| CONTACT: |
| Supreme Court of the Philippines Library Services, Padre Faura, Ermita, Manila, Philippines 1000 |
| (632) 8524-2706 |
| libraryservices.sc@judiciary.gov.ph |
[ VOL. II, September 12, 1934 ]
JOURNAL No. 37
Se abre la sesión a las 5:17 p.m., bajo la presidencia del Vicepresidente, Hon. Ruperto Montinola.
EL VICEPRESIDENTE: Lease la lista de los Delegados.
SR. ESCAREAL: Señor Presidente, pido que se dispense la lectura de la lista.
EL VICEPRESIDENTE: ¿Hay alguna objeción? La Mesa no oye ninguna. (Silencio.) Se dispensa la lectura de la lista. Hay quorum. Lease el acta.
SR. LIM: Señor Presidente, pido que se dispense la lectura del acta y que la misma se de por aprobada.
EL VICEPRESIDENTE: ¿Hay alguna objeción? (Silencio.) La Mesa no oye ninguna. Aprobada.
EL SECRETARIO:
De conformidad con lo acordado por la Asamblea en su sesión anterior, ésta en orden la continuacion de la consideracion de la Resolucion Numero 50.
EL PRESIDENTE: Tiene la palabra el Delegado por Bulacan, señor Sevilla.
MR. SEVILLA: Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention: Nearly 36 years ago, on September 15, 1888, at the Basilica of Barasoain, Malolos, Bulacan, a group of distinguished Filipinos, forgetting three centuries of oppression in the midst of a great human upheaval against tyranny and with only the love of God and country beating in their hearts, met as a revolutionary Congress and as an expression of the national wish wrote with their genius the immortal Constitution of the Philippine Republic.
In the drafting of this Constitution, however, the Revolutionary Congress met a stern opposition in the person of Apolinario Mabini, who maintained that this Congress was not called to draft a constitution for the Republic but simply to give popular support to Aguinaldo in the prosecution of the war. We saw him contending that the drafting of the Constitution was not the proper task during a time troubled by uncertainty. We saw him advising Aguinaldo to "send a message to the Congress reminding them that they ought not to frame a constitution because they were not a representative assembly."
Calderon thought otherwise, however, and believed that Congress had the authority to draft a constitution for the Philippine Islands. He was sustained by the Congress which finally approved the constitution and promulgated it in January 1899. We know now that the opinion of our Sublime Paralytic, from the point of view of Constitutional Law, was mistaken because he failed to take into account that the Congress, having become part of the Revolutionary Government, thereby acquired the character of a Revolutionary Convention with powers -derived from force or necessity to adopt a constitution.
Today, in the discussion of the present resolution, I see that we have many Mabinis in our midst, doubting the capacity and authority of this Convention to draft and formulate a constitution that shall also serve as the fundamental law after the Commonwealth period. On the other hand, we also have many Calderons who think otherwise believing that because a constitution is supposed to be permanent, there should not be a limitation to its duration.
Mr. President, I myself have always been under the impression and still believe that a constitution, as understood in American political law, is a fundamental law of the state drafted by the people acting thru a special body of men known as a constitutional convention, which law organizes the essential parts of government, defines and limits the powers of the different agencies of the state and prescribes the manner of the exercise of such powers, after which the people can do no act except to amend it or make an entirely new constitution.
In my limited knowledge of constitutional history, I have never come across and will probably never come across any nation or people who undertook upon themselves the singular and unusual task of framing a constitution—as that word is understood in American political history—with a time limit set to it either expressly or impliedly by the framers themselves, except perhaps the Constitution which the Constitutional Convention of the Philippine Islands convened last July 30, 1934, would never have the unique privilege of drafting were the opinion of the opponents of the resolution to prevail.
To those who oppose this resolution on the ground that it is unnecessary and superfluous inasmuch as the provisions of the Tydings-McDuffie Law are clear enough, I have nothing to say because I realize that they are far more convinced that I am of the authority of this Convention to draft a constitution that shall not only survive the Commonwealth period but also operate for the ensuing Republic. I must confess that if all the opponents of this resolution have only this argument as the sole ground of their objection, then they can count my vote with theirs.
