JOURNAL NO. 92

Upon direction of the Chair, the Secretary-General of the Commission called the Roll and the following Members responded:

Bacani, T. C.	Ople , B. F.
Bennagen, P. L	Quesada, M. L. M.
Bernas, J. G	Rama, N. G.
Rosario Braid, F	Regalado, F. D.
Calderon, J. D.	De los Reyes, R. F.
De Castro, C. M	Rigos, C. A.
Colayco, J. C.	Rodrigo, F. A
Concepcion, R. R.	Romulo, R. J.
Davide, H. G.	Samiento, R. V
Foz, V. B.	Suarez, J. E.
Guingona, S. V.C.	Sumulong, L. M
Jamir, A. M. K.	Tadeo, J. S. L
Nieva, M. T. F.	Tingson, G. J
	Treñas, E. B
	Uka, L. L
	Villacorta, W. V.

Abubakar Y. R.	Gascon, J. L. M. C.
Alonto, A. D.	Lerum, E. R.
Azcuna, A. S	Maambong, R. E
Bengzon, J. F. S	Natividad, T. C.
Garcia, E. G.	Nolledo, J. N.

Communication from Mr. Gregorio D. Guadalupe,
transmitting Resolution No. 91 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of
Iloilo, proposing to the Constitutional Commission the redistricting of
the Province of Iloilo by increasing the congressional districts therein
from five

(5) to six (6) with an average population of 288,843.43 per district, based on the 1980 population of the Philippines.

TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE

UNFINISHED BUSINESS: COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 39 ON PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 542 ON THE ARTICLE ON FAMILY RIGHTS

On motion of Mr. Rama, there being no objection, the Body resumed
consideration, on Second Reading, of Proposed Resolution No. 542 (Joint
Committee Report No. 39), entitled:

Resolution to incorporate in the new Constitution a separate Article on Family Rights.

The Chair recognized the Chairmen and Members of the Committees on Social Justice; and Human Resources.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

Thereupon, on request of Mr. Rama, the Chair suspended the session
to allow the proponents of amendments to confer with the Committees.

It was 10:14 a.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 10:36 a.m., the session was resumed.

CONSIDERATTON OF SECTION 1

Upon resumption of session, Mrs. Nieva read the following proposed alternative formulations for Section 1:

By Mr. Davide:

THE STATE RECOGNIZES THE FILIPINO FAMILY AS THE FOUNDATION OF THE
NATION. ACCORDINGLY, IT SHALL STRENGTHEN ITS SOLIDARITY AND ACTIVELY
PROMOTE ITS TOTAL DEVELOPMENT.

By Mr. Suarez:

THE STATE SHALL STRENGTHEN THE FAMILY AS A BASIC SOCIAL
INSTITUTION AND SHALL PROMOTE AND PROTECT THE SOLIDARITY OF THE FAMILY. *

Mrs. Nieva manifested that the Committee would accept the Davide
amendment which, except for the phrase “promote its total development”,
includes the Suarez amendment.

Mr. Davide explained that his proposal emphasizes the
indispensable role of the family consonant with the Declaration of
Principles provision that “The State values the sanctity of family life
and shall promote the family as a basic social institution.” He stated
that the family referred to is the Filipino family which, in the light
of the concept mandated therein, is the foundation of the nation. The
proposal, he stressed, necessarily mandates the State to strengthen
family solidarity and to actively promote its total development. He
noted that the solidarity and strength of the family is also the
solidarity and strength of the nation.

Mr. Maambong coauthored the amendment.

MR. MAAMBONG’S AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT

In reply to Mr. Maambong’s query, Mrs. Nieva reiterated the Committee’s acceptance of Mr. Davide’s amendment, to wit:

THE STATE RECOGNIZES THE FILIPINO FAMILY AS THE FOUNDATION OF THE
NATION. ACCORDINGLY, IT SHALL STRENGTHEN ITS SOLIDARITY AND ACTIVELY
PROMOTE ITS TOTAL DEVELOPMENT.

Mr. Maambong proposed to add the words AS A BASIC SOCIAL
INSTITUTION after “development” to realign the provision with the Civil
Code provision that the family is a basic social institution. He stated
that he was not constitutionalizing the Civil Code provision but merely
putting in the concept enshrined therein. Mr. Davide pointed out,
however, that said concept is already included in the Declaration of
Principles.

Thereupon, Mr. Maambong withdrew his proposal.

APPROVAL OF MR. DAVIDE’S AMENDMENT

Submitted to a vote, and with 23 Members voting in favor, none
against and 1 abstention, the amendment was approved by the Body.

OMNIBUS AMENDMENT OF MR. OPLE

Mr. Ople proposed the following omnibus amendment to the whole draft article:

SECTION 1. THE FAMILY EXISTS AS A MATTER OF NATURAL RIGHT WHICH
SHALL BE RESPECTED BY THE STATE. MARRIAGE, AS A SACRAMENTAL RIGHT AND
DUTY, IS THE FOUNDATION OF THE FAMILY.

THE STATE SHALL RESPECT THE FAMILY AS AN AUTONOMOUS SOCIAL
INSTITUTION IN WHICH MAN AND WIFE ASSUME THE PRINCIPAL RESPONSIBILITY
FOR DOMESTIC HARMONY, INTEGRITY AND DEVELOPMENT AND OF THE TUTELAGE OF
CHILDREN ESPECIALLY IN CHARACTER AND CITIZENSHIP FORMATION.

THE STATE SHALL DESIST FROM REGULATING FAMILY LIFE EXCEPT TO THE
EXTENT THAT ITS SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITIES RIPENING INTO PUBLIC INTEREST
ARE INVOLVED.

THE FAMILY HAS THE DUTY TO CARE FOR ITS ELDERLY MEMBERS BUT THE STATE MAY ALSO DO SO THROUGH JUST SCHEMES OF SOCIAL SECURITY.

In reply to the Chair’s query whether approval of the amendment
would amount to the deletion of Mr. Davide’s approved amendment, Mr.
Ople stated that he would abide by the Committee’s recommendation on the
final disposition of his amendment if it or any part thereof proves
acceptable.

Explaining his amendment, Mr. Ople stated that in ancient as well
as in modern times, the great issue between family and State has always
been the freedom of the family from State regulation and interference,
thus, in totalitarian states, the family is mobilized to serve the
purposes of the State, often resulting in direct intrusion into the
privacy of the family and its co-optation into State programs as an
institution.

Mr. Ople also noted that in the present Committee formulation of
family rights, the family is literally handed over to the State for its
ultimate disposition in the guise of caring for the family, the children
and the elderly, which is also how State control of the family is
presented and justified in totalitarian societies where the State’s
ubiquitous interference is a day-to-day reality and the family as an
institution becomes subservient to its aims.

He stated that one of the features of fascism in World War II was
precisely the heavy-handed interference of the totalitarian rulers in
the autonomy of the family and that there are totalitarian societies
where children are recruited into State-sponsored organizations so that
they could spy on their parents. He expressed the hope that the
Committee is not confronting with its proposed Article the spectre of
such overwhelming state dominance of the family institutions.

Mr. Ople noted that in Christian or Muslim homes where democracy
exists, the most valued right of the family is the right to privacy and
autonomy from all centers of political power. He stated that there is a
sort of constitutional government that exists between husband and wife
and a line of authority between the parents and children; however,
although during the years of maturation, the parents command the
children, this is different from the State commanding its citizens
because in the former the one commanding is more keen in promoting the
welfare of the one commanded, thus, in the Filipino culture, parents
would do almost everything and forego every benefit to themselves for
the sake of their children. He underscored the need to shift the focus
of concern from an overpowering State protection and dominance towards
the family’s autonomy in a spirit of dignity and genuine liberty for the
total development of the family.

Responding thereto, Mr. Bacani stated that the Committee is
basically in sympathy with the first sentence “The State shall respect
the family as an autonomous social institution”; however, it could not
agree that the Article, as presented, fosters the dominance of the State
over the family, because it merely asks that the State defend the
rights enumerated therein so that the family remains as the foundation
of the nation. He stressed that while this is asked of the State, the
principle of subsidiarity that what can be accomplished by a lower body,
the higher body should not arrogate unto itself, would also operate in
this case.

Mr. Bacani noted that there is no State dominance of the family in
the Philippines, at least on a big scale, and that the Article does not
aim to foster such State dominance. He stated that the Committee is
willing to accept family autonomy, not that it becomes a completely
self-sufficient body, but that the freedom and dignity of the family
should be safeguarded.

Thereupon, upon leave of the Chair, Mr. Ople converted his
amendment into an amendment to Section 2 and manifested that he would
abide by the Committee’s discretion as to what portions of the proposal
could be adopted in the light of the manifestations of Mr. Bacani and
Mrs. Nieva that the provision concerning the autonomous character of the
family would be acceptable to the Committee.

In reply to Mr. Bacani’s query on the connotation of the word
“sacramental”, Mr. Ople stated that he used the phrase “sacramental
right and duty” in a layman’s manner to convey the idea of sanctity to
the institution of marriage in the light of the position of most
churches concerning this.

REMARKS OF MR. BENGZON

Speaking against the proposed amendment, Mr. Bengzon stated that
the concept of the first paragraph thereof is already embodied in the
Declaration of Principles which also protects and strengthens the family
as a basic social institution and that it smacks of a Catholic doctrine
since the word “sacramental” has a very specific religious meaning. Mr.
Bengzon likewise stated that the second paragraph of the proposal is
already recognized in the same Section 9 in the Declaration of
Principles which provides for “the natural right and duty of parents in
the rearing of the youth for civic efficiency. . .”. He suggested that
the Body limit itself to the principles and concepts and avoid details.

