Supreme Court E-Library
Information At Your Fingertips

  View printer friendly version

Se abre la sesion a las 5:33 p.m., ocupando el estrado el Hon. Jesus M. Cuenco, por designacion del Presidente.

EL PRESIDENTE INTERINO: Se abre la sesion.


SR. ESCAREAL: Senor Presidente.

EL PRESIDENTE INTERINO: Senor Delegado por Samar.

SR. ESCAREAL: Pido que se dispense la lectura de la lista y del acta, dandose esta por aprobada y por presente un quorum.

EL PRESIDENTE INTERINO: ØŸHav alguna objecion a la mocion? (Silencio.) La Mesa no oye ninguna. Queda aprobada.

EL PRESIDENTE INTERINO: Tiene la palabra el Caballero de Negros Occidental, Senor Perez.


MR. PEREZ (J.): Gentlemen of the Convention: The subject of my speech is "Senators-at-Large and Proportional Representation." The basic philosophy which permeates our political thought is the expression of the popular will in government. The political institutions of all democratic nations have been continually undergoing changes to attain realization and perfection of the political ideal of popular government.

Our concept of popular government is one in which decisions on conduct are the result of conscious deliberations of the people and the instruments and machines which form these decisions really reflect the true political complexion of the nation. The present practices of certain governments, including ours, do not guaranty that their legislative bodies actually reflect the political thought of the people. Even our own political practices at times place in mockery the ideal of representative democracy.

By direct mandate of the enabling act, we are here convened to lay down the foundations of a representatives self-limited democracy. The wisdom of this mandate is self-evident for it precludes the implementation of either an absolute democracy or absolute monarchy, for neither constitutes safe foundations upon which to rest the political institutions of a free people. From the concept of the mystical derivation of the power of ancient rulers and the assumption of the mystical connection between monarchs and divinity to the notion of popular government is a great stride in the evolution of government authority. This evolution was brought about by the growth and power of public opinion, and popular government is thus regarded as the control of politics by public opinion.

But the complicated political activities of modern civilization render impossible the determination of all public affairs by the great mass of the people, hence the rise of the theory that public opinion may be expressed thru representatives who will reflect the opinion of the electorate. This theory is the principle of representation and is one of the greatest advances in the art of government; however, because of the means and methods by which they are elected, popular assemblies have oftentimes failed to fulfill the hopes of their founders. The extent of the new grave responsibilities which we have assumed to the nation and to posterity demands of us a thorough and extensive study of the problems, principles and practices of the legislative body. Therefore, one of the gravest problems which confronts this Constitutional Convention is the composition and mode of election of the legislative authority.

Some of our political institutions are time-honored and backed up by historical precedents; so where it is plausible, let us not begin our task with demolitions; instead, let us make useful improvements on the existing mechanism of our democracy. Shall we discard our bicameral legislature and institute in its place a unicameral body? It is not my object to deal extensively for the present in the defense of bicameralism, but for the purpose of my premise, I shall say here a few statements in its defense.

I need not trace the historical development and the precedents which justify the existence of bicameral legislatures in foreign countries for these are known to all of you. However, allow me to remind you that unitary republics seek to employ in their upper house the larger interests of the state as against petty and local interests in the lower houses. Likewise, the framers of their constitutions thought it desirable to apply the principle of checks and balances not only to the different departments of the government but also within the same department. Our Senate is justified not only on grounds of historical development but also on the importance of the balancing functions of a bicameral legislature as an instrumentality for a more correct interpretation of the general sentiment of the people. Indeed, a double-chambered legislature supplies the much-needed correction to the omnipotence of a single body. The tendency of oligarchy and the cases with which it may be lobbied are factors which we must consider in any attempt to establish a unicameral body.

