JOURNAL NO. 94

Saturday, September 27, 1986

With 28 Members present, the Chair declared the presence of a quorum.

The following Members appeared after the Roll Call: 

The following Members were on official mission:

Mr. Villegas notified the Commission, through the Secretariat, of his absence.

Mrs. Muñoz Palma and Mr. Rosales were sick.

Messrs. Laurel and Tingson were absent.

READING AND APPROVAL OF THE JOURNAL

On motion of Mr. Calderon, there being no objection,
the reading of the Journal of the previous session was dispensed with
and the said Journal was approved by the Body with the correction, at
the instance of Mr. de Castro, on page 1475, line 5 column two of the
second to the last paragraph, to change the words “was repealed” to
EXPIRED.

REFERENCE OF BUSINESS

On motion of Mr. Calderon, there being no objection, the Body proceeded to the Reference of Business.

REFERRAL TO COMMITTEES OF COMMUNICATIONS

Upon direction of the Chair, the Secretary-General
read the titles of the following Communications which were, in turn,
referred by the Chair to the Committees hereunder indicated:

Communication No. 1018 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Mr. Celso Calumba and nineteen (19)
other seminarians of St. Francis Xavier Seminary, P.O. Box 189, Davao
City, advocating a policy of protectionism to ensure Filipino control
over domestic industries and lessen the importation of goods

TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY

Communication No. 1019 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Mr. Sisenando C. Satin of 4618 Arellano
Avenue, Makati, Metro Manila, suggesting that tenants and landlords be
given the freedom to determine what is good for them, that the
government should equally subdivide the government idle lands and give
them to the landless, among others

TO THE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL JUSTICE

Communication No. 1020 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Judge Norberto Y. Acenas, Municipal
Trial Court of’ Kumalarang, Zamboanga del Sur, suggesting that the
Intermediate Appellate Court be divided into three branches — one each
for Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao — to facilitate the disposition of
cases appealed to it

TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Communication No. 1021 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Mr. Agaton N. Ibarbia I, President of
the Small Landowners Association of Buhi, Inc., Buhi Camarines Sur,
reiterating his suggestion that small landowners with less than seven
hectare landholdings be exempted from the coverage of tenancy leasehold
and other laws

TO THE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL JUSTICE

UNFINISHED BUSINESS: COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 31 ON PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 551 ON THE ARTICLE ON GENERAL PROVISIONS

On motion of Mr. Rama, there being no objection, the
Body resumed consideration, on Second Reading, of Proposed Resolution
No. 551 (Committee Report No. 31) submitted by the Committee on General
Provisions, entitled:

Resolution proposing to incorporate in the
Constitution an Article on General Provisions and a Section in the
Transitory Provisions.

Thereafter, the Chair recognized Mrs. Rosario Braid and the Members of the Committee.

Mr. Rama stated that the parliamentary status would be the continuation of the period of amendments.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. MONSOD

Thereupon, Mr. Monsod proposed to reword Section 3 to read as follows:

SECTION 3. UNLESS REQUIRED BY LAW OR BY THE
FUNCTIONS OF HIS POSITION, NO APPOINTIVE OFFICIAL SHALL HOLD ANY OTHER
OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT IN THE GOVERNMENT OR ANY SUBDIVISION, AGENCY OR
INSTRUMENTALITY THEREOF INCLUDING GOVERNMENT-OWNED OR CONTROLLED
CORPORATIONS OR THEIR SUBSIDIARIES.

Mr. Monsod explained that with the proposed
amendment, the general rule would still be against holding more than one
office but would now be subject to two exceptions: 1) unless otherwise
provided by law; and 2) unless required by the functions of the
position.

Mr. de Castro stated that the provisions of the
Civil Service Law do not exempt pensions or gratuities from the rule on
double compensation. He then queried whether Mr. Monsod would be
amenable to reformulating Section 3 to include pensions and gratuities
in the exemptions from the rule on double compensation, to which Mr.
Monsod replied that during the previous session, the reason given for
not specifically mentioning pensions and gratuities was that they are
automatically exempted by virtue of vested rights.