Finally; he noted that the last paragraph of the proposal was
discussed lengthily when the Body considered the Article on Social
Justice, specifically Section 11 thereof, and that its concept is
likewise enshrined in the proposed Constitution.

Responding thereto, Mr. Ople maintained that his amendment does
not in any manner duplicate what already appears in the Declaration of
Principles but shifts the focus from an overwhelming concern and
protection of the State which amounts to dominance to one of family
autonomy from the State. He argued that shifting the focus from one
direction to another is innovating rather than replicating and noted,
moreover, that the Committee was willing to consider the adoption of at
least a part of his amendment to the effect that the State shall respect
the family as an autonomous social institution where man and wife
assume the principal responsibility for harmony, integrity and
development, for the caring of the children and where the role of the
State is purely incidental and secondary.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

On motion of Mr. Ople, the Chair suspended the session.

It was 11:03 a.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 11:13 a.m., the session was resumed.

RESTATEMENT OF SECTION 2, AS REFORMULATED

Mrs. Nieva read the revised formulation of Section 2, to wit:

SECTION 2. MARRIAGE IS THE FOUNDATION OF THE FAMILY AND SHALL BE
PROTECTED BY THE STATE. THE STATE SHALL RESPECT THE FAMILY AS AN
AUTONOMOUS SOCIAL INSTITUTION.

INQUIRY OF MR. BENGZON

On Mr. Bengzon’s query whether the first sentence of Section 2
would preclude Congress from enacting a law on divorce, Mrs. Nieva
stated that it does not because Congress still has every right to pass a
divorce law under certain circumstances it may deem fit.

MANIFESTATION OF MR. OPLE

Mr. Ople informed that the Committee has accepted a reformulation
of letter (d) of its report with the amendments of Messrs. Davide,
Rigos, Bengzon and Padilla incorporated therein which reads: THE FAMILY
HAS THE DUTY TO CARE FOR ITS ELDERLY MEMBERS BUT THE STATE MAY ALSO DO
SO THROUGH HUMANE SCHEMES OF SOCIAL SECURITY.

Replying thereto, Mr. Bacani stated that it would have to be
subject to a right reformulation, although the basic sense is
maintained.

AMENDMENT OF MR. MAAMBONG

Mr. Maambong proposed the rewording of the first sentence of
Section 2 to read: MARRIAGE AS AN INVIOLABLE SOCIAL INSTITUTION IS THE
FOUNDATION OF THE FAMILY AND SHALL BE PROTECTED BY THE STATE, explaining
that this is a realignment with Article 52 of the New Civil Code.

Mr. Ople, as well as the Committee, accepted Mr. Maambong’s amendment.

Mr. Bengzon clarified that the acceptance is subject to the
understanding that it would have the same interpretation as the one he
earlier articulated.

Submitted to a vote, and with 18 Members voting in favor, none
against and no abstention, the amendment was approved by the Body.

APPROVAL OF MR. OPLE’S AMENDMENT

Mr. Bacani stated that the Committee has accepted Mr. Ople’s
amendment that would fall under Section 3 which reads: THE STATE SHALL
RESPECT THE FAMILY AS AN AUTONOMOUS SOCIAL INSTITUTION.

Mr. Davide suggested that Mr. Ople’s amendment could be placed as
the second paragraph of Section 2 instead of making it a separate
section, to which Mr. Bacani agreed.

Submitted to a vote, and with 18 Members voting in favor, none
against and no abstention, the Body approved Mr. Ople’s amendment.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. BACANI

Mr. Bacani proposed three amendments which would be subject to proper placement in the Committee Report.

As the first amendment, he proposed the following:

THE STATE SHALL PROTECT THE FAMILY FROM POPULATION POLICIES IMPOSED AS A CONDITION FOR FOREIGN AID OR LOANS.

Mr. Bacani explained that the focal point of the amendment is the
word “imposed” which does not necessarily mean that population policies
are being excluded, but that there are certain population policies which
are already imposed upon the Philippines by foreign interests as a
condition for foreign aid, one of which is the contraceptive drug being
tested or used by 1,000 women in Cavite despite a report that the drug
has not been approved for use in the United States. He stressed that if
the country is asked to reduce its population as a condition for foreign
aid and such means is used, then the State should protect its women
from such imposition.

REMARKS OF MR. RIGOS

Mr. Rigos believed that this imposition as a condition for foreign
aid or loans does not have to be constitutionalized because this could
be a matter of government policy or a matter that could be left to
Congress.

SUGGESTION OF MRS. ROSARIO BRAID

Mrs. Rosario Braid suggested the deferment of consideration of the
proposed amendment considering that there is a provision in the Article
on General Provisions which refers to population policy.

Mr. Bacani maintained that the provision referred to in the
Article on General Provisions is a general statement on population
policies whereas his proposed amendment provides a protection to the
family from an imposition which derogates from the sovereignty of the
Filipino people and the Filipino women in particular.

Mrs. Rosario Braid pointed out that the inclusion of such an
amendment could lead to the inclusion of other negative social forces
and that it would be better if it is placed in the Article on General
Provisions, to which Mr. Bacani agreed.

REMARKS OF MR. DAVIDE

Mr. Davide seconded the suggestion to defer consideration of the
proposed amendment in the light of the second sentence of Section 13 of
the Article on General Provisions which reads:

“It shall, however, be the right and duty of parents to determine
the number of their children and in the exercise of this right and duty
they shall not be compelled to use means of birth limitation that shall
be against their informed conscience and religious convictions.”

REMARKS OF MR. OPLE

Mr. Ople endorsed the suggestion of Mrs. Rosario Braid to defer
consideration of Mr. Bacani’s proposed amendment until the Body
discusses the appropriate sections in the Article on General Provisions.
He pointed out that the draft Article on Family Rights seems to be an
important constitutional statement of the values associated with the
family from which, he opined, the proposed amendment is a departure
because it speaks of a power that is already lodged in the Executive.

Upon inquiry by the Chair, Mr. Bacani stated that he was agreeable to the deferment of his proposed amendment.

INQUIRY OF MR. SARMIENTO

Mr. Sarmiento inquired whether the proposed amendment is already
covered by the intent of Sections 1 and 2 which speak of the obligation
of the State to protect the family.

At this juncture, the Chair reminded Mr. Sarmiento that
consideration of the proposed amendment has been deferred and that any
discussion on the matter should, likewise, be deferred.

FURTHER PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. BACANI

Mr. Bacani proposed a new Section 3 to read as follows:

THE STATE SHALL DEFEND THE FOLLOWING:

a) THE RIGHT OF SPOUSES TO FOUND A FAMILY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR
RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS AND THE DEMANDS OF RESPONSIBLE PARENTHOOD.

INQUIRY OF MR. OPLE

In reply to Mr. Ople’s query on the right of spouse under Section 1
and whether there would be a need for a constitutional acknowledgment
of such right, Mrs. Nieva stated that what are referred to in the
proposed amendment are the rights of the family, among which is the
founding of a family. She cited, as an example, Singapore which first
decreed that the parents should have no more than two children. This,
she stated, is an encroachment by the State on the rights of the family.
She affirmed that this would proscribe the State and Congress from
passing laws that would limit the size of the family.

Mr. Ople opined that this would render unconstitutional some existing laws.

At this juncture, Mr. Bengzon inquired whether a law passed by
Congress limiting deductions on income tax to four children could be
declared unconstitutional.

Mr. Ople informed that there is already a law which provides that a
taxpayer may not claim deductions beyond four children. He, likewise,
cited the Maternity Benefit Law according to which after four children, a
woman worker may no longer claim maternity benefits from the Social
Security System. These laws, he stated, offer incentives to putting a
limit to family size. He then inquired whether these laws would become
unconstitutional.

In reply, Mr. Bacani opined that if said laws are demonstrated to
be coercive rather than persuasive, they would be unconstitutional.

Mr. Ople pointed out that the violation of these laws results in
deprivation of certain benefits that normally belong to these workers
and, therefore, they might be viewed as coercive, to which Mr. Bacani
stated that not being a lawyer, he would not know whether tax exemption
is a favor given by the State or an individual right which can de
demanded under all circumstances.

INQUIRY OF MR. BENGZON

Mr. Bengzon noted that the proposed amendment might create the
problem that existing laws may be viewed by one family as coercive while
another may view it as persuasive. He inquired as to who would
determine whether or not laws passed by Congress would take away
privileges or rights from the head of the family. He warned that there
could be numerous litigations to challenge the constitutionality of
certain laws.

REMARKS OF MR. COLAYCO

Mr. Colayco noted that Section 13 of the Article on Declaration of
Principles and State Policies recognizes the right of parents to
determine the number of their children, on the basis of which, he opined
that a law limiting the tax exemption to four children is
discriminatory and may be successfully assailed before the Supreme
Court.

APPROVAL OF MR. BACANI’S PROPOSED AMENDMENT

Thereupon, Mrs. Nieva restated the proposed provision in Section 2(a), to wit:

THE STATE SHALL DEFEND THE FOLLOWING:

a) THE RIGHT OF SPOUSES TO FOUND A FAMILY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR
RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS AND THE DEMANDS OF RESPONSIBLE PARENTHOOD.

Submitted to a vote, and with 14 Members voting in favor, none
against and 4 abstentions, the amendment was approved by the Body.

COMMENTS OF MR. SARMIENTO

Mr. Sarmiento stated that Section 2(b) is the product of Proposed
Resolutions filed by Messrs. Rigos, Villacorta, Uka and Monsod, and Ms.
Aquino, Ms. Tan, Mrs. Quesada, Mrs. Nieva and himself.

