, the invariable rule is to leave unto themselves the determination of controversies with respect to the election and qualifications of their members, and precisely they have this Committee on Privileges which takes care of this particular controversy.
Would the Gentleman say that the creation of electoral tribunals is an exception to this rule because apparently we have an independent electoral tribunal?
MR. AZCUNA: To the extent that the electoral tribunals are independent, but the Gentleman will notice that the wordings say: "The Senate and the House of Representatives shall each have an Electoral Tribunal." It is still the Senate Electoral Tribunal and the House Electoral Tribunal. So, technically, it is the tribunal of the House and tribunal of the Senate although they are independent.
MR. MAAMBONG: But both of them, as we have agreed on, are independent from both bodies?
MR. AZCUNA: That is correct.
MR. MAAMBONG: This is the bottom line of my question. How can we say that these bodies are independent when we still have six politicians sitting in both tribunals?
MR. AZCUNA: Politicians can be independent, Madam President.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President, when we discussed a portion of this in the Committee on the Executive, there was a comment by Chief Justice Concepcion — Commissioner Concepcion — that there seems to be some in congruity in these electoral tribunals, considering that politicians still sit in the tribunals in spite of the fact that in the ruling in the case of Sanidad vs. Vera, Senate Electoral Tribunal Case No. I, they are supposed to act in accordance with law and justice with complete detachment from all political considerations. That is why I am asking now for the record how we could achieve such detachment when there are six politicians sitting there.
MR. AZCUNA: The same reason that the Gentleman, while chosen on behalf of the opposition, has, with sterling competence, shown independence in the proceedings of this Commission. I think we can also trust that the members of the tribunals will be independent.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you for that. But just for the information of the Committee, in the case of presidential and vice-presidential contests, previously the traditional tribunal is the Presidential Electoral Tribunal. In the committee report now before the Members of this Commission, we have changed this concept. We have now decided — at least the Committee on the Executive has decided — that presidential and vice-presidential electoral contests will be decided by the Supreme Court en banc. So, in effect, we are deviating in the case of electoral contests involving presidential and vice-presidential election contests. But as far as the Senate and the House of Representatives are concerned, we are still sticking to the traditional Senate Electoral Tribunal and the Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representatives.
MR. AZCUNA: That is correct.
MR. MAAMBONG: The next point is that considering the previous Senate Electoral Tribunal and the Electoral Tribunal of the House of Representatives, will the rules they had promulgated still apply to these present electoral bodies?
MR. AZCUNA: I believe they will have to adopt the rules anew if they want to apply them because these will be different bodies from those of the 1935 version.
MR. MAAMBONG: Another basic question is this: I think we had a discussion on the disqualification of Senators or Members of the House of Representatives. When a Member of the Senate or a Member of the House serves in the electoral tribunal of either body, would it not be a violation of Section 18 which says that no Senator or Member of the House of Representatives shall hold any other office or employment in the government? In this formulation of Section 18, I do not see any exception. I can understand that there are prohibitions of this nature in other parts of the Constitution, but it specifically provides "except as provided under this Constitution." Will it not violate the section?
MR. AZCUNA: We believe that the two sections should be construed together in line with established principles of statutory and constitutional interpretation. But for clarity, if the Gentleman finds a discordance between the two, the Committee would be glad to consider clarifying it.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you, Madam President.
One more question on this point: Could we make a general statement that the jurisdiction of this electoral tribunal, either of the Senate or of the House, is exclusive and unlimited and, therefore, there will be no appeal to the Supreme Court?
MR. AZCUNA: It is the sole judge. I think that further implies that there is no further appeal elsewhere.
MR. MAAMBONG: In other words, its judgment is final and not appealable.
MR. AZCUNA: Insofar as the qualifications, returns and elections are concerned.
MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you.
I would like to address my question now on apportionment to Commissioner Davide. I understand that the criteria in apportionment are based on contiguous territory and number of inhabitants. I will just ask one question on this and I will clarify it by referring to Cebu City.
In Cebu City? as the Gentleman knows, we have two representatives: one of them is now in the Supreme Court, Honorable Marcelo Fernan; and the other is the Minister for Political Affairs, Honorable Antonio Cuenco.