Mr. de Castro disagreed that pensions and gratuities
are automatically exempted. He cited the fact that after his retirement
from the military, when he was called back to the service as Chairman
of the National Police Commission, the ‘ then Government Auditing Office
(GAO) refused to pay him his salary on the ground that his pension
would constitute double compensation although he cited Supreme Court
rulings that pensions and gratuities are already earned and should not
be considered as double compensation. He informed that the same thing
happened to Mr. Natividad when he was appointed Chairman of the National
Police Commission.

Mr. Monsod maintained, however, that during the
discussions on the provisions on the Civil Service, the interpretation
given was that pensions and gratuities are exempted from the rule on
double compensation. He suggested that to meet any reservation on the
possible misinterpretation, it would be better to simply read into the
records such interpretation rather than include another section that
would amount to a restatement or reconsideration of what had already
been approved by the Body.

In reply to Mr. de Castro’s query whether the
exemptions he is looking for could be inserted in the reformulated
version of Section 3, Mr. Monsod stated that the first paragraph of the
proposal is already covered by Section 7 of the Article on Civil Service
except for the phrase “except pensions and gratuities”. He stated that a
reiteration of the interpretation that pensions and gratuities do not
constitute double compensation would solve the problem without putting
another provision that would substantially duplicate said Section 7 of
the Article on Civil Service.

Mr. de Castro then urged that, in relation to
Section 3 of the Article on General Provisions and Sections 4 and 7 of
the Article on Civil Service, the Committee state for the record that
pensions and gratuities are not considered as double compensation.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. BENGZON

At this juncture, Mr. Bengzon moved that the first paragraph of Section 3 be deleted.

Mr. Guingona noted, however, that should the first
paragraph of Section 3 be deleted, any reference to the exemption of
gratuities and pensions from the rule on double compensation would have
no basis. He suggested that the Body look into the records to determine
whether or not it had decided to exempt pensions and gratuities when it
discussed the Article on Civil Service.

At this juncture, Mrs. Rosario Braid read Mr.
Maambong’s written manifestation to transpose Section 3, if approved, to
the Article on Civil Service on the ground that it is more encompassing
than the section already approved in said Article.

Mrs. Rosario Braid stated that as long as the spirit
and intent of the proposal is deemed integrated and included in the
earlier provision, the Committee would accept Mr. Bengzon’s motion to
delete.

Thereupon, Mr. Bengzon explained that he proposed to
delete Section 3 because on the basis of the discussion between Messrs.
Monsod and de Castro, it appears clear in the records that Section 7 of
the Article on Civil Service should be interpreted to mean that
pensions and gratuities are exempted and are not considered as double
compensation.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

At this juncture, the Chair suspended the session.

It was 10:02 a.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 10:09 a.m., the session was resumed.

Upon resumption of session, Mr. Bengzon stated that
he would insist on his motion to delete the first paragraph of Section 3
and, if approved, he would propose a new sentence that would definitely
state that pensions and gratuities would not be considered double,
compensation.

Mr. Guingona, however, stated that Mr. Bengzon would
be introducing a new section which could be in conflict with the
provision on the Civil Service considering Mr. Monsod’s uncertainty
which perhaps should be checked with the record. He pointed out that
should the new section be approved, the Sponsorship Committee could
simply transpose it to the Article on Civil Service.

POINT OF ORDER OF MR. BENGZON

At this juncture, Mr. Bengzon raised a point of
order on the ground that there has yet been no motion to insert a new
provision. He suggested that Mr. Guingona’s comment await the
presentation of such motion. He maintained that meanwhile the Body
should act on the motion to delete, to which Mr. Guingona acceded.