Mr. Sarmiento underscored the importance of the provision in view
of rampant child prostitution, child labor, child abuse and neglect. He
disclosed that a study showed that 69 out of 100 children below 7 years
old are malnourished; 454 out of 1,000 babies die before they are one
year old; 1 out of 100 school-children is severely malnourished; 6
million to 8 million children are underweight; and less than 10 percent
of Filipino children are believed to have completed primary
immunization. He added that another study showed that roughly 30 percent
of children from 6 to 14 years old are not studying, only 66 percent of
those enrolled in Grade I complete their elementary education, and only
22 percent of those enrolled finish high school.

Additionally, he pointed out that quite a number of children are
already working either by selling sampaguitas or watching cars or
barking for jeepneys.

In view thereof, he expressed support of Section 2(b).

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. DAVIDE

On Section 2(b), before the word “cruelty”, Mr. Davide proposed to
insert the word ABUSE and a comma (,); to delete “and” before
“exploitation”; and after “exploitation”, to insert a comma (,) and the
words IMPROPER INFLUENCES, HAZARDS, OR CONDITIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES
PREJUDICIAL TO THEIR PHYSICAL, MENTAL, SOCIAL, AND MORAL DEVELOPMENT.

Mr. Bacani stated that the Committee agrees with the sense of the proposal except that it should be shortened.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

On motion of Mr. Bacani, the Chair suspended the session.

It was 11:41 a.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 11:44 a.m., the session was resumed.

REFORMULATION OF MR. DAVIDE’S AMENDMENT AS AMENDED BY MESSRS.
VILLACORTA, MAAMBONG, ROMULO, OPLE, SARMIENTO, RIGOS, AND MRS. ROSARIO
BRAID

Upon resumption of session, Mr. Bacani read the reformulation of
Mr. Davide’s amendment on Section 2(b), as amended by Messrs.
Villacorta, Maambong, Romulo, Ople, Sarmiento, Rigos and Mrs. Rosario
Braid, to wit:

b) THE RIGHT OF CHILDREN TO ASSISTANCE, INCLUDING PROPER CARE AND
NUTRITION, AND SPECIAL PROTECTION FROM ALL FORMS OF NEGLECT, ABUSE,
CRUELTY, EXPLOITATION AND OTHER CONDITIONS PREJUDICIAL TO THEIR
DEVELOPMENT.

Submitted to a vote, and with 14 Members voting in favor, none
against and 3 abstentions, the proposed amendment was approved by the
Body.

CONSIDERATION OF SECTION 2(c)

On Section 2(c) which provides for the right of the family to a
family living wage, Mrs. Nieva explained that “family living wage”
refers to the wage that would enable a family to live a dignified life
and fulfill its basic needs and right to social services.

In reply to Mr. Bengzon’s query on whether an employer would be
liable for giving compensation below the family living wage to which the
employee consented because of the difficulty of finding other jobs and
because of his lack of qualification, Mr. Bacani stated that the
subsection provides for the right of the family to a share in the fruits
of production that would allow it to live a decent life under present
conditions. He explained that although the employer could not be sued,
the State must work towards conditions which will make possible the
payment of a just family living wage.

Mr. Bacani further stated that according to the report of the
Center for Research and Communications, only 10 percent of the firms pay
the minimum wage which is actually below the family living wage of
P5,000.00.

On whether an employee can claim back wages for the period that he
was not paid the family living wage when the employer’s business
improves to the extent that he is able to pay such family living wage,
Mr. Bacani stated that the constitutional provision would not have
retroactive effect.

On whether the employees can seek the assistance of the Ministry
of Social Services and Development for the difference that was not given
him, Mr. Bacani affirmed that given the condition that the family of
the employee could not adequately live a decent life, he may seek the
help of the State which is obliged to help the employee’s family, with
the help of other sectors, to the extent of its capacity to help. Mrs.
Nieva also affirmed that the State should provide funds therefor in the
budget of the Ministry of Social Services and Development, as in other
Ministries, subject to availability of funds. She agreed with Mr.
Bengzon that the people must not compel the State, through this
provision, if it could not provide such services because of lack of
funds.

In this connection, Mr. Bacani pointed out that other sectors are expected to help the State in this endeavor.

REMARKS OF MRS. ROSARIO BRAID

Mrs. Rosario Braid stated that the family’s right to a living wage
should carry a corresponding obligation to educate its members in order
that they may become productive members of society, to which Mrs. Nieva
agreed.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. OPLE

Mr. Ople proposed to add the words OR INCOME after the word
“wage”, so that Section 2(c) would read: THE RIGHT OF THE FAMILY TO A
DECENT FAMILY LIVING WAGE OR INCOME.

He explained that about 60 percent of the work force, like the farmers, are not covered by the wage system.

The Sponsor accepted Mr. Ople’s proposed amendment, and there being no objection, the same was approved by the Body.

APPROVAL OF SECTION 2(c), AS AMENDED

Mr. Bacani read Section 2c, as amended, to wit:

c) THE RIGHT OF THE FAMILY TO A FAMILY LIVING WAGE OR INCOME.

Submitted to a vote, and with 19 Members voting in favor, none
against and 1 abstention, Section 2(c), as amended, was approved by the
Body.

CONSIDERATION OF SECTION 2(d)

Thereafter, Mr. Ople read the new formulation of Section 2(d), to wit:

THE FAMILY HAS THE DUTY TO CARE FOR ITS ELDERLY MEMBERS BUT THE STATE MAY ALSO DO SO THROUGH JUST SCHEMES OF SOCIAL SECURITY.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. DAVIDE

Mr. Davide proposed that Section 2(d) be formulated as a separate new Section 4.

The Sponsor accepted Mr. Davide’s proposed amendment.

Explaining the rationale of the provision, Mr. Ople pointed out
that there are already 8,000,000 members of the Social Security System
and 1,200,000 members of the Government Service Insurance System, and
that the purpose of social security is to allow workers to retire in
comparative dignity through the benefits they have paid for during their
employment. He stressed that the duty of the family to take care of the
elderly should be seen in line with the State’s effort to provide
social security to both the public and private sectors.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

At this juncture, on motion of Mr. Bacani, the Chair suspended the session.

It was 12:02 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 12:04 p.m., the session was resumed.

RESTATEMENT OF THE NEW SECTION 4

Upon resumption of session, in reply to the Chair’s query, Mr.
Bacani affirmed that Section 2(d) would be deleted, in lieu of which,
would be placed the new Section 4, to wit:

THE FAMILY HAS THE DUTY TO CARE FOR ITS ELDERLY MEMBERS BUT THE STATE MAY ALSO DO SO THROUGH JUST SCHEMES OF SOCIAL SECURITY.

Submitted to a vote, and with 20 Members voting in favor and none against, the same was approved by the Body.

SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 2(d)

Thereupon Mrs. Nieva proposed, as Section 2(d), the following:

(d) THE RIGHT OF FAMILIES AND FAMILY ASSOCIATIONS TO PARTICIPATE
IN THE PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICIES AND PROGRAMS THAT AFFECT
THEM.

Mrs. Nieva explained that the rationale behind the proposal is to
give families the right to be heard by public authorities in the
planning, formulation and implementation of policies or programs
directly affecting their welfare.

She agreed with Mr. Bengzon’s observation that the subsection
would recognize the right of the families to express themselves; to
present position papers to appear in public hearings; and to be heard
Congress or by the Executive Department on policies or proposed
legislations that would affect the rights of families and their
associations.

In reply to Mr. de Castro’s query on the difference between the
proposed subsection and Section 16 of the Article on Social Justice
which provides for the right of the people and their organizations to
effective and reasonable participation at all levels of social,
political and economic decision-making, Mrs. Nieva explained that the
latter provision is wider in scope because it covers all sorts of
aggroupments and organizations while the present provision is narrower
in scope. She added that family rights are much different from the
rights of children and the youth because they also have specific needs
which should, likewise, be heard and considered in the planning,
formulation and implementation of programs and policies affecting them.

On Mrs. Rosario Braid’s query as to how the provision could be
operationalized whether through family associations rather than through
the families themselves — Mrs. Nieva replied that generally, it would be
through family associations, although it does not preclude individual
families from taking advantage of their rights as citizens to be heard.

Mrs. Rosario Braid then informed that there is also a provision in
the Article on Declaration of Principles which makes reference to
family organizations despite which, she asked that the Committee on
Style should not look at the proposal as a surplusage.

Thereafter, the proposal was submitted to a vote and with 8
Members voting in favor and 7 against, the same was approved by the
Body.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. DE CASTRO

Thereupon, Mr. de Castro proposed to add the following new subsection:

THE RIGHT OF THE YOUTH AND YOUTH ASSOCIATIONS TO PARTICIPATE IN
THE PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICIES AND PROGRAMS THAT AFFECT
THEM.

Mr. Bacani, on behalf of the Committee, did not accept the proposal.

Mr. de Castro explained that according to the Committee,
“families” are different from the youth and, considering that the youth
are the hope of the Fatherland, he stated that with more reason, they
should be allowed to participate in the planning and implementation of
policies and programs that affect them.

Mrs. Rosario Braid, however, pointed out that there is already a
section on the participation of the youth in the Article on the
Declaration of Principles.

At this juncture, Mr. Maambong pointed out that the Body is
discussing the Article on Family Rights, to which Mr. de Castro replied
that the youth is part of the family.

Mr. Bacani reiterated the Committee’s rejection of the proposal.

Thereupon, Mr. de Castro withdrew his proposal, stating, however,
that differentiating families from people is making a mockery of the
Constitution.

Mrs. Nieva stressed that the Committee firmly believes in the correctness of subsection (d).

In reply to Mr. de Castro’s query whether the Committee on Style
could delete “Filipino” from the section previously approved which reads
“The State recognizes the Filipino family”, the Chair stated that it
could change the phraseology but not the substance.