If we were to establish here a unicameral legislature by abolishing the Senate, then we would be confronted by the horrible spectacle of a body of so-called representatives of the people with members concentrating their energies in assaulting the public treasury for the benefit of local needs in their districts. We would have a so-called National Assembly which will not look after our national interest but merely act as guardian of local interests. A Representative comes from a small district, reared under the local and provincial infuences, and what is uppermost in his mind is to secure funds from the public treasury for the benefit of his small constituency. He thinks of himself as having been sent to the legislature to secure governmental aid and protection for the district which he represents. He occupies himself chiefly with the promotion of private and local bills upon which his reelection depends. Measures of national character would be relegated to second place for much of the time and attention of our legislators would be spent in petty local legislation.

One of the greatest functions of the Senate is to check the erring course of the House. The argument has been advanced, rightly or not, that our Senate does not really act as a checking body for even our dignified senators also engage in log-rolling. It is alleged that pernicious legislative measures of local character are passed by mutual understanding between legislators in exchange for united support in the passage of measures of like character. There is free barter of votes in passing these local measures.

Indeed, it is pointed out that it would be terrifying to compare the number of bills of local character introduced in our Legislature to the number of bills of public and national character. Even in the Congress of the United States the dominance of private and local bills is great. Thus, it was pointed out that, during the presidential campaign between Cox and Harding. Congressman Cox had introduced a total of 829 bills all of which excepting 20 were bills of private and local character, and that Harding as a senator introduced 139 bills of private and local character, except 22 of them.

In our Legislature, it is alleged that after a pork barrel item has been log-rolled by a Representative in the House, the senator from the district of the author-representative does not attempt to kill it but on the contrary pushes it thru in the Senate for fear of the wrath of his constituency. Thus a bad bill, it is argued, is passed by the Legislature with the Senate having failed to exercise its checking function. However, it is admitted, that if the Senate were only to act and fulfill its mission as a checking body its importance would be of inestimable value. The solution to the problem is not to abolish the Senate but to make it perform the function for which it was created. The solution lies in the method of electing our senators.

Our method of electing members to our legislative body was imported from America, which in turn imported it from England, a country that adopted it at a time when suffrage was limited to a few and the problems of modem democracy were unknown. The original idea of American elections was that everybody must get a clear majority.

The remedy herein proposed is to elect our senators-at-large on the principle of proportional representation. The Senate then would not only take care of our national interest but also check the House and our Representatives could very well represent our local districts. The remedy is not a new discovery. It is one that has been thoroughly tested and tried. Actually all the congressmen of Virginia, Missouri, Minnesota, Kentucky, and North Dakota, and partly those of Oklahoma, Texas, Ohio, New York, Florida, Illinois and Connecticut are elected at large.

The election of senators-at-large completely disregards the idea of geographical representation and would, therefore, do away with sectionalism and regionalism. We would then have a Senate of men of national prestige and not merely the pets of provinces which happen to dominate the senatorial district. This is easily comprehended by the small provinces which unfortunately are included in the eighth and eleventh senatorial districts. Our Senate would then be a veritable training camp for national leadership, a body whose first duty is to look after our national interests. The Senators would no longer fritter away time on local and special problems, and expose themselves to the evils of log-rolling, for the election of senators would not depend merely on one or a few localities but on the nation at large. A senator who devotes his time to satisfying the needs of a locality will certainly incur the wrath of the remainder of his constituency—in this case the whole nation. Being elected at large throughout the country, a Senator can no longer afford to be considered as a mere guardian of a locality. In the hypothetical case we have previously spoken of the pork barrel appropriation would find its natural death in the Senate. Thus, we shall have a body which will not only take charge of the national interests but also effectively function as a check to the House of Representatives.

The remedy does not stop with the election at large of the members of the Senate but makes it imperative that this election be on the basis of the principle of proportional representation. Our present method of district election does not really reflect the time picture of the political complexion of the electorate. Worse, under our present system of senatorial elections, there would be times when the minority and not the majority would govern the nation. Through a process of concentrating the majority of one party and scattering that of the other, the will of the majority of the people may be defeated and the majority of seats in the Legislature occupied by those elected by a minority of electors.