Mrs. Rosario Braid confirmed the Body’s readiness to
vote on the motion which, Mr. Bengzon reiterated, would delete the
first paragraph of Section

APPROVAL OF MR. BENGZON’S AMENDMENT

Thereupon, submitted to a vote and with 20 Members
voting in favor, 3 against and 2 abstentions, the Body approved the
deletion of the paragraph indicated.

AMENDMENT OF MR. BENGZON

Thereafter, Mr. Bengzon proposed the following as the first sentence of Section 3:

PENSIONS OR GRATUITIES SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED AS ADDITIONAL, DOUBLE OR INDIRECT COMPENSATION.

Thereupon, Mr. Guingona reiterated his observation
and suggested that the Records be looked into on the ground that should
the proposed amendment be approved and found in conflict with the sense
of Section 7 of the Article on Civil Service, it would in effect be a
motion for reconsideration, and should they be the same, the proposed
amendment would be unnecessary.

Mr. Monsod observed that there is room for Mr.
Bengzon’s proposed amendment and that the discussions would serve as a
secondary source of interpretation. He stated that should the proposed
amendment be approved and transposed to Section 7, the same would show
the intent without going to the Journal for the interpretation.

Mr. Guingona, however, argued that he could not see
how the Sponsorship Committee could effect the transposition if the
proposed amendment conflicts with the sense of Section 7 of the Article
on Civil Service, in reply to which Mr. Monsod stated that the earlier
discussion sought to establish that it is the intent of said Section 7
to exempt pensions and gratuities. He maintained that there is no
contradiction between the two.

Mr. Guingona stated that his assumption was based on
Mr. Monsod’s expression of uncertainty, clarifying, however, that if
Mr. Monsod is sure of his position, he would accept the same.

Mrs. Rosario Braid accepted the proposed amendment on behalf of the Committee.

APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENT

Thereupon, submitted to a vote, and with 22 Members
voting in favor and 1 against, the Body approved Mr. Bengzon’s amendment
and its transposition to Section 7 of the Article on Civil Service.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. MONSOD

On the second sentence of Section 3, page 1, Mr.
Monsod proposed to amend line 19 to read: UNLESS REQUIRED BY LAW, OR BY
THE FUNCTIONS OF HIS POSITION. NEITHER SHOULD ANY APPOINTIVE OFFICIAL
HOLD ANY . . .

In reply to Mr. Ople’s query whether he would be
comfortable with bracketing functions with the requirement of law, Mr.
Monsod stated that there are instances where the law specifically
requires the ex officio membership of certain officials in some offices
or corporations and there are also instances when by reason of the
functions of the office, the law need not require such membership.

Mr. Ople suggested, however, that the word
“functions” be given a restrictive construction; considering that the
function of an office may, in certain cases, be construed as a blanket
exemption especially if the determining authority is lodged in the same
agency of the government. In reply, Mr. Monsod stated that he would be
willing to accept an amendment to qualify “functions”.

Mr. Ople stated that there is no problem with
respect to the chairmanship or board membership of some Cabinet
Ministers because the same is provided by law such as the charter of the
Land Bank of the Philippines which designates the Ministers of Agrarian
Reform, Labor and Finance as ex officio members. He pointed out that
the problem would be on the construction of “functions” which might
provide loopholes that can be taken advantage of by some officials.

Adverting to page 1498 of the Journal of the
previous session, Mr. de los Reyes noted that Mr. Monsod substituted
“required” with “allowed” and that “required” was again used by him.

In reply, Mr. Monsod clarified that he has reverted to the original formulation of the Committee.

Mrs. Rosario Braid accepted the proposed amendment of the Committee.