TERMINATION OF THE PERIOD OF AMENDMENTS

Thereupon, on motion of Mr. Rama, there being no objection, the
Body closed the period of amendments subject to the reservations made by
Mrs. Rosario Braid and Messrs. Bacani, Sarmiento and Davide.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

On motion of Mr. Rama, the Chair suspended the session.

It was 12:21 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 2:47 p.m., the session was resumed.

The Body resumed consideration of the Article on Family Rights.

Mr. Rama stated that three Members have registered reservations to present amendments.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MESSRS. DAVIDE AND BACANI

Thereupon, as the first proposal, Mr. Bacani read the following amendment which he coauthored with Mr. Davide:

ALL CHILDREN REGARDLESS OF FILIATION SHALL ENJOY THE SAME SOCIAL PROTECTION.

INQUIRY OF MS. MONSOD

In reply to Mr. Monsod’s query on the meaning of “social
protection”, Mr. Davide explained that regardless of — whether
legitimate, illegitimate or natural, the child is entitled to social
protection. He stated that the language of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights has clear reference to children born inside or outside of
wedlock and that even the New Civil Code guarantees certain basic
rights. He stated that the proposal simply refers to the equal social
protection to the children which the State should afford and that as
victims of the parents’ indiscretion, they should not be penalized by
means of social inequilibrium. He stressed that the concept would
establish a social norm that the illegitimate may not be considered
lower in status than the legitimate children.

REMARKS OF MR. RAMA

At this juncture, Mr. Rama interposed the information that an
example of social discrimination would be the requirement by certain
schools of the presentation of a birth certificate as a prerequisite for
admission to ensure that only legitimate children are enrolled.
However, in this case, such social discrimination is committed by the
school and not by the State from which, he said, the provision expects
social equality.

Mr. Davide pointed out that the example cited by Mr. Rama refers
to education which is already embodied in the appropriate provision of
the Constitution and that he would like to broaden its scope to include
other social areas.

Mr. Rama clarified that despite his statements, he considers the proposal improper for inclusion in the Constitution.

Mr. Davide stated that the Constitution of Italy contains such
provision on social protection which even extends to property relations.

Mrs. Nieva stated that she had read at least a dozen constitutions
which provide social protection to children whether legitimate or
illegitimate and that parents could not ignore their responsibilities
towards them.

COMMENT OF MR. MONSOD

Mr. Monsod commented, however, that the concept is already
contained in the Civil Code and the Bill of Rights and its inclusion in
the Constitution might only impair other rights, create more injustices
and provide an excuse for State interference or intervention in private
rights.

REMARKS OF MR. ABUBAKAR

Speaking against the proposed amendment, Mr. Abubakar stated that a
constitution should provide for the powers of government and its
limitations and that the proposed amendment does not have a place in the
Constitution. He noted that it would be embarrassing to include in the
Constitution such phrase as “out of wedlock”, etc. and that the matter
could be left to legislation or to jurisprudence.

REMARKS OF MR. RIGOS

Mr. Rigos suggested that there would be no need for the proposed
amendment if it could be shown in the Record that Messrs. Davide’s and
Bacani’s concern is covered by the approved Section 2(b).

INQUIRIES OF THE NOLLEDO

In reply to Mr. Nolledo’s query whether social protection would
include protection from unjust discrimination in employment in the
government or in the private sector and in the pursuit of education, Mr.
Davide answered in the affirmative, stating that a child should not be
discriminated against for a misfortune which is not of his own making.

Mr. Davide agreed with Mr. Nolledo that existing labor laws and
the rule against unjust discrimination in employment would be sufficient
to cover his concern; however, he noted that the labor and social
justice provisions in the Declaration of Principles did not embody the
1973 Constitution enumeration of discriminations on grounds of sex,
race, creed or political status or conditions, and that the proposed
amendment seeks to remedy the situation specifically in relation to the
rights of children. He also stressed that the proposed amendment is
needed to supplement or amplify the provisions on Education.

Mr. Nolledo suggested that social protection must be earned and
not imposed by legal mandate, in reply to which Mr. Davide stated that
there is no harm in making it a principle of State policy. Likewise, on
the suggestion that the provision clearly state that there should be no
unjust discrimination against children by reason of their filiation, Mr.
Davide stated that “discrimination” may be enough because “unjust
discrimination” may only include some kind of discrimination. However,
he agreed to leaving out “unjust” in favor of specifying the areas where
discrimination may take place, such as in employment or in education.

MR. MONSOD’S REMARKS AGAINST THE AMENDMENT

Opposing the proposed amendment, Mr. Monsod stated that 1) it
would be foolish to think that the government will require as a
condition for employment that the applicant must be a legitimate child;
2) the provision would be a convenient cause of action for people to
invoke the Constitution for being unemployed or for not being admitted
into any association by reason of their illegitimate status; and 3) the
Constitution should not incorporate provisions simply because they would
do no harm.

INQUIRIES OF MR. GUINGONA

In reply to Mr. Guingona’s query, Mr. Bacani affirmed that “social
protection” refers to protection under the laws and that it applies to
all kinds of discrimination.

On whether approval of the proposal would mean that the Civil Code
provision on inheritance would be deemed unconstitutional, Mr. Bacani
explained that the provision simply seeks to provide a minimum
protection to enable one to live a life of dignity; it would not mean
that an illegitimate child shall receive the same inheritance as that of
a legitimate child.

Mr. Guingona argued, however, that the matter of inheritance is a
discrimination in itself, in reply to which, Mr. Bacani stated that if
the discrimination does not amount to any injustice, there would be no
discrimination but a differentiation in treatment, which is not
necessarily unjust.

Mr. Guingona pointed out that the concern of Messrs. Davide and
Bacani are already included in the Bill of Rights provision on equal
protection of the laws and that there is no need to specify illegitimate
children, otherwise, it would require specification of the other
classes of children, in reply to which Mr. Bacani stated that there are
instances not covered by the Bill of Rights such as discriminations in
the schools. Mr. Guingona remarked that this could be a mere speculation
because it is also possible that schools ask for birth certificates
only for purposes of determining the citizenship of the children
especially if they carry foreign surnames.

Mr. Rama pointed out that the problem arose from the fact that the
phrase “social protection” was given a wider meaning than that
contemplated in the Declaration of Human Rights.

REMARKS OF MS. TAN

Ms. Tan stated that she is against the proposed amendment for two
reasons: 1) that it is superfluous, and 2) that it is nebulous.
Adverting to Mr. Rama’s example, she stated that she has never
encountered such an experience.

Reacting thereto, Mr. Rama stated that there are Catholic schools
which refuse to admit illegitimate children to avoid the embarrassing
situation when both the legitimate and illegitimate children of a father
are enrolled in the same school, in which case, the refusal would be
for a valid reason.

INQUIRY OF MR. COLAYCO

In reply to Mr. Colayco’s request for example of schools where
admission is refused on said ground, Mr. Rama stated that it would not
be fair to mention the schools concerned.

Mr. Colayco stated that in Ateneo de Manila, an illegitimate son
of a former President of the Philippines was admitted and the school
stood pat on its decision.

INQUIRY OF MR. UKA

In reply to Mr. Uka’s query, Mr. Bacani affirmed that an illegitimate child is one born out of wedlock.

Mr. Uka appealed to the Body to be reasonable. He stated that an
illegitimate child should not be discriminated against because it is not
his fault that his parents met and romantically interlocked to create
him.

He also argued against “birth control” by stating that the world
could not have been populated if Adam and Eve decided to practice “birth
control”.

At this juncture, Mr. Bacani manifested the Body’s readiness to vote on the proposed amendment.

REMARKS OF MR. GUINGONA

Mr. Guingona pointed out that the provision refers to the
protection by the State, and that there would be no discrimination
should the Body accept the replies during the interpellations. He noted
that if there is any discrimination at all, it would be discrimination
found in society itself.

He stated that the illegitimate children cannot be blamed for
their status but averred that the provision may even extend to the
matter of inheritance, as gleaned from the replies during the
interpellations. He added that it might encourage illegitimacy.

In reply, Mr. Bacani stressed that the provision protects children against neglect but does not encourage illegitimacy.

REMARKS OF MR. MAAMBONG

Mr. Maambong informed that Article 349 of the Civil Code states
that “the government promotes the full growth of the faculties of every
child”, for which purpose the government established schools in every
barrio, puericulture and similar centers, council for the protection of
children and juvenile courts; and that Article 350 provides that “the
Council for the Protection of Children shall look after the welfare of
children in the municipalities”, and enumerates no less than 7
functions.

He maintained that there are ample protection under the laws without the word “protection” being added to the provision.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. NOLLEDO

Mr. Nolledo proposed an amendment by substitution, to wit: THERE
SHALL BE NO DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ALL CHILDREN WHETHER BORN IN OR OUT
OF WEDLOCK.

Mr. Davide stated that the Committee had already accepted his
proposal, and that he would leave it to the Committee whether or not to
accept the amendment by substitution.

Mr. Bacani remarked that the meaning given by Mr. Nolledo seems to
be wider in scope than that intended by the Committee and that the
Committee would prefer the original provision as interpreted during the
interpellation of Mr. Guingona.

On the Chair’s query, Mr. Nolledo informed that Mr. Davide is
amenable to the amendment if the term “social discrimination” is
included in the provision which would then read: THERE SHALL BE NO
SOCIAL DISCRIMINATION AGAINST CHILDREN WHETHER BORN IN OR OUT OF
WEDLOCK.

Mr. Davide accepted the amendment as it limits the mantle of protection to the social aspect.