The majority of those who oppose the resolution, however, base their main objection upon the argument that same provisions of the Tydings-McDuffie Law, indicate that we are only empowered and authorized to draft a constitution for the Commonwealth. They cited parts of Section 1, Section 2, and notably sub-section 5 of Section 2(b), in support of their contention. Supporters of the resolution, however, have cited provisions of the same Law as showing or tending to show that the Convention is empowered to draft a Constitution not only to serve for the Commonwealth period, but also for the Republic, principally subsections 2 of Section 2 (b), Sections 3, 4, and 10 (a), and even the Title of the Law itself, so I do not wish to repeat here what has already been adduced in support of these cited provisions of the law. I mention them, not to emphasize the fact that never before has this Assembly been so evenly divided on a question such as this one; but to show that never has such an imposing array of distinguished figures in our political, legal and educational spheres taken sides on a question and swept this Convention with their powerful arguments in the interpretation of a Congressional law.
In the midst of such honest divergence of interpretations and confusion of opinions, I respectfully invite the attention of this Body to two rules of statutory construction for the determination of the real intent of a law or statute in cases of ambiguity or doubt. One rule says that "when different constructions of a provision are otherwise equally proper, that is to be taken which is most favorable to the party in whose favor the provision is made." No one here can deny that the Tydings-McDuffie Law was especially passed by the American Congress for the benefit of the Filipinos in recognition of their peaceful clamor for independence that was carried and sustained thru 34 years of abiding faith in the altruism of the American people; consequently, the provision authorizing and empowering the Philippine Legislature to convoke a constitutional convention to draft the fundamental law and form of government for the Philippine Islands, could only mean that we are empowered to draft a constitution that shall span not only the gap of 10 years during the Commonwealth, but also continue for an indefinite length of time after the transitional epoch, because this construction is most favorable to our people in order to insure permanence and stability to our institutions and laws, in order to safeguard the rights and liberties of our citizens at the dawning of the final and complete withdrawal of American sovereignty.
The second rule of statutory construction in cases of ambiguity says: "When a statute is equally susceptible of two interpretations one in favor of a natural right and .the other against it, the former is to be adopted." Gentlemen of the Convention, I ask you, what right is more natural than for a people to be able to draft not merely a constitution for a decade alone, but an imperishable document that shall perpetuate for posterity the fruition of a great and glorious struggle for emancipation; a document that shall preserve the sweet blessings of a great libertarian movement unique in the annals of man's magnanimity to man; a document that shall soon announce to the world the birth of a new republic to salute with gratitude a great and unselfish nation whose altruism has brought the happiness of freedom and the high result of civilization and progress of the Filipino race?
Mr. President, I shall vote in favor of this resolution because I believe it enunciates the true mission for which this Convention is gathered here today. I shall vote for it because I believe in the natural right of the Filipino people to adopt and frame a Constitution that shall withstand the adversities of fortune and the uncertainties of the unknown future. I shall vote for this resolution because I refuse to become one of the Pontius Pilates in this Convention who, even now, are beginning to wash their hands from any responsibility as to what the period after the lapse of 10 years may bring upon their people. I shall vote for this resolution because we who belong to the youth of the Philippines have an abiding faith in the sense of responsibility of the members of this Convention to draft a Constitution that shall not be an odious symbol of fear for the consequence of the future but a shining diadem of the genius of our race that shall go in more refulgence and luster upon the advent of our final political resurrection.
SR. KAPUNAN: El siguiente orador es el Delegado por Cebu, Señor Niere.
EL VICEPRESIDENTE: Tiene la palabra el Delegado por Cebu.