RESTATEMENT OF MR. MONSOD’S PROPOSED AMENDMENT

Mr. Monsod restated his proposed amendment as follows:

UNLESS REQUIRED BY LAW OR BY THE FUNCTIONS OF HIS
POSITION, NO APPOINTIVE OFFICIALS SHALL HOLD ANY OTHER OFFICE OR
EMPLOYMENT IN THE GOVERNMENT OR ANY SUBDIVISION, AGENCY OR
INSTRUMENTALITY THEREOF, INCLUDING GOVERNMENT-OWNED OR CONTROLLED
CORPORATIONS OR THEIR SUBSIDIARIES.

Mr. Ople proposed to modify Mr. Monsod’s proposed
amendment to insert PRIMARY before “functions” which Mr. Monsod accepted
and which Mrs. Rosario Braid accepted on behalf of the Committee.

In reply to Mr. Bacani’s query on the meaning of
“primary functions”, Mr. Ople stated that if the office has a charter,
it would refer to the charter functions of the official concerned and if
he is a political appointee as when he is the Minister of National
Defense, he will be barred from invoking the provision in order to
occupy the position as Chairman or member of the board of directors of
companies which are wholly unrelated to his functions as defense
minister.

Thereupon, there being no objection, Mr. Monsod’s amendment, as modified by Mr. Ople, was approved by the Body.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MESSRS. JAMIR, COLAYCO, MONSOD, OPLE AND RAMA

Mr. Jamir, with Messrs. Colayco, Monsod, Ople and Rama as coauthors, proposed to substitute Section 4 with the following:

IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE STATE TO PROVIDE
IMMEDIATE AND ADEQUATE CARE BENEFITS AND OTHER FORMS OF ASSISTANCE TO
WAR AND INSURGENCY VETERANS, THEIR WIDOWS AND ORPHANS, WHICH SHALL
IMPROVE THEIR CONDITIONS IN LIFE. THEY SHALL BE GIVEN PREFERENCE IN THE
DISPOSITION OF PUBLIC AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF NATURAL
RESOURCES.

MR. OPLE’S PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT

On Mr. Ople’s query whether the word “immediate” is
of such importance as to warrant its inclusion in the provision, Mr.
Jamir explained that many deserving veterans are in dire need of
assistance from the government.

On whether it would not be sufficient for the record
to express the urgency of “adequate care and benefits and other forms
of assistance”, Mr. de Castro stated that the Committee would like to
accept the amendment with the word “immediate” because the assistance
might come too late.

Thereupon, Mr. Ople desisted from pursuing his suggestion.

Thereafter, Mr. Ople proposed to delete “and
insurgency” between “war” and “veterans”, stating that it would be
sufficient for the records to show that “war veterans” would include
those who participated in the anti-insurgency campaign of the
government. Mr. Jamir, however, explained that “insurgency” was inserted
in line with Mr. de Castro’s interpellation of Mr. Monsod.

MR. BERNAS’ AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT

On the query whether the use of the word “war” would
include those who fought in peace-keeping campaigns, Mr. Jamir answered
in the affirmative.

Mr. Bernas then suggested MILITARY CAMPAIGN VETERANS in lieu of “war and insurgency veterans”, which Mr. Jamir accepted.

MR. SARMIENTO’S PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT

Mr. Sarmiento expressed reservation on the word
“insurgency” and proposed its deletion for the following reasons: 1)
that the insurgents or rebels are also Filipinos who fled to the
countryside because of the iron hand of the past regime; 2) that it
might preempt the ceasefire efforts of the government; and 3) that
reports show that many of the insurgent veterans or soldiers are guilty
of human rights violations.

REMARKS OF MR. OPLE

Mr. Ople stated that Mr. Sarmiento was partly right
in pointing out that the framing of the Constitution coincides with the
dynamic effort on the part of the government to negotiate with the
insurgents and to heal wounds of the nation. He opined that it would be
prudent to delete the word “insurgency” and to substitute, as proposed
by Mr. Bernas, the words VETERANS OF MILITARY CAMPAIGNS, insisting that
these veterans should be included in the scope of care, benefits and
other forms of assistance. He stated that he would not foreclose the
possibility that what happened about a decade ago would be repeated
where the HUKBALAHAPS were finally recognized as legitimate and bona
fide veterans entitled to the same benefits as those who fought them in
an earlier campaign because the time had become propitious for
reconciliation and solidarity.