At the onset of apportionment, we know that in the province we have to group together municipalities based on their contiguity.-Specifically, is it the intention of the Committee that when we make the apportionment in the City of Cebu, the city will have to be cut into two legislative districts, considering that there are two representatives now, or will the two Members of the House of Representatives be voted at large in that configuration of the City of Cebu?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Davide is recognized.
MR. DAVIDE: Strictly, under the proposal, since the legislative districts have to be apportioned to provinces and cities, if a province, therefore, is to be districted if entitled to more than one representative district, the city will have to be apportioned into districts if it is entitled to one.
But I understand that there will be corresponding proposals later during the period of amendments that even if the city may be entitled to two or more, their representatives shall have to be voted at large, considering a small territory of the city even if the population would be several hundreds or thousands.
MR. MAAMBONG: To clarify that, in the case of the province, it is an inflexible rule that we should group together municipalities to form one district based on population. But in the city, it may not be divided into legislative districts; voting may be at large.
MR. DAVIDE: No, if no amendment is presented to the body and the proposal is not altered, there is no different rule for the city. There will be a districting also of the city itself.
MR. MAAMBONG: I see. May I know in advance what is the thinking of the Committee on that proposed amendment or has the Gentleman not yet formed any opinion on this?
MR. DAVIDE: We have not formulated any on that matter because it was not yet formally presented.
MR. MAAMBONG: In that case, I will not press the question.
Thank you very much, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Brocka be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Brocka is recognized.
MR. BROCKA: Thank you, Madam President.
Section 28, paragraph (3) on page 10 states:
Charitable institutions, churches, and parsonages or convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all lands, buildings, and improvements actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious, charitable, or educational purposes shall be exempt from taxation.Just for some clarifications: I can understand that charitable institutions are exempted from taxes because of their nonprofit nature and because of the explanation given by Commissioner Azcuna — although I agree with Sister Tan that I do not think they should be exempted because some of these churches are very rich, particularly the Catholic Church and the Iglesia ni Kristo. But that is not my question; my question is the inclusion of educational institutions being exempted from taxation. I want to know why they were included when in the 1973 Constitution, Section 17, paragraph (3) of Article 8 says:
. . . lands, buildings actually, directly and exclusively used for religious or charitable purposes shall be exempt from taxation.This means that, as in the annotation of Commissioner Nolledo in his book, realty used for educational purposes is not exempt from taxation. Nonprofit schools are at present taxed not only under the Income Tax Law but also under the Real Property Tax Code. So, in this particular subsection in the amended committee report, distinction is made between a nonprofit or nonstock and proprietary educational institutions. May I know why?
MR. GUINGONA: This question was asked this morning but I presume the Gentleman was not present.
MR. BROCKA: No, I was here but there was no satisfactory answer given. Commissioner Suarez spoke about schools like FEU being exempted from it but there was no explanation given why they should be exempted from taxes.
MR. GUINGONA: We are talking here of realty taxes Madam President, and these refer to instances which are limited by the following words: "lands, buildings, and improvements actually, directly, and exclusively used . . . "
MR. BROCKA: Yes, I understand that. But in spite of the words "actually, directly, and exclusively used," it cannot be denied that some of these educational institutions are profit-making institutions. So, why should they be exempted from taxes?
MR. GUINGONA: As I said this morning, the focus of attention of the Committee has been the benefit that would be derived not by the educational institutions but by the students of those institutions.
MR. BROCKA: In what sense, Madam President?
MR. GUINGONA: First of all, there could be either a reduction of the fees which would have to be paid, or there would at least be no increase, whether the institution is stock or nonstock. The fact of the matter is that educational institutions, except state colleges and universities, depend primarily and almost exclusively on fees paid by students. Any relief that is granted to these educational institutions would, therefore, be indirectly benefitting the students. I am still talking of the fact that we are focusing our attention on the good of the students. The Gentleman is a member of the Committee on Human Resources and we have emphasized the fact that we are not only concerned about the right to education but we would like to see to it that the education provided by educational institutions — and I am talking of educational institutions without distinction — should be quality education.
MR. BROCKA: Yes, but I also remember that when we discussed that Article on Education, we made a clear distinction of nonstock and nonprofit educational institutions. We did not make a sweeping generalization.
MR. GUINGONA: Yes, but if the Gentleman will recall, that particular provision which we are presenting at the proper time refers to all taxes, including income taxes. Here, we are only talking of realty taxes.