DISCURSO DEL SR. NIERE
SR. NIERE: Señor Presidente y Señores Delegados. Me levanto en este momento para emitir mi opinion en contra de ésta Resolucion. Es mi humilde parecer que la Resolucion no debe ser aprobada por las razones siguientes: Que la aprobacion de la Resolucion Osias es innecesaria; que no éstamos obligados a aprobarla; y que, segun he inferido o deducido del articulo 4 de la Ley Tydings-McDuffie, la aprobacion de la Resolucion Osias seria una usurpacion del derecho del pueblo filipino y, al mismo tiempo, una violacion directa del mencionado articulo; que no es la intencion del Congreso de los Estádos Unidos que redactemos una Constitucion para la Republica Filipina, porque, segun he deducido de los articulos de la Ley Tydings-McDuffie, el Congreso de los Estádos Unidos ésta dudando de nuestra capacidad; y que el Gobierno de los Estádos Unidos duda de que el pueblo filipino quiere la independencia. La aprobacion de la Resolucion Osias, para mi, seria una demostracion palmaria de falta de sentido comun de nuestra parte. Señores Delegados, refiriendome a una de las razones que he dicho, creo que no hay necesidad de aducir muchos argumentos para probar que la Resolucion de la Ley Tydings-McDuffie nos indica que éstamos obligados a aprobarla. He dicho que la aprobacion de esa Resolucion constituiria una usurpacion directa del derecho del pueblo filipino, porque en el articulo 4 se dice que el pueblo filipino tendra el derecho de expresar su voluntad suprema mediante un plebiscito en el que dira si quiere o no quiere la independencia. Si redactamos una Constitucion para la Republica Filipina sin consentimiento ni conocimiento del pueblo filipino, usurparemos ese derecho que la misma Ley Tydings-McDuffie confiere al pueblo y, al mismo tiempo, seria una violacion directa de este articulo que, como digo, confiere al pueblo filipino el derecho de expresar su voluntad suprema, si quiere o no quiere la independencia.
Digo que no es la intencion del Gobierno americano que redactemos una Constitucion para la Republica Filipina, dudando de nuestra capacidad para gobernarnos a nosotros mismos. Digo que ésta dudando, porque para mi, las disposiciones transitorias de la Ley Tydings-McDuffie éstablecen un periodo durante el cual hemos de cumplir ciertas condiciones, y despues de haberlas cumplido se nos dara la independencia. Para mi, este periodo es un periodo probatorio, un periodo de prueba. Si el Gobierno de los Estádos Unidos nos somete a una prueba para que demostremos que sabemos gobernarnos a nosotros mismos, esto indica que el Gobierno de los Estádos Unidos ésta dudando de nuestra capacidad para gobernarnos a nosotros mismos. Digo que no es la intencion del Gobierno americano que redactemos una Constitucion para la Republica Filipina, porque precisamente ésta dudando si el pueblo filipino quiere o no quiere la independencia. Del Artículo 4 se deduce el objeto del Gobierno americano de sondear la voluntad del pueblo filipino, si quiere o no quiere la independencia. El mero hecho de que el Gobierno americano sondee nuestra voluntad, si queremos o no queremos la independencia, indica de un modo palmario que el Gobierno de los Estádos Unidos ésta dudando de la voluntad del pueblo filipino. Por otra parte seria una usurpacion del derecho del pueblo americano de poseer las Islas Filipinas, derecho adquirido mediante conquista, derecho que solamente puede aquel renunciar mediante la Ley Tydings-McDuffie es decir, si podemos cumplir las condiciones y requisitos de dicha Ley. Al redactar una Constitucion para la Republica Filipina, hemos de sentir, hemos de presumir que somos libres e independientes, porque no se puede redactar una Constitucion donde se proclamen los derechos y los principios de un gobierno libre si no hemos de sentir que somos libres e independientes. Este acto constituiria para mi una usurpacion del derecho del pueblo americano de concedernos la independencia; no se puede concebir que redactemos una Constitucion donde se proclamen los derechos y principios de un gobierno libre e independiente si despues vamos a someter esa Constitucion a otro Gobierno para que sea ratificada.
EL VICEPRESIDENTE: Ha terminado el tiempo del orador.
SR. KAPUNAN: Pido el consentimiento de la Asam-blea para que se le concedan diez minutos mas.