REMARKS OF MR. NOLLEDO

Mr. Nolledo argued that this would be in accordance with the
observations of Mr. Guingona and he impressed upon the Members that the
provision in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is substantially
the same as the original provision reading “All children, whether born
in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection” which was
proposed by Mr. Davide.

Mr. Nolledo stated that there is discrimination against
illegitimate children in all sectors of society. He suggested raising
the status level of such children by doing away with the discrimination
dictated by human frailty and weakness. Furthermore, he argued that the
provision would give protection to an illegitimate child considering
that the Body had given protection even to the unborn child.

Mr. Bacani, on behalf of the Committee, accepted the amendment in
the sense given by Mr. Nolledo and in the light of the replies to Mr.
Guingona’s interpellations.

Thereupon, Mr. Nolledo restated his amendment, to wit: THERE SHALL
BE NO SOCIAL DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ALL CHILDREN WHETHER BORN IN OR OUT
OF WEDLOCK.

INQUIRY OF MR. MONSOD

In reply to Mr. Monsod’s inquiry whether the provision is
applicable to the government or to everybody, Mr. Nolledo stated that it
would be a notice to the whole world.

On the matter of enforcement, Mr. Nolledo stated that the
government is not expected to pass a law that will discriminate against
illegitimate children.

Mr. Guingona observed that the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights has no binding effect on states and it does not mean that rights
found therein would, likewise, be included in the Article. To underscore
his point, he informed that the right to asylum, which was voted down
by the Body, is found in said document.

On the matter of discrimination, Mr. Guingona inquired whether the
act under the particular provision would be subject to penal sanctions.

POINT OF ORDER OF MR. JAMIR

Mr. Jamir raised a point of order, stating that under Section 33
of the Rules, no Member shall consume more than 15 minutes in debate or
speak more than once on any question without leave of the Constitutional
Commission.

In reply thereto, the Chair acknowledged that there is a specific
rule regarding discussions during the period of amendments but that the
Chair has been very liberal in applying such rule, adding that the
3-minute rule is being enforced.

INQUIRY OF MR. NATIVIDAD

Mr. Natividad queried whether the approval of the provision would
encourage the passage of a disclosure act which would require job
applicants to state whether they are illegitimate or not, to which Mr.
Nolledo replied in the negative.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY OF MR. MAAMBONG

Mr. Maambong stated that as originally proposed, the amendment
read CHILDREN, REGARDLESS OF FILIATION, SHALL ENJOY EQUAL SOCIAL
PROTECTION, but with the amendment of Mr. Nolledo which changes the
nature of the proposal, it would read THERE SHALL BE NO DISCRIMINATION
AGAINST ALL CHILDREN WHETHER BORN IN OR OUT OF WEDLOCK.

He then inquired whether Mr. Davide is accepting the proposed amendment of Mr. Nolledo.

Mr. Bacani informed that as worded, the amendment reads THERE
SHALL BE NO SOCIAL DISCRIMINATION AGAINST ALL CHILDREN WHETHER BORN IN
OR OUT OF WEDLOCK.

Mr. Davide stated that he agrees with the position of the
Committee that it would not affect the previous provision approved by
the Body.

VOTING ON MR. DAVIDE’S AMENDMENT AS AMENDED BY MR. NOLLEDO

Submitted to a vote, and with 7 Members voting in favor and 16 against, the proposed amendment, as amended, was lost.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. DAVIDE

Mr. Bacani informed that Mr. Davide has proposed an amendment, to wit:

GIFTED CHILDREN AND THE PHYSICALLY AND MENTALLY HANDICAPPED SHALL RECEIVE SPECIAL STATE ATTENTION.

which the Committee would refer to the Body.

REMARKS OF MR. TINGSON

Mr. Tingson stated that everyone wants to give children the best
that can be given them and that most of the Members are in favor of the
proposal. Nevertheless, he opined that provisions such as these are best
expressed and articulated in enabling legislation.

INQUIRY OF MR. SARMIENTO

Mr. Sarmiento drew attention to a provision in the Article on
Education which reads “Scholarship, grants-in-aid or other forms of
incentives shall be provided to deserving science students, scientists,
inventors, technologists and specially gifted citizens” and queried
whether the proposed amendment would already be covered by the aforesaid
provision.

In reply to the query of Mr. Davide, Mr. Sarmiento stated that the
proposed provision is already covered, and Mr. Bacani affirmed that it
has special reference to science students and gifted citizens.

In view thereof, Mr. Davide withdrew his proposed amendment.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MESSRS. SARMIENTO, DAVIDE, BACANI AND MRS. ROSARIO BRAID

As proposed by Messrs. Sarmiento, Davide, Bacani and Mrs. Rosario
Braid, the amendment reads as follows: THE STATE SHALL PROVIDE SPECIAL
PROTECTION AND CARE TO MOTHERS DURING PREGNANCY AND MATERNITY AND SHALL
RECOGNIZE THE SOCIAL VALUE OF THE WORK IN THE HOME, which amendment was
accepted by the Committee.

REMARKS OF MR. SARMIENTO

Mr. Sarmiento explained that the proposed amendment is a new
provision which embraces non-working mothers. He stated that the Article
on Social Justice covers working mothers only and stressed that the
proposal would provide protection to mothers especially in times of
pregnancy and after delivery.

On the phrase “and shall recognize the social value of their work
in the home”, Mr. Bacani informed that this has been requested by women
and some Members of the Commission to place value on the work of women
in the home.

REMARKS OF MR. TINGSON

Mr. Tingson observed that Section 9 of the Article on Declaration
of Principles protects the lives of both the unborn and the mother and
that Section 10 would cover the proposed amendment. He noted that it
might unnecessarily lengthen the Constitution, although he is not
against the idea.

INQUIRY OF MR. MAAMBONG

In reply to the query of Mr. Maambong, Mr. Bacani affirmed that it
is a demandable right, which means that the mothers can ask the State
to give them such protection.

As to whether a neglected mother can file a suit against the
State, Mr. Bacani stated that this is not the sense of the amendment but
that the State should be aware of the importance of protecting the
mothers during her pregnancy.

Mr. Sarmiento stated that he personally believes that it will be a
demandable right. He noted that there are many mothers, especially in
the rural areas, who die because of the difficulty during or after
delivery. He also stated that the lack of doctors or hospitals in the
rural areas has contributed to the high mortality rate of mothers. He
stressed that the provision would underscore the need to protect
mothers.

Mr. Maambong sought clarification on whether it should be a
demandable right in the legal sense or merely an aspiration. He stated
that should this be a demandable right, the government might not be able
to shoulder the burden if all pregnant women who are neglected would go
to court and file cases on the basis of this constitutional guaranty.

Replying thereto, Mr. Sarmiento stated that given the country’s
present financial condition, this principle could be an aspiration or
goal.

REMARKS OF MR. GUINGONA

Mr. Guingona manifested that he would have no reservation on the
first part of the proposal if the Body would include in the General
Provisions a provision that the government cannot be sued without its
consent. On the second part, he inquired how the State, aside from
including the woman-hours which could be linked to the GNP, could
recognize “social value”.

Mr. Bacani explained that it would help promote the role of women
in the home, and more specifically, it will work towards conditions
which will enable the woman, if she so desires, to stay in the home and
perform her maternal functions rather work outside the home.

On whether this is already covered by other provisions on the
protection to be given to women, Mr. Bacani replied that there is
nothing in the Constitution which mandates the State to help the women,
if they so desire, to stay at home and do their work, inasmuch as there
are compelling reasons which force them to work outside for financial
survival, to such an extent that working at home is not considered a
real contribution.

Mr. Guingona remarked that it might entail financial burden on the
State and inquired whether there is some kind of subsidy to be given to
women who do not work but who stay at home to attend to their maternal
duties, to which Mr. Bacani opined that the number of working hours that
women spend in the home could be considered in the computation of the
GNP and could set the conditions which would not force women to work
outside the home.

Thereupon, Mr. Bacani restated the amendment which reads:

THE STATE SHALL PROVIDE SPECIAL PROTECTION AND CARE TO MOTHERS
DURING PREGNANCY AND MATERNITY AND SHALL RECOGNIZE THE SOCIAL VALUE OF
THEIR WORK IN THE HOME.

Submitted to a vote, and with 12 Members voting in favor and 15 against, the proposed amendment was lost.

MANIFESTATIONT OF MR. MONSOD

Mr. Monsod informed that Sections 1 and 2 of Family Rights, as
approved, are overlapping. He suggested that said Sections be endorsed
to the Committee on Style for the necessary corrections without changing
their substance.

Upon request of Mr. Rama, Mr. Monsod read the revised sections, to wit:

Section 1. The State recognizes the family as the basic and
autonomous social institution of the nation. Accordingly, it shall
strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total development.

Section 2. Marriage is the foundation of the family and shall be protected by the State.

The Chair stated that the proper Committee would take note of the suggestions.

Mr. Monsod observed that under Section 3(d), it would be difficult
to operationalize a consultation mechanism because families, aside from
family associations, are given the right to be heard, something which
could lead to chaos.

Mr. Rama stated that it would be the subject of a motion for reconsideration.

The Chair stated that it had already been approved, so it would no longer be a problem of the Committee on Style.

INQUIRY OF MR. DE CASTRO

In reply to Mr. de Castro’s query whether the Article on Family
Rights should be placed under a separate article or a part of the
Declaration of Principles, Mrs. Nieva stated that the matter could be
better left to the Sponsorship Committee.

Mr. de Castro pointed out that the matter of having a new article
in the Constitution is not the prerogative of the Style or the
Sponsorship Committee because it is not in their power to do it, in
reply to which Mrs. Nieva clarified that it is only the question where
to place the separate article that is left to the Sponsorship Committee.
She stated, however, that the basic assumption from the beginning is to
place it as a separate article.