Thus, in Rhode Island in 1932, the Democrats polled 81,762 votes, but obtained just one seat in the House of Representatives, whereas, the Republicans polling only 63,688 votes carried two seats. Is this representative democracy where the minority has not only more representation but is misrepresented? In 1922, the Conservatives in England polled 5,381,433 votes carrying 276 seats in the House of Commons, while their opponents who polled 8,781,438 votes obtained 261 seats. Again, in the elections of 1924, the Conservatives with 7,350,990 votes obtained 382 seats, where their opponents with 8,614,734 votes got 180 seats only. Therefore, thru the system of district elections, the majority of the members of the British Parliament were elected by a minority of voters in 1922 and 1924.

In the elections in Geneva on October 7, 1846, the Conservatives polled 1,342 votes only, yet they obtained 29 legislative seats, while the Radicals who polled 1,400 votes carried only 19 seats. In this case, the Radicals resorted to violence. Due to the district system of elections, similar cases occurred in other Swiss cantons. In Ticino in 1899 open rebellion broke out because the Conservatives who polled 12,783 votes carried 77 seats and the Liberals with 12,965 votes elected only 35 deputies.

As a solution to these inequities of election results, proportional representation was resorted to and since then it was so successful that party peace was restored and it has not been broken since then. In Indiana in 1912, the district system resulted in a very inequitable manner because the Democrats with only 291,280 votes carried all the 12 seats for the House of Representatives while the Republicans with a great number of votes, 349,546, were unable to obtain a single seat. In Maine in 1914, the Democrats and the Republicans polled about the same number of votes—60,683 votes for Democrats and 60,318 votes for Republicans—yet the Republicans with a lesser number of votes obtained three Congressional seats and the Democrats with a greater number of votes obtained only one. Had proportional representation been applied each party would have two congressional seats since both groups were of equal strength. In Boston, the minority ruled the city on seven occasions. Now, is this representative democracy where the Legislature does not represent the true complexion of the electorate? The ideal of popular government was defeated because of the district system of election.

In 1890, the Democratic vote went up by one percent but the Democrats increased their representation in the House of Representatives from 161 to 286. In 1924, the Democrats in nine southern states elected 78 Congressmen. The McKinley Tariff Law was really a measure of the minority because in the 51st U.S. Congress the majority of Representatives were elected by a minority of voters. Again in the 64th Congress, the Republicans with only 8,538,221 votes had 216 seats. As applied to the Presidential election in the United States which is a form of district election, in 1912 Wilson had a popular vote of 5,286,214 votes carrying 435 electoral votes while Taft with 3,483,922 votes had only eight electoral votes. Under the principle of proportional representation, Taft would have had about half of the electoral votes of Wilson, that is, about 50% and not only 2% with which he was credited.

Inequitable election results have also happened in the Philippine Islands. Thus, in the senatorial elections of 1922 when the Nacionalista Party broke up, the Co-lectivista Party under President Quezon polled a total of 267,078 senatorial votes and the Nacionalista Party under Speaker Osmena polled 207,793 senatorial votes. Each of these parties carried only three senatorial seats while the Democrata Party which polled only 17,080 senatorial votes or less than those of any of the parties already named, obtained four senatoral seats or one seat more than either of the other two parties polling a greater number of votes. Now, under our idea of proportional representation this misrepresentation cannot happen.

In the senatorial elections of 1928 our present form of district elections again gave rise to a grave injustice. In these elections, the Nacionalista-Consolidado Party polled 549,685 senatorial votes carrying all the eleven elective seats while the Democratas with 275,763 senatorial votes did not win a single seat. Is this representative democracy where 275,763 electors—more than one-third of the electorate of the nation—were totally deprived of representation? Under this system of representation the Nacionalistas would only be entitled to seven seats and the Democratas four.