EL VICEPRESIDENTE: ¿Hay alguna objeción? (Silencio.) Puede continuar el Caballero de Cebu:
SR. NIERE: (Presiguiendo.) Y no se puede redactar una Constitucion si despues vamos a someter esa Constitucion a otro Gobierno, porque entonces seria una Constitucion redactada sin sentir que somos libres e independientes. La Constitucion de Malolos se redacto cuando la bandera filipina ondeaba ya entonces. Es decir, la Constitucion de la extinta Republica Filipina fue redactada bajo la bandera filipina que ya ondeaba entonces. Pero nosotros vamos a redactar una Constitucion para un gobierno libre e independiente, mientras éstamos aun bajo la bandera de un soberano extraño. Eso para mi no se puede explicar, no se puede concebir. Podran decir los americanos y los demas pueblos que nos falta sentido comun. (Aplausos.)
MR. REYES (J.): Mr. Chairman, the next speaker will be the Delegate from Samar, Mr. Bocar.
EL VICEPRESIDENTE: El Delegado por Samar, Señor Bocar, tiene la palabra.
MR. BOCAR: Mr. President and gentlemen of the Convention: When the Osias resolution was presented, I was against it. It was my honest conviction then that the resolution was unnecessary and superfluous, and should not have been presented, because it was seeking an official pronouncement by the Convention on the matter which I had thought was generally agreed upon. But I heard every respectable gentleman in this Convention, particularly the Delegates from Manila, Laguna, Tayabas and Cavite, who, in standing before this Convention to oppose the resolution, have stated that the Convention could draft no constitution other than for the Commonwealth only, I was confronted with the revelation that the disagreement was not merely on the point of necessity but that it involved different fundamentals of legality and authority. To be consistent with myself I had to change my opinion and now I am convinced that the resolution is not only necessary but also very imperative. (Applause).
Frankly, speaking, I did not become a Delegate to help draft a constitution to last only for ten years. When I presented my candidacy for this position, I told the people that the Convention will draft a constitution first for the Commonwealth and then for the Republic. When I told the people those things I was neither fooling nor deceiving them. They themselves knew the provisions of the Law: that the constitution should be first for the Commonwealth and then for the Republic. I am not willing to modify or alter this agreement with the people.
The very respectable Delegate from Manila has stated here that we must not be ambitious, that it is enough for us to draft a constitution for the Commonwealth. I believe this is not a question of honor nor of glory. I do not think that any Member of this Assembly came here to reap personal glory for himself. All of us who sustain the resolution are concerned not with what glory could mean and do for us, but with the duty that is imperative—one that is clearly a dutv under the law; for in this stupendous task of drafting a constitution, we who are privileged to be Members of this Convention are mere incidents. Ten years, twenty years, one hundred years from now, the people of the Philippine Islands will never care who among us was most active or who among us achieved the greater glory. Our people a hundred years from now will want to know the kind of constitution we have provided for them: whether it is lasting, permanent—one that has adequately provided for justice, for their happiness and for their posterity.
I have listened to this marathon debate and I have seen the resolution mutilated by argument, dissected by opinion and lambasted by criticism. I have come to the conclusion that the source of our controversy is just one word,—"Commonwealth." It is not a word which, according to the distinguished Delegate "from Capiz (Mr. Roxas), is not susceptible of Spanish translation. By "Commonwealth," I refer to the Commonwealth Government and its period of transition, the years that will intervene between now and the independent government. I say so, because, if there is no Commonwealth nor a transition period, there will be no difficulty in determining the kind of constitution that we will draft. If Congress has not provided for a transition period—as it has provided that upon approval and completion of this Constitution, independence and the Republic will be proclaimed—then we will all be agreed that the Constitution will be for the Republic. Why should it then make any difference to us that because there is a Commonwealth with a transition period that we should be confused as to the kind of constitution to draft? The trouble, Mr. President, is that we have allowed ourselves to be confused and blinded by the transition period and the Commonwealth, hence we cannot see our independence at the end of such transition. After the Commonwealth is the Republic. We are not preparing for the Commonwealth but for our independence. Independence is the goal; the Commonwealth is only the way. The transition should not be our point of view. The Constitution, gentlemen, should be for the Commonwealth and then for the Republic. I do not know what others may say, but for me my duty is clear. I will vote for the Osias resolution because I will have the chance of discharging a duty first to myself, then to the people, and lastly, to my country. I thank you.