MR. BROCKA: Yes, precisely.
MR. GUINGONA: In other words, this is limited in the sense that the theory here is that educational institutions, whether proprietary or the so-called nonstock, nonprofit, require assistance from the government if they are going to provide quality education. If our concern is to have students receive quality education, t we either provide this education through the state colleges or universities or through the private institutions.
MR. BROCKA: Yes, but Madam President, it does not follow that just because educational institutions are exempted from taxes, quality of education will go up. I think, right now, there is a prevailing sentiment among the private sector and the general public against profit-making institutions, and I do not think we should make any exemption as far as proprietary educational institutions are concerned.
MR. GUINGONA: I think the impression is not correct, Madam President, because in the first place, there is already an existing limitation to the return on investment. I mentioned at our meeting of the Subcommittee on Education that the Fund for Assistance to Private Education, which is a very prestigious organization, had conducted a survey and which was reported by the vice-president of that organization during one of our committee meetings. The survey shows that the average return on investment for the past year or so was only three percent. The problem here is that, if we push the private educational institutions — which according to the Gentleman are profit-making — to the wall, we will be forcing them, like what happened to the University of the East, to close. And once these private institutions close, the ones who will suffer will be the students, because the so-called nonprofit, nonstock educational institutions will not have the facilities to admit the students who will lose their opportunity to be admitted.
MR. BROCKA: As far as that is concerned, I think that is a bit questionable and debatable. I asked that particular question mainly because, let us face it, some educational institutions are very rich, and I do not think they should be exempted from paying taxes.
MR. GUINGONA: If by "rich" the Gentleman means the facilities, I can say that the so-called nonprofit, nonstock corporations have even more impressive facilities.
MR. BROCKA: If that is the case then, I do not think we should make any qualification, whether they are nonstock, profit or nonprofit. By all means, all educational institutions should not be exempted from paying taxes.
MR. GUINGONA: Yes, but what I am saying is, it is the students who will suffer in the long run. Until the State is able to provide the education that the students want and deserve to obtain, I think the private educational institutions should be supported. Once the State is in a position to provide quality education all by itself through its own funds, then there is no problem.
MR. BROCKA: I do not think I can agree with the t Gentleman on that point, Madam President. Anyway, I mentioned that because I would like to make an amendment later when the time comes.
The next question that I would like to ask is on page 11, line 9 of Section 31 which says:
. . . signed by at least ten percent of the total number of registered voters, of which every legislative district must be represented by at least three percent of the registered voters thereof.Does this refer to registered voters who actually voted, or voters who are just registered?
MR. AZCUNA: It refers to the total number of registered voters, whether they voted or not.
MR. BROCKA: Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Rodrigo be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rodrigo is recognized.
MR. RODRIGO: Madam President, I raise a prejudicial question regarding the term of office proposed in this report. The suggested term of office in this report is four years for the Members of the House and also four years for the Members of the Senate.
Madam President, I have in front of me Committee Report No. 26 of the Committee on the Executive and this report recommends six years as the term for the President. If four years is the term for the Members of Congress and six years is the term for the President, it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to synchronize our elections. So this is a prejudicial question. I think we better decide this now, otherwise, we will hold pending the term of the Members of Congress, while awaiting decision on the term of the President. On the other hand, the Committee on the Executive will be hanging in midair, too. So, I believe that this has to be decided right away, thus saving time. Have the Chamber set the term for both Committees to follow. Madam President, if the Committee's recommendation of six years for the President is approved, then the term for the Senators can be six years, and the term for Members of the House and local officials can be three years. But we better define this right away. Madam President.
May I ask the Chairman of the Committee what is his thinking on this matter?
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, that issue was taken up in the Committee and it is the thinking of the Committee to consider it really as a prejudicial question. And so, I second the motion.
THE PRESIDENT: The Chair would suggest that the Chairman of the Committee on the Legislative confer with the Chairman of the Committee on the Executive about this matter, but in the meantime we can go to other issues which are not related to the term of office.
Are there other issues that can be discussed independently of the term of office, Mr. Floor Leader?
MR. RAMA: There are still five Commissioners who would like to interpellate, and I would like that we move to the period of amendments. Before we can do that, probably we can determine this prejudicial question on the term of the legislators.
THE PRESIDENT: Do we understand then that they have no more interpellations on other issues?