In the senatorial elections of 1931, an independent candidate who polled only 29,036 got elected to the Senate while another candidate running under the Partido Liberal banner in another senatorial district who polled 40,180 votes was not elected. In this case, the opinion of only 29,036 electors was represented in the Senate while that of 40,180 electors was not. Now, is this justice and equity? Is this a true concept of representative democracy where a small portion of the electorate obtained representation in the Legislature while a much larger number was deprived of it.? If the elections were held on the basis of the principle of proportional representation, this anomaly would never have happened.

In the senatorial elections of 1935, the Nacionalista Party polled a total of 367,332 votes carrying seven senatorial seats while the Democrata Party which polled 200,842 votes carried four seats only. Under proportional representation, the Nacionalistas would only be entitled to six senatorial seats. Thus, we find that in almost all our senatorial elections inequities have always resulted.

The district system of election has also resulted in inequities in the House of Representatives. Thus, in Pangasinan three Democratas and only two Nacionalistas were elected in 1938. The province then was represented as a Democrata province but this was not the true political complexion of the Pangasinan electorate because the Nacionalistas polled 23,194 votes and the Democratas 26,266 votes. In Samar in 1923, two Democratas and one independent Representative were elected. The Nacionalistas did not have any representation in the Legislature although they polled 8,417 votes. In La Union in the same year the Democratas with only 31,024 votes carried one of the two seats for representatives while the Nacionalistas with 5,236 votes did not have any representation. In 1938, the Nacionalistas in Bulacan polled approximately 1,700 votes more than the Democratas did, yet the latter carried the representation of Bulacan in the Legislature. In Iloilo in 1926, the Democratas polled approximately 40% of the total votes for representatives yet they carried only 20% of the representative seats while the Nacionalistas winning 60% of the votes carried 80% of the seats. In Cebu that same year, the Nacionalista-Consolidado Party with 20,313 votes for Representatives carried five seats while the Democratas with 17,187 votes obtained only two seats. The proportion should have been four for the Nacionalistas and three for the Democratas.

As we have demonstrated, our present system of district election has resulted in an over-representation or non-representation; hence, the minority and not the majority may have the upper hand in the Legislature, making fictitious the supposed rule of the majority in a representative democracy. But at times the reverse happens and the majority may be so flagrantly distorted as to eliminate the existence of a minority. Under the principle of proportional representation, these inequities cannot happen and the party obtaining the greater number of votes is guaranteed a greater representation while protection for the interests of the considerable minority is assured.

If we continue with our system of district elections, time may come when a political party or a large group of men that actually polled the majority votes but obtained a minority of legislative seats would resort to violence and rebellion as have happened in other countries.

We remember that the armies of Washington in the days of the American Revolution were recruited under the cry of taxation without representation. Under our present system of district elections looms the danger of civil strife and when in the future that eventuality comes, posterity will condemn us for having voluntarily planted in our Constitution the danger of dissension after having been timely warned to avoid them. Before the Pennsylvania Commission on constitutional amendments and revision in 1920, Senator Wharton Pepper said: "We must, it seems to me, recognize that a great and growing source of discontent and dissatisfaction, more or less well-founded, is that they are not represented in our assemblies. That being the case, a system which gives them a legitimate method of expression without discarding majority rule seems to me to be the system that we ought to advocate."

The principle whose adoption I am advocating is not new. Mirabeau in a speech delivered before the assembly of Provence on January 30, 1789, gave the first statement on the idea of proportional representation when he said: "A representative body is to the nation what a chart is to the physical configuration of its soil; in all its parts, and as a whole, the representative body should at all times present a reductive picture of the people—their opinions, aspirations and wishes, and that representation should bear the relative proportion to the original precisely as a map brings before us mountains and dales, rivers and lakes, forests and plains, cities and towns. The finer should not be crushed out by the more massive substance, and the latter not to be excluded: the value of each element is dependent upon its importance to the whole and for the whole."