Thereupon, Mr. Ople reiterated his proposal to
delete the word “insurgency” with the understanding that his and the
Committee’s intent would include veterans of military campaigns within
the purview of all these care, benefits and other forms of assistance
extended to war veterans.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

At this juncture, upon request of Mr. Jamir, the Chair suspended the session.

It was 10:44 a.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 10:50 a.m., the session was resumed with the Honorable Christine Tan presiding.

REFORMULATION OF SECTION 4

Mr. Jamir read the new formulation of Section 4, to wit:

IT SHALL BE THE DUTY OF THE STATE TO PROVIDE
IMMEDIATE AND ADEQUATE CARE, BENEFITS AND OTHER FORMS OF ASSISTANCE TO
WAR VETERANS AND VETERANS OF MILITARY CAMPAIGNS, THEIR WIDOWS AND
ORPHANS, AND TO PROVIDE FUNDS THEREFOR. THEY SHALL BE GIVEN PREFERENCE
IN THE DISPOSITION OF PUBLIC AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES.

INQUIRIES OF MR. SARMIENTO

Mr. Sarmiento recalled that a few years ago, the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines headed by Justice J.B.L. Reyes
assisted by Solicitor-General Ordoñez, and head of the Presidential
Committee on Human Rights, former Senator Jose W. Diokno, conducted a
study on hamletting, food blockades and saturation drives conducted by
the military in Mindanao and in that study, it was reported that
hamletting, food blockades and saturation drives were part of military
campaigns against insurgents. He then inquired whether the soldiers who
took active part in these military campaigns could be beneficiaries of
this proposed amendment.

In reply, Mr. Ople stressed that the presumption in
law is that of regularity and good faith, and whoever alleges otherwise,
has the burden of proof. He stated that should Section 4 be approved,
the burden would rest on those who want to challenge the entitlement of
soldiers allegedly engaged in hamletting and other forms of human rights
violations.

On whether soldiers who participated in the
pacification drive which involved strafing and bombings in the
countryside would be covered by the proposed amendment, Mr. Ople
reiterated his earlier reply, adding that under the stress of combat
conditions, both combatant forces tend to exceed the bounds of their
authority. He opined that if there are human rights violations committed
by troops, anyone could raise this question in order to challenge the
entitlement of a veteran, his widow or orphans under this provision.

On whether those who are charged with human rights
violations before appropriate bodies and those convicted could not be
beneficiaries of this proposed amendment, Mr. Ople pointed out that
soldiers follow orders and they may not have reasonable time to ponder
the lawful character of such orders. He stated that unless there is an
overwhelming proof to show that a soldier had violated human rights, he
should not be denied the protection of Section 4.

Mr. Sarmiento stated that while he fully supports
this proposal insofar as war veterans are concerned, he has some
reservations with respect to the participants in pacification drives
during the past and present regimes.

Mr. Ople thanked Mr. Sarmiento for expanding on the
intent of the proposal and he explained that his reason for proposing
the deletion of the word “insurgency” is that he would not want to
foreclose the possibility that in the future, those who fought against
the troops of the Armed Forces of the Philippines would also, by law,
acquire entitlement to benefits of this nature.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. PADILLA

Mr. Padilla opined that the clause IT SHALL BE THE
DUTY OF THE STATE which imposes a clear duty to the State is stronger
than the clause “It shall be the responsibility of the State”. He
suggested that the sentence start with CONGRESS SHALL TAKE STEPS TO
PROVIDE ADEQUATE CARE . . .

Mr. Jamir stated that in the discussion in the
previous session with Messrs. de Castro and Colayco, it was agreed that
the word “duty” is better than “responsibility”, to which Mr. Padilla
replied that he preferred not to make it a mandate on Congress.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

The Chair suspended the session.