Commissioner Monsod is seeking recognition.
MR. MONSOD: I can wait for my turn, Madam President, but I have some questions on some of the provisions.
MR. MAAMBONG: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Commissioner Maambong is recognized.
MR. MAAMBONG: May I interject at this point. May I suggest that in the conference between the Chairman of the Committee on the Legislative and the Chairman of the Committee on the Executive, our Chairman of the Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions be included in that conference because we are also considering the interim term of the incumbent President and Vice-President, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is suspended.
It was 3:59 p.m.
At 5:09 p.m., the session was resumed.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is resumed.
MR. RAMA: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the Floor Leader is recognized.
MR. RAMA: I would like to announce to the body that we will have a caucus at six o'clock on the terms of the President, the legislators and the others for synchronization purposes, as well as their compensation, as suggested by Commissioner Concepcion.
We would like to finish in the meantime the interpellations so that tomorrow we will be ready for the period of amendments before we go to a caucus.
THE PRESIDENT: Who will be the next interpellator?
MR. RAMA: I would like to ask the Chair to recognize Commissioner Ople.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople is recognized.
MR. OPLE: Thank you very much.
MR. DAVIDE: Madam President, the Vice-Chairman of the Committee will answer for the Committee.
MR. OPLE: Will the sponsors yield to two or three questions?
MR. AZCUNA: Willingly, Madam President.
MR. OPLE: Thank you, Madam President.
Sections 18 and 19 of the proposed Article deal with conflict of interests. I think this is a good attempt between the two sections to hold the Members of the legislature accountable for the integrity of their commitment to the public interest so that conflict of interests can be prevented or avoided. However, I wanted to ask the Committee whether they had thought of adding to the set of safeguards a requirement for full disclosure of the financial and business interests and in the case of professionals, the history of their professional affiliations and associations in the past. So that when these financial business and professional interests are disclosed, the public will have a way of knowing whether they had used their offices in the Congress and demanded of the people to aggrandize their own interest. And, perhaps, in the rules of either House, they can provide for certain additional disclosures that may involve conflict of interests which can be placed under the purview of the disciplinary action of the House. Will the Committee, at the proper time, consider such a provision for full disclosure of the financial and business and professional interests of Members of both Houses of Congress, so that this may provide the public and the Houses themselves with the basis for determining whether in the initiation of bills or in the voting on the same, conflict of interests had occurred or taken place?
MR. AZCUNA: Madam President, the Committee will be happy to consider such an amendment at the proper time.
MR. OPLE: May I also know whether these conflict of interest provisions in Sections 18 and 19 are understood to apply to the future sectoral representative and those who will become Members of the Congress through party list?
MR. AZCUNA: The intention, Madam President, is to apply to all Senators and Members of the House of Representatives, regardless of whether they represent sector or were elected through the party list system or the ordinary system. There should be no difference as far as these accountability provisions are concerned.
MR. OPLE: Having in mind potential conflict of interests in the case of sectoral representatives who are heads of their own organizations — let us say, a labor organization, a farmers' organization, a women's organization or a veterans' organization — in the contemplation of the Committee, will they have to resign to be in full conformity with Sections 18 and 19 and a full disclosure policy? Will they have to resign as heads o their respective organization, because otherwise, there will be a commingling of their identities as heads o such organizations with interest to pursue, especially in government and as representatives of the people owing allegiance only to the people in the House of Representatives, for example?
MR. AZCUNA: Madam President, we do not envision a general rule of resignation because prohibited interest here are very specific. They refer to contracts o franchises or special privileges actually granted by the government, or a matter actually pending before and office or government wherein the member may act for his pecuniary benefit. So being merely a representative of the sector does not necessarily mean that there will be conflict of interests. It will have to be judged on a case-to-case basis.
MR. OPLE: Thank you, Madam President.
I suppose that if they are lawyers, let us say, practicing in the Ministry of Labor and in the agrarian courts, they will be subject to the same restraints in Sections 18 and 19 as the other regularly elected Members of the House of Representatives.
MR. AZCUNA: That is correct, Madam President.
MR. OPLE: Thank you.
I have another question concerning Section 22 on treaties and international agreements. May I know why the Committee would involve both the Senate and the House of Representatives in the ratification of a treaty or an international agreement; whereas under the previous Constitutions prevailing until the 1973 Constitution and in accordance with the practice worldwide, it is the Senate that ratifies treaties?