The chief characteristic of proportional representation is that the number of representatives to which a party is entitled in the Legislature depends upon its voting strength. Thus where a party polled only 60% of the votes, it is entitled to only 60% of the contested seats. Parties would then not only be represented in the Legislature but they would be represented with mathematical accuracy in proportion to their strength. Proportional representation is nothing but the expression in terms of mathematical accuracy of representative democracy.

Here we have the realization of justice and equality. We have a true reflection of public opinion instead of the flagrantly distorted assemblies which we incorrectly call representative. Its recognition of the existence and strength of political parties does not make partisan government all powerful for it subordinates political parties to the public good through the recognition of minorities. Political toleration is an essence of proportional representation for it reasons out that since minorities have also civil obligations, they have therefore the right to representation in the Legislature. It is sometimes asserted that a minority is a superfluity since the majority can do whatever it may wish to do. But this argument fails to see the fiscalizing function of the minority in that it may persuade the majority to change its position, oblige the majority to live up to its pledges, and help educate the public by negative criticisms and constructive proposals.

The principle of proportional representation is based on different proportional practices. The most acceptable one is the single transferable vote. There are four variations on this system, to wit: 1) the Hare system 2) the Schedule plan, 3) the Proxy plan, and 4) the single vote free list. In the list system, the candidates are arranged on the ballot on party lists. This system has been successful in all countries which have adopted it.

In the Hare system, the voter indicates his preferences of choices and when a candidate obtains the necessary number of votes for election—that is when he reaches the electoral quota—his extra votes pass to the other candidates in the order of preference and this process continues until all the seats are filled up. Those who have a slight knowledge of this principle will jump to the conclusion that proportional representation would only add to the many complications to which the voter is actually subjected, but its effect is chiefly simplification. Its principle is simple: it is nothing but the representation of every group of agreeing voters in proportion to their voting strength and by the persons they really want. This principle further measures in a sensitive and accurate manner the changes in popular will and makes the change in election results proportional to the change in public opinion.

The first application of the principle of proportional representation to public election was made in 1839 in Adelaide, Australia. The first public proportional elections carried out by ballot were held in Denmark in 1836 on a method devised by Andrea, Minister of Finance; and in England a profound mathematician, Thomas Hare, was then independently devising a system in slight modification of Andrea's. The Hare system was tried in Essel in 1882 and is still used there. From Switzerland, it spread to Serbia and Belgium, both of which have used this system for most members of their parliaments since 1899. It was used in the elections of 1919 and 1921 in Italy but because this system is democratic and did not suit the purposes of a dictatorship, Mussolini discarded it. About the outbreak of World War I it had spread to many countries and this principle was unanimously adopted in all postwar constitutions. Some of the countries which are newly adopting this principle in their elections are Germany, Switzerland, Belgium. Sweden, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Yugoslavia, Norway, Cuba, Bulgaria, Uruguay, Finland, Denmark, Latvia, Lithuania, Ireland, partially in Argentina, Portugal, Australia, South Africa, and for the eleven university members of the House of Commons.

One of the beneficent effects of proportional representation is that the outstanding leaders of political thought will scarcely ever be defeated, but this is not so under the district system of election. Thus, under the district system of election in 1923, MacKenzie King, prime minister of Canada and a man of exceptional capacity and training for public service, lost his seat in the Dominion parliament. The same thing happened to Prime Minister Asquith of England.

Bitterness and apathy have resulted in our present method of district election—a natural consequence where the two contending parties are of almost equal strength and each knows that a difference of a few votes means representation or no representation at all. However, under the rule of proportional representation, neither party is in danger of being totally excluded or misrepresented in the Legislature, hence it suppresses the bitterness of minorities and removes any excuse to resort to violence. The wholesome influence of proportional representation in the electoral campaigns of many countries demonstrates this. Fair representation of all the elements of the nation is easily obtained. In Belgium, the effect of the adoption of this principle is to make that party which can harmonize and seeks "to harmonize the ideas and desires, the interests and the needs of all parts of the country a truly national party."