MOTION OF MR. DE CASTRO

Thereupon, Mr. de Castro moved that the Article on Family Rights
should not be placed under a separate article but included either in the
Declaration of Principles or in the General Provisions.

POINT OF ORDER

At this juncture, Mr. Colayco raised a point of order on the ground that Mr. de Castro’s motion included two subjects.

Thereupon, Mr. de Castro limited his motion to the proposition
that the provisions on Family Rights should not be made a separate
article in the Constitution.

Mr. Bacani stated, however, that he would want to have the
provisions on Family Rights as a separate article in order to highlight
the importance of the family in society.

The Chair suggested that Mr. de Castro withdraw his motion and present a reformulation in the affirmative.

MODIFIED MOTION OF MR. DE CASTRO

Thereafter, Mr. de Castro moved that the provisions on family
rights be joined with some other articles already approved in the
Constitution.

At this juncture, Mr. Guingona noted that the motion was ambiguous.

Mr. de Castro amended his motion anew and moved that the
provisions on Family Rights be included in the Article on General
Provisions.

Mr. Guingona objected on the ground that the proponent has not
explained his reasons therefor. He suggested that the motion be
submitted for discussion by the Body.

REMARKS OF MR. DAVIDE

Thereupon, adverting to Section 8(17), Rule II of the Rules, Mr.
Davide stated that one of the functions of the Committee on Sponsorship
is the arrangement of proposals in a logical order, therefore, the
matter of placement of the approved Articles should be left to said
Committee, to which Mr. Guingona agreed.

VOTING ON MR. DE CASTRO’S MOTION

The Chair suggested that the Members signify their agreement to a
separate Article on Family Rights by raising their right hands and,
thereafter, following the same procedure for those who are against.

Mr. de Castro agreed.

At this juncture however, Mr. Gascon expressed the hope that the
Commission would approve the proposal to have it as a separate article
because he feels that the family as a basic social unit should be given
recognition in the Constitution.

Thereupon, the Chair submitted Mr. de Castro’s motion to a vote,
and with 16 Members voting in favor and 7 against, the Body decided that
the provisions on Family Rights be embodied in a separate article, its
logical place to be determined by the Sponsorship Committee.

REMARKS OF MRS. NIEVA

Thereupon, Mrs. Nieva expressed her appreciation and gratitude to
all the Members of the Commission who have helped in formulating the
Article on Family Rights.

CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 531 ON THE ARTICLE ON GENERAL PROVISIONS

Thereafter, on motion of Mr. Rama, there being no objection, the
Body proceeded to the consideration, on Second Reading, of Proposed
Resolution No. 531 on the Article on General Provisions, entitled:

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

On motion of Mr., Rama, the Chair recognized the Chairman and
Members of the Committee on General Provisions for the sponsorship.

At this juncture, the Chair announced that the amended Committee
Report No. 31 (Substitute Resolution) would be used as the basis for the
discussion.

SPONSORSHIP REMARKS OF MRS. ROSARIO BRAID

In her remarks, Mrs. Rosario Braid stated that the General
Provisions had been translated in Filipino as “Mga Tadhanang
Pangkalahatan”, which could also be aptly described as the Committee on
Etcetera, it being the Committee to which all provisions not treated or
which did not pertain to other standing committees were referred.

She pointed out that it differs from the corresponding Articles in
the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions in that it no longer includes important
areas such as education, science and technology, and arts and culture
although it expanded the provisions to include those on national defense
and communication. She stated that the Article on General Provisions
has 21 provisions and the Committee has held more than 25 committee
meetings including public hearings with representatives of the various
sectors giving their views on various issues which were integrated by
unifying themes such as the concern for cultural diversity, national
unity and symbols that reflect national ideals, the name of the country,
national anthem, and national scene which are reflective and symbolic
of the ideals, history and traditions of the people, all of which shall
be mandated to Congress.

Mrs. Rosario Braid explained that two provisions call for a
reorientation of the public officers, the media and the military;
Sections 3 and 5 deal with the limitations on compensation and other
privileges of public officers and are concerned with accountability of
these officers; Section 4 mandates the to State to provide adequate care
and benefits for war veterans, government retirees and their
dependents; Section 6 mandates Congress to create an Office of Tribal
Communities to advise the President on policy problems on cultural
minorities; Section 7 sets a limit on the life of the governmental
ministries, bureaus, agencies or corporations, after which the agency
may be dissolved unless its continued existence is justified; Section 8
encourages the promotion of indigenous tourism; Section 13 recognizes
the population problem of the country by mandating the State to adopt
population policies conducive to the national welfare; Section 14 gives
priority to Filipino-owned corporations in terms of access to domestic
credit facilities.

She stated that the provision on Church and State, as well as the
bases, although discussed in the Committee, had been referred to the
Committee on Declaration of Principles; Section 15 repeats the old
provision that the State may not be sued without its consent; Section 16
protects consumer interest; Sections 17 to 21 are provisions on
national defense and security and affirms the AFP’s task in preserving
the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the nation and
participation in national development and reconstruction to serve the
people’s interest; and Section 22 states the establishment of a police
force which shall be national in scope and civilian in character to be
administered and controlled by a national police commission where the
authority of local executives is provided. She stated that a provision
to dismantle all armed groups and para-military forces existing contrary
to law has been recommended to the Committee on Transitory Provisions.

Speaking at length on Sections 9 to 12 which are provisions on
communication and information, Mrs. Rosario Braid stated that they
differ from earlier provisions since their concern about the role and
reorientation of the media of communication including new communication
technology is that they truly serve the economic, political, social and
cultural development of the nation. Moreover, she stressed that the
provisions also note the significant impact of media of communication on
Filipino values and culture, the. concerns being expressed in support
of an earlier provision on Filipinization of ownership of the mass
media, in view of which the present provision expands it to broaden
ownership that will give employees of media corporations the right to be
part owners or to purchase shares of stock and to participate in the
management of these establishments. She then adverted to another
provision which restricts control of the corporations to Filipinos in
the management of commercial telecommunications and advertising by
providing Filipino citizens a controlling interest in these
corporations.

Mrs. Rosario Braid also pointed out that Section 12 mandates the
State to regulate the grant of broadcast and telecommunication
franchises according too criteria of public interest and to prevent such
transfer without securing the prior consent of the State.

She explained that information is processed data on which one
makes decisions, the other forms being mass media such as broadcast,
print, film, and new communication technology such as satellites,
computers, book publishing, telecommunications or telephone. She stated
that communication is the nerve of government just as information is
power and that those who own the information technology necessarily have
more power which could be used for good or evil and, therefore,
communication policies are necessary if such policies would concern with
such problems as the need to strengthen local productive capability in
media programs; the need to link the mass media with education as in
distance learning; the need to encourage more balance in programming;
the need to improve the flow of communication between government and
sectors of society; and the need to link local communication industry
with knowledge industry in the global village.

Mrs. Rosario Braid underscored that communication and information
provide the leverage for power which enables the people to act, to make
decisions, to share consciousness and processes and; therefore, the law
is not so much concerned with channels or messages but with the
functions of communication resources in a given society in relation to
education, mobilization of rural communications, integration of ethnic
groups, improvement of capability in decision-making and in forging
peace and brotherhood with the entire community of nations. She stressed
that media have such a powerful socializing effect that they could tell
audiences how to think and behave because they have a tremendous
influence in shaping opinions and attitudes that could lead to cultural
alienation and social uniformity. She stated that the growing dependence
on advertising tends to produce a commercial mentality in which
consumption becomes an end in itself and that instead of fostering a
culture based on plurality, they often encourage homogenization of ideas
by discouraging productivity and encouraging consumerism where the flow
is from the top to bottom, and where the media are likely to promote
the acceptance of approved ideas at the expense of independent thought
and critical judgment.

On the contention that if society loves self-destruction, it only
needs a policy which encourages abuse of the present communication
resources, as what is happening now, she stated that this is clearly
shown in the contradictions between the values taught in school and in
the home and the values shown in the media, so much so that the left
hand of the economy should not destroy through irresponsible advertising
what its right hand wants to achieve in terms of productivity and
growth because economic growth would depend more on proper work
attitudes rather than on the whetting of appetite for consumer goods
that the economy is unable to supply.

She noted that the lessons from the Marcos regime in the use of
communication for bolstering its legitimacy, in depriving millions of
Filipinos of the freedom to shape their personal needs and demands due
to the continuing assault by messages of indoctrination either from
advertising that sells foreign goods or favorable images about the new
society, should alert the people on the consequences of an interlapping
relationship between a political regime with transnational corporations
and the elite groups of society who have access to power.

Mrs. Rosario Braid emphasized that no other technology has
prescribed itself so penetratingly and so imperceptively on human
consciousness as mass communication and that one could not measure the
real losses in terms of people participation, development of indigenous
technical skills, personal and national identity, self-worth and
self-esteem, owing to the pervasive influence of communication in
society. She stated that the importance of small and noncommercial forms
of communication, particularly the community media that support the
philosophy of “small is beautiful” in enhancing people power, is
recognized in one provision, specifically referring to the opportunity
presented by the media as delivery systems for nonformal education,
health, agriculture and other development areas, the role of
communication being that of a major carrier of culture in the sense that
it fosters adoption of behavioral patterns designed to bring about
social integration.

Finally, she stated that development is a cooperative venture
requiring communication and deep understanding between people and,
therefore, all people must share a common code of meaning for it would
be difficult for people to cooperate with each other politically when
they are divided socially and culturally and, as such, it is a
recognition of the primacy of communication as a tool of government,
particularly in communicating the national ideology or philosophy.