MR. LIM: Mr. President.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The Gentleman from Manila.
MR. LIM: Just one question to the Gentleman from Samar, Mr. Bocar.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The Gentleman from Samar may answer.
MR. LIM: In the course of the Gentleman's speech he referred to a Delegate from Manila. To whom did he refer?
MR. BOCAR: I was referring to Mr. Palma.
SR. KAPUNAN: Señor Presidente.
EL VICEPRESIDENTE: El Caballero de Leyte.
SR. KAPUNAN: El siguiente orador de nuestro lado es el Caballero de Isabela, Señor Banaga.
MR. BANAGA: Mr. President:
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The Gentleman from Isabela has the floor.
MR. BANAGA: Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention: I am going to speak briefly against the Osias resolution now under consideration by this Convention. I am opposed to it because I deem it completely unnecessary and superfluous.
A careful analysis of the provisions of the Tvdings-McDuffie Law discloses that the Constitution which this Convention is called upon to draft will be not only for the government of the Commonwealth, but also for the government of the Philippine Republic. It is true that the first part of Section 1 of the Tydings-McDuffie Law speaks only of a Constitution for the government of the Philippine Commonwealth; but the provisions of Section 2 (b) and Sec. 10 (a) of said Law show clearly that the same Constitution will continue to operate after the proclamation of Philippine independence by the President of the United States. Section 2 (b) provides as follows:
"The Constitution shall also contain the following provisions, effective as of the date of the proclamation of the President of the United States recognizing the independence of the Philippines Islands, as thereinafter provided."Now, I ask, what is the motive behind the above-cited provisions of the Tydings-McDuffie Act requiring the insertion in the Constitution of certain provisions of the United States recognizing the independence of the Philippine Islands, if such Constitution is intended only for the Government of the Commonwealth?
Said Section 10 (a) of the Tydings-McDuffie Law provides as follows:
"On the 4th day of July immediately following the expiration of a period of 10 years from the date of the inauguration of the law of the new Government under the Constitution provided for in this Act, the President of the United States shall by proclamation withdraw and surrender all rights of possession, supervision, jurisdiction, control or sovereignty then existing and exercised by the United States in and over the territory and people of the Philippine Islands, including all military and other reservations of the Government of the United States in the Philippines (except such naval reservations and fueling stations so reserved under Section 5, and, on behalf of the United States, shall recognize the independence of the Philippine Islands as a separate and a self-governing nation and acknowledge the authority and control over the same of the government instituted by the people thereof, under the constitution then in force."What Constitution will then be in force upon the proclamation and recognition of the independence of this country by the President of the United States on July 4th immediately following the expiration of the transition period? I submit, Mr. President, that it will be none other than the Constitution which is being drafted by this Convention, including provisions enumerated in Section 2 (B), of the Independence Law, but minus the provisions of Section 2 (A).
I maintain that the resolution under consideration is absolutely unnecessary because under the above-cited provisions the Constitution which we are to formulate will continue to operate after the proclamation of Philippine independence.
There is another reason, no less important, which impels me to say that the resolution does not merit the approval of this Convention. Its author, in a brilliant speech delivered before this august Body, made it clear that his main purpose in introducing the resolution is to furnish a guide for the Members of this Convention in their present and difficult task of constitution-making. I protest against this attempt of the distinguished Delegate from La Union to have this Convention approve the resolution which is bound to mislead and possibly cause us to insert provisions in the fundamental law which may result in its disapproval by the President of the United States.
To illustrate my point: Suppose we pass the resolution and make a formal pronouncement that it is the sense of this Convention that the Constitution shall be for both the Government of the Commonwealth and that of the Republic. There will surely be demands from some Members of this august Body and from our constituents for the insertion in the Constitution of provisions, such as the free and unrestricted holding of firearms and the limitation on the right to apply for and hold public lands to nationals or Filipinos only, to mention only two. These provisions are proper in a Constitution of a free and independent republic but are against American Sovereignty over this country during the transition period. Such provisions, even if made to take effect on the advent of our Republic, may cause the disapproval of the Constitution by the President of the United States.