The electoral campaign would necessarily be conducted on party issues and the ills of personalism and the repugnance of dirty linen would give way to a sane and sound discussion of political principles.

Regarding the commission of frauds, under our present election system, a few fraudulent votes may change many seats in our Legislature, while in proportional representation, these fraudulent votes would only have their proportional effect.

Mr. President, I am not advocating a new and untried thing. I am only pointing out a major defect of the machinery of our democracy, a defect of such proportions as to be the source of internal strife and the consequent disruption of our unity. The solution is proportional representation. It does not consist in the creation of a new institution for it is merely an improvement on our already existing system of popular government so that it may perform better than formerly the tasks imposed upon it.

If we are to attain a greater efficiency in our governmental mechanism, if we are to save our representative democracy from being a farce and a comedy, if we are to prevent taxation without representation, if we are to guard against the reenactment here of violent and turbulent scenes which other countries have witnessed, and if our Constitution is to guaranty the maintenance of tranquility, peace, and order, then this Constitutional Convention should have the foresight and far-off vision of adopting the precept of electing our senators at large on the basis of the principle of proportional representation.

MR. EZPELETA: For a point of information, Mr. President. According to the Rules, the session should begin at 4:00 o'clock. It oftentimes begins at 5:00 o'clock. Every afternoon we come at four to five and we have to wait outside until the Committee on Sponsorship finishes its deliberations. We don't have chairs or benches to sit on. We want to know what time the Committee on Sponsorship meets.

THE ACTING PRESIDENT: I cannot speak for the Committee on Sponsorship.

MR. EZPELETA: I. then, request the Chairman of said Committee to talk on that matter.

THE ACTING PRESIDENT: The Chairman of the Committee on Sponsorship is not in the Hall.

MR. BENITEZ: Mr. President, I believe that the Delegates to the Constitutional Convention should he allowed to come inside and sit down while the Committee on Sponsorship is deliberating. It is really undignified to have them waiting outside and kept out of the session hall.

THE ACTING PRESIDENT: It will be so ordered.

MR. ABORDO: The point of inquiry raised by the Gentleman from Tloilo, Mr. Ezpeleta, as to whether or not we should follow the Rules of the Convention regarding1 the opening of the session of the Convention is aimed at saving the Delegates from staying outside while waiting for the Sponsorship Committee to finish its deliberations.

THE ACTING PRESIDENT: That question can be settled easily. We cannot consult the Chairman of the Sponsorship Committee because he is not here today.

MR. ABORDO: The only purpose in raising the question is to avoid the spectacle of having the 160 Members of the Convention, who are not members of the Committee on Sponsorship, wait outside.

THE ACTING PRESIDENT: I think that the session of the Convention will be called on time tomorrow.

MR. VENTURA: Mr. President, I do not believe that the Chairman of the Committee on Sponsorship should be the one to decide. It is the rule of this Convention that we should begin the session at 4:00 o'clock, and the Committee on Sponsorship should give way to that rule.

THE ACTING PRESIDENT: I think that we will begin the session tomorrow at 4:00 o'clock.

MR. VINZONS: I request also that a notice to that effect be given to the Committee on Sponsorship.

THE ACTING PRESIDENT: It is not necessary.

MR. VINZONS: It is necessary, Mr. President, because they may disregard it again.

MR. BENITEZ: I believe this Convention should pass a resolution right now to the effect that all Delegates should be admitted to the meetings of the Sponsorship Committee or of any other committee.

MR. CINCO: I second the motion.

THE ACTING PRESIDENT: Every Member of this Assembly is always welcome to the sessions of the Committee on Sponsorship.

MR. ABORDO: Mr. President, for the information of those who do not belong to the Sponsorship Committee, I recall that at one time when we were about to enter this Hall, we were told at the door that by instruction of the Chairman of the Committee on Sponsorship, no Delegate who does not belong to the Sponsorship Committee was to be permitted to enter the Hall. We now demand that privilege.