MR. AZCUNA: The Committee will be happy to entertain any proposal to amend this portion. But the reason for the inclusion of the House of Representatives in the concurrence on treaties is that the Committee believes that the House of Representatives represents the districts directly, the more populous representation of the people. We believe in institutionalizing people power, that treaties should be submitted to the representatives of the people, especially because these treaties may concern sovereignty and sovereign rights. But that will be open to amendments.
MR. OPLE: Thank you very much for indicating openness on this matter.
I always thought that the Senate and the House enjoy a kind of symmetry of exclusive powers. Appropriations bills may originate only in the House but by tradition, the Senate is the treaty-ratifying Chamber. Is it correct to say that according to Section 22, even executive agreements will have to be passed upon by the legislature?
MR. AZCUNA: That is correct.
MR. OPLE: An executive agreement may take the form of, let us say, the military bases agreement which is, from the standpoint of the United States, a mere executive agreement, but from the standpoint of the Philippines, a treaty fully ratified by the Senate of the Philippines with the binding force and effect of law on the Philippines. Would that be an example of an executive agreement?
MR. AZCUNA: Yes.
MR. OPLE: Since Section 22 provides that even such agreements should be subject to ratification by Congress, will this not lead to a repetition of the ignominious situation of 1947 where the Philippines ratified a bases treaty? And on the other hand, the United States refused even to submit this agreement to the American Senate for ratification. So that, in effect, we have an asymmetry of indignity as I had occasion to refer to it earlier.
Considering that there are many countries in the world, presumably including the foremost trading partners of the Philippines like Europe and Japan, which by law and tradition do not submit their executive agreements to their parliaments or legislature for ratification, would there not be a kind of asymmetry again and a certain auditing, not counting the concrete disadvantages for this country? And executive agreement, let us say, with the Western European community is submitted to our Senate for ratification and is given the dignity and force and effect of a complete treaty, while this is viewed, let us say, in Brussels as just one in a series of routine and perfunctory agreements they arrived at with other countries. Is that not a possibility?
MR. AZCUNA: It is a possibility, and we will be happy to welcome suggestions, whether by way of requiring reciprocity or some other way to avoid such disparity.
MR. OPLE: Thank you very much.
My last question will have to do with Section 28. This is about taxes and exemption from taxes such as in the case of religious, charitable and educational institutions, but my concern really is about the uniform standard of taxation. Elsewhere in the Constitutional Commission, especially in the Committee on Local Governments and, perhaps, in other committees as well, is a strong trend for decentralization or the grant of autonomy to regions and to specific cultural communities. Part of such grant is the power of taxation. But I do recall in the past and the lawyers know better about this, there were the recent cases in the Supreme Court. Was there not such a case in Ormoc City where the city government decided to exercise its autonomous power of taxation and then it was brought to the Supreme Court? I think they lost the case on a technicality. They were not violating a uniform tax standard required by the Constitution. They just forgot to speak in the plural of all the sugar centrals there, instead of designating by name for purposes of taxation, the only sugar mill in Ormoc City.
In order to prevent further disputes of this nature, and in order to align Section 28 with the requirements of local autonomy, including the power of taxation at the local level, would the Committee consider at the proper time an amendment that would explicitly recognize the taxation power of local municipalities as part of a grant of autonomy, without having to violate the constitutional uniform taxation standard?
MR. AZCUNA: The Committee will, Madam President.
MR. OPLE: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, I ask that Commissioner Rigos be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rigos is recognized.
REV. RIGOS: Madam President, my question has something to do with line 7 on page 2 of the committee report. Let me begin with line 4 which says:
Each legislative district shall comprise, as far as practicable, contiguous, compact and adjacent territory, provided, however, that each city with a population of more than two hundred thousand, or each province, shall have at least one representative.Does the Committee mean this really, or should it not read: "with a population of no more than two hundred thousand"?
MR. AZCUNA: The Committee means more than 200,000. If the city has more than 200,000, then it shall have at least one representative.
REV. RIGOS: Suppose it has 500,000, that is more than . . .
MR. AZCUNA: It can have more than one. It should have at least one representative.
REV. RIGOS: The wording here is "with a population of more than two hundred thousand." But, 500,000 is more than 200,000.