We are here assembled to lay down the framework of a sovereign or a semi-sovereign government, not by virtue of our own people's free will, but in compliance with the generous act of the government and people of the United States. That act of generosity is expressed in the Independence Law. The Law grants this Convention authority to draft a constitution, but its wording binds us to evolve a document that conforms rigidly to its provisions. Aside from the mandatory provisions which we cannot lay aside with impunity, Section 3 of the Tydings-McDuffie Acts provides as follows:
Upon the drafting and approval of the constitution by the Constitutional Convention in the Philippine Islands, the constitution shall be submitted within two years after the enactment of this Act to the President of the United States, who shall determine whether or not it conforms with the provisions of this Act. If the President finds that the proposed constitution conforms substantially with the provisions of this act, he shall so certify to the Governor-General of the Philippine Islands, who shall so advise the Constitutional Convention. If the President finds that the constitution does not conform with the provisions of this Act he shall so advise the Governor-General of the Philippine Islands, stating wherein his judgment the constitution does not so conform and submitting provisions which will in his Judgment make a constitution so conform. The Governor General shall in turn submit such message to the Constitutional Convention for further action by them pursuant to the same procedure hereinbefore defined, until the President and the Constitutional Convention are in agreement."Note, please, Gentlemen of the Convention, that the word "conform" is used five times in this particular section of the Tydings-McDuffie Act. This Law then is in itself the guide for this Convention, and the proper, if not the best, attitude for us to adopt during the course of our deliberations is to frame a constitution neither intended to function solely for the Government of the Commonwealth nor designed expressly to operate during the life of the Republic, but a constitution which, according to our best judgment, conforms with the provisions of the Tydings-McDuffie Act, and at the same time safeguards the life, liberty, security, peace and happiness of our people.
MR. REYES: Mr. President.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The Gentleman from Sorsogon.
MR. REYES: Our next speaker for the affirmative side is the Gentleman from Tayabas, Mr. Salumbides.
THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The Gentleman from Tayabas has the floor.
DISCURSO DEL SR. SALUMBIDES
MR. SALUMBIDES: Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention: The first speaker against the resolution this evening stated here that the United States doubts our desire to become a free and independent people, for which reason he thinks that this Convention should draft only a constitution for the Commonwealth government. If that be true, then we should approve here a constitution for both for the Commonwealth government and the Philippine Republic. A constitution for the Commonwealth alone might lead the Americans to believe that we are afraid of independence because the said constitution is only for the transition period. Hence, it is our duty to make a Constitution not only for the Commonwealth but also for the Republic, so that the American people will cast aside their doubt and be convinced that our real goal is an independent government.
MR. REYES: Mr. President, will the Gentleman yield ?
EL VICEPRESIDENTE: El Caballero puede contéstar, si lo desea.
MR. SALUMBIDES: I have only a limited time, Delegate from Cebu, so please let me finish my speech. It is also said that approval of this resolution will show a lack of common sense on our part. Let us see if that is true. We who favor the resolution are unanimous in our contention that this Convention has power to draft a constitution for both the Commonwealth and the Republic. But what has happened among those who oppose the resolution? While they contend that this Convention has no power to write a constitution for the Republic, their companions are contradicting and telling impliedly that the oppositionists are wrong. Under such circumstances, shouldn't you either go with Colleagues who have other reasons in opposing the resolution or else come with us in the affirmative, where you would be welcome? Now I ask: who has common sense and who has none?
The second speaker tonight said that the resolution is unnecessary, a surplusage. I agree insofar as the interpretation of the Tydings-McDuffie Law is concerned. Really, we cannot change it nor amend it. But, there is something else that must be considered. Insofar as this Convention is concerned, the resolution is a necessity. Let me explain the reason why. The delegates are divided into two camps: those who want to write a constitution for the Commonwealth only and those who want to draft one for both the Commonwealth and the Republic.
To illustrate my point, the Delegates are in a banca with those in favor on one end and those against on the other end, and these two opposing forces are paddling in opposite directions. Certainly such a situation will hamper and delay the work of the Convention. If we want to do our duty faithfully and perform our work well, and if we want to finish this Constitution at the earliest possible time, then the resolution is not unnecessary but a necessity by force of circumstances and must be decided now one way or another.