Thereafter, the Chair stated that the Body was in the period of interpellations and general debate.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. COLAYCO

On Section 13, in reply to Mr. Colayco’s query as to what
population policies are contemplated under the first paragraph thereof,
Mr. Bacani stated that the Committee does not have in mind a definite
policy because the intention is simply to provide that the State shall
have the responsibility to adopt a population policy. He explained that
this is a general formulation which does not adopt but at the same time
does not rule out the adoption of a policy.

Mr. Colayco observed that in the absence of any specific guideline
the legislature would be free to think of any kind of policy, to which
Mr. Bacani replied that there is already a guideline in the sense that a
policy must be conducive to the national welfare in addition to the
protection of the State for the life of the unborn which, in effect,
eliminates abortion. He further stated that the second sentence provides
another guideline which ought to be observed in the formulation of
population policies.

Mr. Colayco opined that it would be dangerous to give authority to
the legislature on a matter on which the Committee has a very vague
idea — the concept embodied in the first sentence, in reply to which Mr.
Bacani denied that the Committee is not formulating a government policy
on population.

Mr. Colayco contended that a cursory reading of the sentence
immediately brings to mind population control, in reply to which Mr.
Bacani stated that that may necessarily be so because the government, at
some future time, may opt for an increase in population level and the
intent is not to formulate a policy for the government.

On whether the legislature, under the first sentence, could pass
laws which would, in effect, order population control, Mr. Bacani
affirmed that Congress may do so provided it is guided by certain
limitations, among them, it must be conducive to national welfare, the
right and duty of parents to determine the number of their offsprings,
and their right not to be compelled to use methods of birth limitation
against their conscience.

On Mr. Colayco’s observation that the first sentence would refer
to population control, Mr. Bacani stated that this would include methods
on how to serve the population. He disclosed that the Commission on
Population will soon be renamed Commission on Population Welfare with an
orientation different from what it had in the past.

Mr. Colayco stated that he asked those questions with the
observation that the concept of the second paragraph seems to be
inconsistent with the concept in the first sentence in the sense that
when it speaks of the right of parents to determine the number of their
children, in effect, the State should not enter that area of their
private lives, to which Mr. Bacani agreed that the second paragraph puts
a delimitation to the extent of the government policy.

Mr. Colayco stated that at the moment he considers the first
sentence an invasion of privacy which impinges on the constitutional
provision called the “pursuit of happiness”. He manifested that in due
time he would present arguments in support of his position that this
provision should not be incorporated in the Constitution

Mrs. Rosario Braid opined that this policy should not be related
to the present policy of the government. She stated that population
policies do not refer only to family planning but also to demographic
policies, migration and more education to women. These, she stated, are
some of the various indirect means of population control. She pointed
out that the present agenda of the government on economic recovery
program, as prepared by the National Economic and Development Authority,
have a clear-cut policy on population. Considering that the present
population program is oriented to applied family planning, she opined
that there should be more policies linked to population and this, she
stated, is the intent of the first sentence.

Mr. Colayco made a reservation to submit more legal grounds to defend his view.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. REGALADO

Mr. Regalado prefaced his interpellation with a reservation to submit some questions on Section 13.

Relative to Section 2 which states that “Congress may by law adopt
a new name for the country”, Mr. Regalado inquired how the new
Constitution would be affected should Congress pass a law changing the
name of the Philippines since all throughout reference has always been
to the Constitution of the Philippines and to the Filipinos as its
citizens. He further inquired whether this would not necessarily require
the participation of the entire Filipino nation considering that it
would be a transcendental change of a name which was given way back in
the 16th century. He asked for the justification of the provision.

Replying thereto, Mr. Nolledo disclosed that during the 1971
Constitutional Convention, former President Marcos wanted to change the
name “Philippines” to “Maharlika” and it was for this reason that a
provision was adopted, without any justifiable reason, as contemplated
in the 1973 Constitution.

On whether it is the intent to follow the desire of one man to
perpetuate his so-called guerrilla organization, Mr. Nolledo stated that
it is not the case, the reason being that time may come when there is a
need to change the name of the Philippines.

On the observation that the name “Philippines” has been used in
the different parts of the Constitution, Mr. Nolledo opined that this
could be easily remedied, if necessary, by way of a constitutional
amendment. He stated that the moment the name Philippines is changed, it
is understood that the name “Philippines” appealing in the other
provisions shall follow the new name. He further affirmed that the
change could be done by a Congressional fiat, to which Mr. Regalado
stated that he would challenge the constitutionality of the proposal in
the next session.

With respect to the concept of indirect compensation, on whether
this new concept includes allowances, honoraria or such other emoluments
provided these are not pensions or gratuities, Mr. Maambong stated that
this particular provision is supposed to be in Section 7 of the Article
on Constitutional Commissions and Agencies, to which Mr. Regalado
stated that as a member of the Committee on Constitutional Commissions
and Agencies, he was made to understand that any discussions therein
were withheld until the discussion on the Article on General Provisions.

Mr. Regalado reiterated his question whether this would mean any
kind of emolument provided it is not in the nature of a pension or
gratuity, in reply to which Mr. Maambong explained that this concept of
indirect compensation was an amendment proposed by Mr. Davide which
would cover all kinds of money that an employee would receive as long as
it is not a pension or gratuity.

Relative to the clause “unless required by law, neither should he
hold any other office”, Mr. Regalado inquired about a situation where a
public officer could be required by law to hold another office, in reply
to which Mr. Maambong explained that as the proponent of the clause
referred to, he was thinking of situations like when the Supreme Court
acts as a presidential or vice-presidential electoral tribunal pursuant
to the Constitution. He likewise cited the case of Members of Congress
who would sit in the House Electoral Tribunal and the Senate Electoral
Tribunal, all of which are requirements of the Constitution.

On whether a mere authorization could be an exempting clause to
this section, Mr. Maambong stated that there are members of the Cabinet
or public officials who are compelled by law to sit in certain boards or
commissions.

On Section 4 which provides care and benefits to war veterans, Mr.
Regalado inquired what would be the bases for determining who are the
recognized war veterans considering that there were fake guerrilla
organizations and fake veterans. Mr. De Castro replied that the word
“veterans” would refer to those who actually participated in the 1896
Revolution, World Wars I and II, the wars in Korea and Vietnam. With
respect to guerrillas during the Second World War, he assured that there
is a complete listing in the Adjutant General’s Office of the retired
and the veterans force. Mr. Regalado pointed out that with respect to
guerrillas who participated in World War II recognition was authorized
under the U.S. Missing Persons Act which was administered in the country
by the Recovered Personnel Division originally of the AFWESPAC and the
PHILRECOM. He disclosed that verification is still going on considering
that there were some veterans who were not included in the reconstituted
records of the Missing Persons Act as well as the Recovered Personnel
Division and who are subject to such action as the United States
Government may take on the representation of Colonel Medalla of the
Veterans Federation of the Philippines and on the basis of some bills
introduced in US Congress to give them guerrilla status. He then
inquired whether these guerrillas would be covered by this provision in
the event their status is established.

In reply, Mr. de Castro reiterated that the Armed Forces of the
Philippines has a complete list of recognized guerrillas. He recalled
that in his capacity as a Director of the Association of Generals and
Flag Officers, he asked the Adjutant General to show him the list of
veterans and recognized guerrillas for purposes of according them
benefits provided by a certain Act in the United States. He stated that
the provision would not cover those who were not recognized and whose
names do not appear in the list of the Armed Forces of the Philippines.

On whether the Committee would consider the possibility of giving
these veterans leasehold rights, Mr. de Castro stated that the Committee
would be amenable to including the phrase “and utilization of natural
resources”.

With respect to salaries in connection with the Constitutional
Commissions, Mr. Regalado inquired whether the term “salaries” is used
in the generic sense considering that members of the Constitutional
Commissions are not public officers but members of a coordinate
governmental agency, in reply to which Mr. Bacani stated that what is
referred to are the bodies under the Article on Constitutional
Commissions and Agencies.

Mr. Regalado admitted that he was a little misled because he
thought that what was referred to are the Members of the Constitutional
Commissions or Constitutional Conventions who are considered members of a
coordinate government agency.

In reply, Mr. Nolledo acknowledged the typographical error by
clarifying that the term has reference to the constitutional officials
recognized and provided in the Constitution.

On Section 11, Mr. Regalado noted that there is a specific
reference to mass media whereas line 19 refers to advertising
establishments such that there is a distinction between “mass media” and
“advertising establishments”. He then inquired whether it is the intent
to set aside the 1974 opinion given by the Securities and Exchange
Commission to the effect that advertising agencies are also part of mass
media.

Replying thereto, Mr. Bacani admitted that the Committee was not
aware of such an opinion although the media people insist that there is a
difference between mass media and advertising.

Mr. Nolledo stated that he was aware of the opinion but it was not
accepted by people in the advertising industry because it was a mere
administrative opinion which has a persuasive but not a binding effect.

Mr. Regalado stated that he just wanted to establish the position
of the Committee that for purposes of the Constitution, its intendment
and its legal effect, advertising agencies and mass media are not in
conflict.

Mrs. Rosario Braid informed that during the debate in the 1971
Constitutional Convention, there was an attempt to include advertising
in mass media, to which Mr. Regalado stressed that it is important to
read into the records that those previous opinions contrary to the
Commission’s distinction are not in any way binding or approved by the
Commission.

Thereafter, Mr. Regalado reserved his right to continue his interpellation in the next session.

REMARKS OF MR. FOZ

Reacting to the stand of the Committee, Mr. Foz opined that
advertising is part of mass media which is the same view obtaining in
the United States.

Mr. Nolledo maintained that advertising should not be included in the term “mass media” for purposes of Section 11(1).