MR. AZCUNA: Yes.
REV. RIGOS: So, it will have one.
MR. AZCUNA: At least one; it may have more.
REV. RIGOS: On page 4, Section 13, line 17, says:
There shall be a Commission on Appointments consisting of twelve Senators and twelve Members of the House of Representatives . . .Does the Committee mean that there will be 24 members of the Commission on Appointments?
MR. AZCUNA: That is correct, plus the ex officio Chairman, so 25 members.
REV. RIGOS: Perhaps it is better to put the President of the Senate in that line so that the reader of this Section will know right away that there are 25, rather than 24, members of the Commission on Appointments.
MR. AZCUNA: We will entertain an amendment to clarify the points raised by the Gentleman.
REV. RIGOS: Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, we have two more interpellators. I would like to ask the Chair to recognize Commissioner Monsod.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, may I just ask the Committee a clarificatory question regarding Section 25 which talks about a budget of receipts based on existing and proposed revenue measures and of expenditures. There seems to be a presumption that it is always going to be a balanced budget.
MR. AZCUNA: This is really based on what they call "pay-as-you-go" basis, Madam President. Yes, that would be the presumption.
MR. MONSOD: Would this section then preclude what they would call a growth budget, where there is a deficit financed through issuance of money by purchases by the Central Bank of debt notes from the government? The reason 1 am asking this, Madam President. is that this year. there was a budget deficit ranging from P22 to P26 billion. and if we were to apply Section 25, can I conclude that such a budget would not be authorized?
MR. AZCUNA: It may come under special appropriations but not under the General Appropriations Bill because there is a provision on special appropriations also under Section 25 (4).
MR. MONSOD: But Section 25 (4) also says:
. . . and shall be supported by funds actually available as certified by the National Treasurer, or to be raised by a corresponding revenue proposal included therein.That kind of financing would not be allowed either under this paragraph.
MR. AZCUNA: If it is not a revenue proposal, then it would not be allowed.
MR. MONSOD: My apprehension, Madam President, is that under the principles of government budgeting, this limitation would be unduly restrictive of a growth budget. If we prime the economy, like the present state of our economy, there are ways of doing it and one of the more effective ways is by an expansionary monetary policy. This formulation might be unduly restrictive of the government options and flexibility in managing the economy.
MR. AZCUNA: We will be happy to entertain amendments to that effect, Madam President.
MR. MONSOD: Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, for the last interpellator, I ask that Commissioner Gascon be recognized.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Gascon is recognized.
MR. GASCON: Thank you, Madam President.
I beg to ask the members of the Committee very brief questions with regard to Section 2 which says:
The Senate shall be composed of twenty-four Senators who shall be elected at large by the qualified voters of the Philippines, as may be provided by law.I would like to relate this section to Section 5, lines 28 to 29, which reads: "and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected from the sectors and party list." Has the Committee contemplated that the Senate can as well be elected on a party list system?
MR. AZCUNA: It is not expressly stated, Madam President, but if there is an amendment to that effect, we will be happy to consider it, especially because the party list system is most fit where there is a representation at large of a constituency rather than of single-member district.
MR. GASCON: Does the Gentleman mean to say that a party list system is easily applicable on a national level, even more so than on a district-wide level?
MR. AZCUNA: On a level where there is multirepresentation such as the Senate elected at large. It is very easy to fit in a party list system of proportional representation because there is a bigger number elected from the same constituency. So, we can easily reckon. Let us say, 10 percent of 24 — if we get 10 percent of the votes, then we get 10 percent of 24.
MR. GASCON: So if we implement a party list system to the Senate that would provide for, let us say, greater access to more political parties in the Senate and would avoid monopoly of one, or dominance of one political party. Is that correct?
MR. AZCUNA: Yes, because under the traditional method of voting, for example, we vote for the Senate at large, a party that gets 51 percent of the votes gets all the 24 seats.
MR. GASCON: Winner-take-all.
MR. AZCUNA: It is a winner-take-all. So, the 49 percent of the voters do not get any seat at all, whereas in a proportional representation, one version of which is the party list method, if a party gets or a group gets 10 percent of the votes, then they get 10 percent of the 24 seats.
MR. GASCON: They are entitled to 10 percent of the 24 seats?