Another point brought up here is that it is not our duty to make a Constitution for the Republic. In reply, I want to say this: The history of every country is divided into periods of time. We had had the pre-Spanish period and the Spanish regime, and now we are under the era of American sovereignty. The historians will give Filipinos of the present era the credit for obtaining the liberty and political emancipation of our people.
But independence cannot be complete and lasting without a constitution that will guarantee peace and order. Therefore, it is the duty of the Convention to draft a constitution to serve also for the Republic because those of the present generation are getting along in years and rich in experience and they are better prepared to write a constitution than the future generation who will be young and inexperienced. If we can make a will for our children, a téstament in the form of a constitution, then we can have the satisfaction of dying in the belief that our descendants will live as we want them to live, and happy as we want them to be happy. So I say, through the labors and sacrifices of the present, Fate has decreed the present to be the emancipator of the future.
Another objection to the resolution is that submitting to the President of the United States for his approval a constitution for the Republic will degrade the Filipinos because said act will be a surrender of the future sovereignty of our people to a foreign power. Mr. President, we must distinguish the present generation, a subject people, from the future generation who will be a free and independent people. Should the future generation be the ones to submit the Constitution to the President of the United States, then I agree to the objection that such act would be a surrender of a sovereign to another country. But those who will submit the Constitution we are drafting now belong to the present generation who are still under the guardianship of the United States. In the light of International Law and in accordance with the Civil Law of any land, it is the duty of the ward to seek the advice of the guardian, and the duty of the guardian to give counsel to the ward. The submission of the Constitution to the President of the United States will be part of the performance of our duty as wards. So, the performance of a duty is not a thing to be ashamed of; on the contrary, it is a task to be proud of.
Besides, what will be lost in submitting the Constitution of the Republic to the President of the United States for approval? Nothing, because we cannot bind and force the future generations to accept that Constitution if they do not want it. They will be at liberty to draft a new one that will suit their purpose.
EL VICEPRESIDENTE: El tiempo del orador ha expirado.
MR. SALUMBIDES: May I be allowed to conclude just for two minutes?
EL VICEPRESIDENTE: El tiempo del orador ha expirado.
MR. SALUMBIDES: May I be allowed to conclude just for two minutes?
EL VICEPRESIDENTE: ¿Está conforme la Convencion con extender el tiempo del orador? (Una mayorla: Si.) El orador puede continuar,
MR. SALUMBIDES: (Prasiguiendo): What will be gained by submitting the Constitution of the Republic to the President of the United States? Everything, because the Constitution will be subject to the magnifying glass of experience of a great and powerful people who once were in the same situation that we are in now. Inasmuch as they are our guardians equally interested in the success of our work and the realization of our political aspirations, they will surely point out to us not only the pitfalls into which a small, independent country like ours might fall but also the safe road to stability, peace, prosperity, greatness, and happiness.
In conclusion, permit me to follow in the footsteps of my Colleague, Delegate Bocar, who has just spoken, in informing you of the stand of my constituency on this resolution. The proposed constitution which I submitted here on the third day of the session is intended for the Commonwealth and also for the Republic. I distributed copies of it to the different municipalities of my district, and in my campaign speeches I explained to the people its provisions.
My election as Delegate to this Convention is the most eloquent testimony that the desire and will of my constituency, the Second District of Tayabas, is to make a constitution for the Commonwealth and for the Republic. However, if you can convince me that your ideas are better than mine in other matters to be incorporated in the Constitution, I shall be glad to accept your views. I am not after personal glory nor are my constituents after the interest of our district alone; rather, we are after the best constitution that can be written by the genius of our race, a document which shall be the tower of liberty and independence to illumine the darkness in the oriental sky.
I thank you.
LEVANTAMIENTO DE LA SESIÓN
MR. GUZMAN (Alejandro): Señor Presidente, pido que se levante la sesión hasta mañana, a las 4:00 de la tarde.
EL VICEPRESIDENTE: Si no hay objeción, se levanta la sesión hasta mañana, a las 4:00 p.m. (No la hubo.)
Eran las 8:23 p.m.