It was 11:00 a.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 11:05 a.m., the session was resumed.

RESTATEMENT OF SECTION 4, AS AMENDED

Mr. Jamir restated Section 4, as amended, to wit:

THE STATE SHALL PROVIDE IMMEDIATE AND ADEQUATE CARE,
BENEFITS AND OTHER FORMS OF ASSISTANCE TO WAR VETERANS AND VETERANS OF
MILITARY CAMPAIGNS, THEIR WIDOWS AND ORPHANS. FUNDS SHALL BE PROVIDED
THEREFOR AND PREFERENTIAL CONSIDERATION SHALL BE GIVEN THEM IN THE
DISPOSITION OF PUBLIC AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND, IN APPROPRIATE CASES, THE
DEVELOPMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. BERNAS

Mr. Bernas proposed the deletion of the word
“preferential”, explaining that land and natural resources are limited
and permanent in size and availability. He stated that this is an
unaugmentable resources and to set a limit on the State on how these are
to be disposed could be prejudicial to public interest. He suggested
that this matter of preference be left to the State to consider based on
need and not on status or profession, because there may be others who,
in fact, need more.

Mr. de Castro stressed the need of giving
preferential consideration in the disposition of public lands to war
veterans who sacrificed to defend the country.

Mr. Jamir offered a compromise to change the word “preferential” to DUE.

Mr. Bernas accepted the amendment but he stressed that the distribution of land should be based on need and not on status.

Mr. de Castro, likewise, accepted Mr. Bernas’
amendment, as amended with the understanding that “due” means
preferential treatment for war veterans in the disposition of public
lands and the development of natural resources. He clarified that
veterans refer to those who saw action in the Revolution of 1896, World
Wars I and II, Korean War, Vietnam War, as well as military campaigns
against the HUKBALAHAPS from 1945 to 1960, the Hukbong Magpapalaya ng
Bayan and the New People’s Army (NPA).

APPROVAL OF SECTION 4, AS AMENDED

Thereupon, Mr. Jamir read the whole section as follows:

THE STATE SHALL PROVIDE IMMEDIATE AND ADEQUATE CARE,
BENEFITS AND OTHER FORMS OF ASSISTANCE TO WAR VETERANS AND VETERANS OF
MILITARY CAMPAIGNS, THEIR WIDOWS AND ORPHANS. FUNDS SHALL BE PROVIDED
THEREFOR AND DUE CONSIDERATION SHALL BE GIVEN THEM IN THE DISPOSITION OF
PUBLIC AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND, IN APPROPRIATE CASES, IN THE DEVELOPMENT
OF NATURAL RESOURCES.

Submitted to a vote, and with 26 Members voting in favor, none against and 3 abstentions, the same was approved by the Body.

Mr. Sarmiento manifested his abstention because,
although he favored the idea of giving support, care and attention to
war veterans, widows and orphans, he had reservations to granting the
same treatment to soldiers who took part in counter-insurgency drives
but committed human rights violations.

AMENDMENT OF MR. MONSOD

Thereupon, Mr. Monsod moved for the deletion of Section 5 because it is unnecessary.

Mr. Ople supported the motion to delete.

Mr. Nolledo did not accept the proposal because the
Section, as embodied in the 1973 Constitution, is precisely formulated
as a safeguard to prevent Congress from enacting a law which would grant
income tax exemptions to some government officials. He stressed that
the Committee would like all government employees to share the burden of
taxation and do away with the Supreme Court doctrine laid down in the
case of Perfecto vs. Meer which states that taxing the salaries of the
Justices of the Supreme Court would be equivalent to diminishing their
salaries during their tenure of office and would be considered
unconstitutional. He pointed out that if the provision is deleted, then
Congress may pass another law granting income tax exemptions to certain
government officials.