MR. AZCUNA: They are entitled to 10 percent which, of course, is a fraction — 2.4 — but there will have to be mechanics on how to allocate fractions.
MR. GASCON: Does the Gentleman think it is easier to implement on that level?
MR. AZCUNA: It is normally easier to implement the party list or proportional representation system where there is a multiple representation of a single constituency.
MR. GASCON: Thank you.
MR. RAMA: Madam President. I ask that Commissioner Monsod be recognized to ask one forgotten question, as he stated.
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod is recognized.
MR. MONSOD: I just wanted to make a comment on the question of Commissioner Gascon. Actually, in the Senate we do not need to apply the party list system because it is already nationwide and from a political tactician's point of view, there are ways to get the proportional representation. For a sectoral group, there are 24 seats available, then get the sector to just vote for one; that is a negative for the 23.
MR. GASCON: Let us concentrate on that issue on proportional representation. If it does not have to be a party list system so long as I shall see the Senate representation based on a proportionate number of votes cast for that particular candidate, then I can be assured that even a minority of five or 10 percent who voted for this particular candidate would be represented in the Senate. This would be very helpful in establishing democracy.
MR. MONSOD: Actually, for the 24 Senators, a four-percent or five-percent vote gets only one seat.
MR. GASCON: Thank you.
MR. MONSOD: Madam President, with regard to Section 22, I just want to clarify something on international agreement. Would the Committee include there the restructuring agreement on our external debt with the consortium of banks?
MR. AZCUNA: If it is a government-to-government agreement, Madam President, it would be included — but not private bank-to-bank agreement.
MR. MONSOD: There could be financial institutions within the consortium which are government agencies.
MR. AZCUNA: For instance, .
MR. MONSOD: EXIM Bank.
MR. AZCUNA: ... if it is with the IMF or EXIM Bank, these are not international subjects under international law. These would not be covered. We are referring here to agreements between subjects of international law.
MR. MONSOD: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: Madam President, may I be recognized to ask some questions of Commissioner Monsod?
THE PRESIDENT: Commissioner Suarez is recognized.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Madam President.
We are still on the subject of sectoral representation. There are two provisions which may be affected by this percentaging — one of them is with respect to the creation of the Commission on Appointments. This is affected by proportional representation, specially as it affects the multisectoral representation. We are operating on a 20-percent basis and, as proposed, there are 24 members in the Commission on Appointments. There is a provision directing that the appointments should be on the basis of proportional representation. DO I take it to mean that out of the 24 members in the Commission on Appointments at least 20 percent of 24 would come from the sectors?
MR. MONSOD: Essentially, what we are saying is, there are 12 members of the House of Representatives and, therefore, every bloc of 8 percent would get one seat.
MR. SUAREZ: Therefore, 20 percent of 12 will be about 2.4 and we would . . .
MR. MONSOD: Maybe two, Madam President.
MR. SUAREZ: And what is one more seat among friends? Could we get two or three? We go to the matter of the creation of the electoral tribunal which is composed of nine members, six of whom will come from the Congress. So, again, invoking the 20 percent representation for the multisectoral groups, we would have 1.2 representation — 20 percent of 6 would be 1.2 representatio — from the multisectoral sector.
MR. MONSOD: That is arithmetically correct, but at this point we do not know the composition of the 20 percent. It may well be that 60 percent of the 20 percent may come from two political parties because there is a maximum of, say, 30 percent of the 50 for each party. So it is possible that two parties may have 60 percent of 20 percent or 60 percent of 50 or 30 seats. So, it would depend on how the 50 party list representatives realign among themselves.
MR. SUAREZ: For the benefit of the future Members of both the Senate and the House of Representatives, what do we do with the fractional representation like .2 and .8, or .4?
MR. MONSOD: Does the Gentleman mean in determining the allocation within the 20 percent?
MR. SUAREZ: Yes, Madam President.
MR. MONSOD: Then, the way to do that is to list down everybody who has 2.5 percent at least. List them down and then divide the 50 by those within the list.
MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Madam President.
MR. RAMA: Madam President, to enable the Members to hold a caucus, I move for adjournment until tomorrow at nine-thirty in the morning.
THE PRESIDENT: The session is adjourned until tomorrow at nine-thirty in the morning. Let us all proceed to South Caucus Rooms A and B for our caucus.
It was 5:42 p.m.
* Appeared after the roll call.