THE ACTING PRESIDENT: That question can be settled easily; it is not necessary to discuss it here.

SR. ABELLA: Senor Presidente, el Comite ha acordado celebrar sesiones ejecutivas, asi es que, a menos que se apruebe lo contrario, nadie serfi admitido en las sesiones del Comite de Ponencias.

EL PRESIDENTE INTERINO: Tiene la palabra el Caballero de Negros Occidental.


MR. LEDESMA: Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention: The steady depopulation of the country districts, the confirmed overcrowding of some areas, the increasing emigration of some of our best bones and sinews to other lands, the increasing dependence of the country upon foreign food supplies, the poverty despite the ever-increasing power of producing wealth, and the prevalence of unemployment even when trade is at its best are all problems of the first magnitude.

The future welfare of the people depends upon their solution. It is impossible to study them without being brought face to face with the question of the laws relating to land. They are all, in fact, parts of the great land problems.

In the primitive stages of society the land question was only an economic question. The dependence of man upon the soil in such a society is obvious to the most casual thought. In modern society that dependence is not in the slightest degree lessened as not to be clearly visible. The complications of modern civilization are great and varied, and man is apt to forget that he is much of a land animal as any of his most remote predecessors.

All the food he has, all the clothes he wears, all the houses he inhabits, are derived from land. There are even many things for him which he has never had nor even dreamt of, but not one of them is or can be derived from any other source than the land. That land is the same land that grew the crops, and fed the flocks and herds, and formed the sites and substance of the simple homes of men in the most distant times.

The costly viands that load the tables of a multimillionaire come from the same mother earth that yielded the coarse diet of the primitive. The many changes of raiment that are the joy and pride of the rich today are the products of land as much as the bark of trees that covered the bodies of their uncivilized ancestors, or the rough animal skins with which they protected themselves from inclement weather. Everything that we have in this world, if we trace back its origin, came from the land. All the work that man does is concerned with land and is performed on land. Every atom of his body is derived from earth and will be returned to it, so with the king no less than the commoner, or with the prince no less than the peasant. It is the first necessity of the master of millions as truly as it is of the tramp on the highway. From man himself to the lowest form of life, all need land. Without it, life is impossible and unthinkable.

The importance and urgency of the land question are due entirely to the unique attributes of the land itself. Being the first necessity of life, all the arguments which apply against private ownership as monopolies in general apply with additional and even irresistible force against private ownership or the monopoly of lands. All other monopolies are the result of human action. The sale of intoxicants is limited to those who can acquire a license from the Government. It is a monopoly created by act of Congress. Under copyright laws, authors and composers are granted a monopoly for a limited term of years, in the course of which they can charge what they choose and so reap the reward of their brain work. By patent laws, inventors are granted a similar limited monopoly in the ownership of machine and process which are due to their genius. The general opinion of mankind is in favor of special monopolies, whether the object be public control of a trade of special character, or the encouragement of creative ability.

The monopoly of land is, however, not the creation of Congressional enactment, but is inevitable in the nature of things. A higher power than the Legislature of man has decreed that it shall be so. By this or that law the number of its monopolists may be increased or reduced, but there can be no question about abolishing the monopoly of land any more than abolishing the law of gravitation. The utmost that we can do is to make such laws govern its occupation and see to it that the rights of the people be established and enforced, and their interests safeguarded.

The disposition of public domains by any government is a matter of serious consideration. In the first place, public domains are held in trust for the benefit of the people forming the state not only of the present generation but also of all generations to come; and in the second place, the government concerned may be aware of the fact that of all the classes of people living in the state, the agricultural class constitutes the backbone of the political society. While the Philippine Government must see to it that those entitled to public lands get the fullest advantage of their utilization, yet it is hard to dissociate the political and social questions involved in the ownership of land from the latter's economic aspects. And mainly because of the former, anti-alien land laws have been enacted by several states.