Mr. Ople, however, informed that the Body voted down
a proposal to grant tax exemption to members of the Supreme Court on
the same ground stated by Mr. Nolledo. He opined that Congress would
know that any attempt to pass a law granting tax exemption to the
members of the Judiciary in the light of the Perfecto vs. Meer doctrine
would meet strong public resistance especially if they know that the
Commission deleted the provision because of its belief that there should
be no islands of privilege in the Philippine Government. He added that
the records of the Commission are also sufficient to guide the future
Congresses on the issue of income tax exemption for members of the
Supreme Court.

In reply to Mr. Nolledo’s query whether the Supreme
Court would also be precluded from deciding that taxing the salaries of
constitutional officers including the members of the Court itself would
be tantamount to a diminution of their salaries if the provision would
be deleted, Mr. Ople stated that payment of income taxes would not be a
diminution of their salaries.

At this juncture, Mr. Bernas opined that the issue
is not whether Congress may or may not pass a law exempting members of
the Supreme Court from the payment of income tax but whether the latter
would be precluded from adopting its earlier decision in Perfecto vs.
Meer. He pointed out that if the section would be deleted, it may be
interpreted to mean as a signal to the Supreme Court to readopt the
doctrine. He then suggested that in order to make it clear that all
government workers and officials are not exempted from the payment of
income tax, the phrase “including those of the Constitutional
Commission” should be deleted.

In reply to Mr. Ople’s query whether the Body’s
records pertinent to Section 4 are sufficient deterrent for the Supreme
Court not to readopt the Perfecto vs. Meer doctrine, Mr. Bernas stated
that it would not, because an intent, which is not expressed in the
text, is not superior to a stare decisis.

At this juncture, Mr. Padilla pointed out that the
Perfecto vs. Meer doctrine applied only to the members of the Supreme
Court and not to other government officials, to which Mr. Nolledo
replied that it must necessarily refer also to government officials who
are similarly situated.

Mr. Nolledo agreed with Mr. Padilla’s observation
that the Perfecto vs. Meer doctrine would apply to other government
officials who are similarly situated if there is a specific provision
which states that their salaries as fixed by law could not be diminished
or increased.

On Mr. Padilla’s contention that the Perfecto vs.
Meer doctrine is not relevant or pertinent to the section being
considered by the Body, Mr. Nolledo disagreed, stating that the doctrine
is relevant a pointed out by Mr. Bernas.

Thereupon, Mr. Monsod’s motion to delete Section 5
was submitted to a vote and with 15 Members voting in favor and 11
against, the same was approved by the Body.

AMENDMENT OF MR. SARMIENTO

Thereupon, Mr. Sarmiento proposed to amend Section 6, to read as follows:

SECTION 6. CONGRESS SHALL CREATE AN OFFICE TO ADVISE
THE PRESIDENT ON POLICY PROBLEMS AFFECTING INDIGENOUS CULTURAL
COMMUNITIES.

He manifested that the proposal is jointly authored
by Messrs. Bennagen and Ople. He explained that the provision would
affect approximately 4.8 million indigenous persons, namely: 1) the
Lumads of Mindanao; 2) the Caraballo tribes of Eastern Central Luzon; 3)
the Negrito and Dumagat tribes of Sierra Madre and the coastal areas;
4) the Mangyans of Mindoro; and 5) the hill tribes of Palawan.

Additionally, Mr. Sarmiento stated that the reasons
for the proposal are as follows: 1) these indigenous communities have
been subjected to all forms of oppressive laws, have suffered a long
history of government neglect and they are presently victims of grave
and massive injustices and violations of human rights; 2) they are the
living tributes of the Filipinos’ ancestors who had integrity and love
for freedom; 3) they have fiercely resisted foreign domination; and 4)
they are proud of their distinct cultures and traditions and continue to
assert their commitment to maintain and develop their indigenous
culture, social, economic and political systems.

Mrs. Rosario Braid accepted the proposal.