The history of the Filipino nation consists of a continuous struggle for self-government. We are proud to say that for every concession along that line, the people have shown themselves to be worthy of it. But as to their capacity to maintain an independent government, taking into account today's materialism, there have been many misgivings expressed by observers of our political situation as to the ability of the Filipino people to stand the tests of full independent nationhood.

The first material basis of the Filipino state is its agricultural industries coupled with the natural inclination and aptitude of the people to farming. Because of this fact, the Philippine Government is greatly concerned with the manner in which its public domains are being disposed of to individuals, corporations or associations and alien people.

We may characterize the public land laws of the Philippines as follows: first, the ease and cheapness with which land can be secured; second, the limitation of area that can be acquired by individuals or corporations; third, the exclusion of foreigners from acquiring agricultural lands in the Philippines; and fourth, the actual cultivation and improvement to be made by the applicant before a permanent title is issued to him.

As we have stated already, the public domains are held by the Government as trustee of the people. As much as possible their disposal must be in conformity with the general welfare of the public. So, while the Government does not grant lands to individuals gratuitously, the fees charged to homesteaders are so small as to be negligible.

It is obvious that the object of the law limiting the area of a homestead to 24 hectares is to create in the Philippines a land system of small holdings which is the prevailing land proprietary system in the Islands. The Philippines is by its natural resources and by disposition, habits and experiences of its people, an agricultural country; hence such policy, which makes the disposition of agricultural lands on easy and cheap terms and in portions large enough to afford decent support to a normal-sized family, has at heart the welfare of the majority of the people, not only the living but those yet unborn.

The limitation restricting corporations and other forms of associations to an area of 1024 hectares is not attractive to large capitalistic enterprises. Thus it may be said that the land policy of the Philippines has been inspired by the desire of the Filipino people to preserve for themselves and their future generations "the earth of their mother land" which is the basis of their past, present and future prosperity. There have been criticisms against this part of our land laws which restrict the area of land that can be granted to corporations or associations. While it is true that restriction to 1024 hectares, which a corporation or any association can buy or lease, may retard the economic development of the Islands by not attracting investment of greater exploiting capacities, yet it is also true that the policy of the Philippine government of preserving and extending the present small proprietary system of land tenure would forestall exigencies that may endanger the future safety of their political integrity.

The absence of such a necessary policy may work adversely to the economic interests of a young and growing country because the Philippine Islands are destined by the geographical situation and natural resources to be an agricultural country. There are no indications that the present industries will be developed to such magnitude for more people to come as to be able to absorb an appreciable part of the country's population.

The prohibition to foreigners, either as individuals or corporations, from owning agricultural lands in the Philippines, unless their governments extend to the Filipino citizens the same privilege, is an act of our Legislature directed against undesirable aliens. Even in cases of reciprocity the Philippine Legislature is authorized to withhold land ownership from such aliens as it deems undesirable. The Filipino people fully appreciate the embarrassing Japanese situation in California and are aware of the beginning of a stream of Japanese immigration into the Philippines. The Filipinos are "alien" to the Japanese people, and while there is no reason why both peoples cannot be friendly and entertain toward each other a cordial relation, yet there seems to be every reason why they cannot live side by side as neighbors. These two peoples are incompatible, religiously, socially and politically.

The exclusion of aliens from acquiring public agricultural lands and owning estates is a necessary part of the public land laws of the Philippines to keep faith with the idea of preserving the Philippines for the Filipinos. The homestead laws of the country, the limitation of areas which can be acquired by individuals and corporations or associations, and the exclusion of undesirable aliens from the Islands, all point to the idea of building a nation on the firm foundation of a middle agricultural class, and citizens of a kind that every democracy must have to be successful.

LEVANTAMIENTO DE LA SESION

SR. ROMERO: Senor Presidente, pido que se levante la sesion hasta manana a las cinco de la tarde.

EL PRESIDENTE INTERINO: Si no hay objecion, se levanta la sesion hasta manana a las cinco de la tarde. (No hubo objecion.)

Eran las 6:52 p.m.