INTERPELLATION OF MR. JAMIR

On Section 4, in reply to Mr. Jamir’s query on the meaning of the
term “government retirees”, Mr. Nolledo explained that it refers to
employees who retire from government service, whether in the local or
national level, including employees in government-owned or controlled
corporations.

On whether the patents of war veterans would be considered their
dependents, Mr. de Castro stated that they may be so considered if they
are living and are actually dependent on the veteran for their support.

Mr. Nolledo added that since the provisions of the Social Security
Act and the Government Service Insurance System Law recognize only the
children as dependents, future legislation may include the parents of
war veterans as dependents. He also affirmed that all legitimate
children of war veterans are entitled to adequate care by the State.

Mr. de Castro explained that the care and benefits given to war
veterans under Republic Act 1373 included preference in purchasing
public lands under the Land Resettlement Program, but since said law had
already expired, it would be necessary to provide such privileges in
the Constitution.

On the number of war veterans and their dependents, Mr. de Castro
stated that they are about 500,000; while Mr. Nolledo estimated the
government retirees to be about one million.

On the compensation for government retirees, Mr. Nolledo pointed
out that generally, they receive a monthly retirement pay ranging from
P70 to P240, which has not been sufficient to support their needs, and
therefore, the proposal would urge Congress to increase the benefits of
retirees.

On the compensation for war veterans, Mr. De Castro disclosed that
the surviving veterans of the Philippine Revolution of 1896 are given
pension of about P50 monthly while World War II veterans and their
dependents receive P100 monthly pension, which benefits have forced them
to extreme poverty.

Mr. Jamir affirmed that little concern is given to war veterans
stating that his townmate who is more than 86 years old and is about to
die has not yet received a single centavo of the P20,000 which he is
entitled to.

Mr. Jamir urged that the payment of benefits to war veterans be facilitated.

In this connection, Mr. Natividad pointed out that some members of
the War Veterans organization who were earlier in the galleries wanted
to inform the Members of the Commission that they are actually receiving
only P30 to P100 a month depending on their disability; that they were
not given medicine; that the help from the United States was marginal;
that the promise of equalization pay of P50 a month for enlisted men was
not fulfilled and they are given only P18 a month; that
hospitalization, death and burial benefits given to the American
veterans were denied the USAFEE guerrillas; that the promised
educational and housing benefits were never granted; and that old-age
pension was totally forgotten. All these, he said, were denied because
the Rescission Act passed by the 79th US Congress considered their
service as service to the Philippine Commonwealth and not to the United
States.

Mr. de Castro stated that he had similar experience in the
Veterans Memorial Hospital, not to mention the nonpayment of living
subsistence allowance for prisoners of war, to which Mr. Jamir added
that neither did he receive a single centavo as a major in the guerrilla
organization.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. GUINGONA

Before proceeding with his interpellation, Mr. Guingona reserved a turn to propound more questions in the next session.

On Section 7, as amended, which provides that Congress shall by
law and within a specified period provide for the review of the
performance and management of government ministries, bureaus, agencies
or corporations for the purpose of determining their retention,
reorganization or dissolution, Mr. Guingona inquired if such
reorganization, retention or dissolution would be the prerogative of the
legislature and not the function of the Executive Department, as had
been done by Minister Villafuerte, in reply to which, Mr. Nolledo
explained that although Congress will pass the reorganization law, the
actual review may be done by the Executive Department or may be
delegated to Congress.

Mr. Nolledo further explained that such reorganization, retention
or dissolution would also include government-owned or controlled
corporations.

On Section 8, on the meaning of “indigenous tourism”, Mrs. Rosario
Braid explained that according to the Center for Solidary Tourism, the
term refers to tourist spots that actually lead to the destruction of
natural resources rather than to their preservation and to white
elephants like the Cultural Center of the Philippines Complex.

Mr. Guingona observed that the preservation of indigenous tourism
might prejudice other types of tourism, such that he would propose in
due time an amendment to include a proviso that “the State shall promote
tourism including indigenous tourism”, which Mrs. Rosario Braid
considered acceptable.

As to how the State would reorient the tourism industry in order
to sustain the socioeconomic and cultural development, Mrs. Rosario
Braid opined that the present tourism industry should first be evaluated
vis-a-vis the approved provisions on culture, particularly the
provision on the preservation of the cultural identity and treasures
like artifacts, museums, and others.

On the possible control or influence of boards over the mass
media, Mrs. Rosario Braid underscored that as enunciated in her
sponsorship speech, policies would be formulated by the private sector,
while the State would only act as facilitator 60 that the development of
standards to strengthen their capabilities would be encouraged.

She pointed out that Messrs. Monsod, Davide and Azcuna were
suggesting a reformulation that would mandate the State to promote a
climate conducive to communication development, rather than the State
taking an active role in management, which in the past had negative
results.

On Section 10, particularly on noncommercial media, Mrs. Rosario
Braid explained that it refers to communication media that serves the
goals of education, such as labor radio station, agricultural radio
station, campus stations, as well as blackboard newspapers,
mimeo-newspapers, and other means of rural communications that would
promote the livelihood development of a community.

She further explained that noncommercial media refers to nonprofit
means of communication. She stated, however, that the State could
provide some subsidy for community newspapers in rural areas, or ask the
business enterprises to help them so that they would not just be
depending on judicial notices.

On Section 13, Mrs. Rosario Braid affirmed that the population
policies to be adopted by the State may not include prohibition of the
use of contraceptives.

Thereafter, Mr. Guingona reiterated his reservation to propound more questions in the next session.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

At this juncture, on motion of Mr. Rama, the Chair suspended the session.

It was 5:14 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 5:33 p.m., the session was resumed.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. PADILLA

Mr. Padilla observed that Section 2 is the first sentence in the
1973 Constitution (Article XV, Section 2). The second sentence allowed
changes by Constitutional amendment which reads: “Thereafter, the
national name, anthem and seal so adopted shall not be subject to change
except by Constitutional amendment”. In reply to Mr. Padilla’s inquiry
whether the Committee would be amenable to a deletion of Section 2 in
order to preserve the name Philippines which had gained admiration and
honor throughout the world, Mr. Rigos stated that the Committee intends
to delete the provision at the proper time.

On whether the Committee would also be amenable to deleting
Section 6 which seeks to create an office for tribal communities as an
advisory body to the President, Mr. Nolledo stated that it is Mr. Ople’s
proposal which the Committee adopted because it is meritorious.

Responding thereto, Mr. Ople stated that during the deliberations
on the Article on Local Governments, the Committee on Local Governments
had decided that it would be best to locate the provision in the Article
on General Provisions because it was decided that there should be no
further provisions in the former article other than those concerning
Muslims and the tribal people in the Cordilleras. He pointed out that at
that time, he appealed to the Members of the Body not to forget the
three million other Filipinos belonging to the tribal communities other
than those in Muslim Mindanao and Cordilleras such as the Dumagats and
the Mangyans. He opined that the Tribal Communities Office is a misnomer
and should really be called the Office of Tribal Communities to include
tribal communities other than those in Muslim Mindanao and the
Cordilleras. He then appealed to Mr. Padilla to consider the plight of
the members of the other tribal communities.

At this juncture, Mr. Sarmiento pointed out that he and Mr.
Bennagen objected to the proposal and suggested that it be transferred
instead to the Transitory Provisions.

On Mr. Padilla’s query whether the Committee would also be
amendable to the deletion of the word “indigenous” in Section 8, page 2,
line 19, Mrs. Rosario Braid stated that the proposal for the
development of “indigenous tourism” actually came from an umbrella
organization of various groups who clamor for alternative tourism as
differentiated from commercial tourism. She added that this group abhors
the idea of promoting tourism guided by the windfall of dollars and
would like that communities, like Puerto Galera, be given the right to
self-determination and should not be exploited so that their cultural
heritage could be preserved.

Mr. Padilla then queried whether it would be better to clearly
distinguish telecommunications, mass media and advertising, because the
first refers to telegraphs, telephones as public utilities; the second
refers to TV and radio which are subject to licensing; while the third,
to advertising agency as a private activity. He stated that according to
Mr. Regalado, advertising agency is considered by the Securities and
Exchange Commission as part of mass media while the Secretary of Justice
opines that it is not.

Replying thereto, Mrs. Rosario Braid stated that the provision was
merely copied from Section 7(2), Article XV of the 1973 Constitution
which, she opined, did not distinguish one from the other for purposes
of brevity.

Mr. Padilla pointed out, however, that the 1973 Constitution
clearly distinguished mass media from commercial telecommunications,
which distinction should be maintained.

Mrs. Rosario Braid explained that what was lumped into one section
was commercial telecommunications and advertising while mass media was a
separate section, in reply to which, Mr. Padilla pointed out that
“advertising agency” is another concept which would not fall under
either or both concepts.

Mrs. Rosario Braid stated that it is the sense of the Committee to
shorten the Article by lumping the concepts into one provision but that
amendments thereto would be welcomed at the proper time.

Adverting to the provision on partnerships of mass media on line
16, Mr. Padilla stated that he is against a provision that implies a
right on one hand with the corresponding duty of owners-employers on the
other. In response, Mr. Foz explained that there is no intention to
compel but to encourage those media establishments to sell shares of
stock to their employees or workers, if they are able and willing to do
so. He stated that the prevailing practice of vesting ownership in
employees, like what happened in the Philippine Daily Inquirer and the
Philippines Daily Express Corporation should not be ignored.

Mr. Padilla suggested changing the phrase “shall enjoy” to one
that would encourage the employers to sell and the employees to acquire,
which should be on a more or less voluntary basis for their mutual
benefit.

Mr. Foz pointed out, however, that the retention of the phrase
would not change the sense of the provision and that legislative
enactment would be necessary to carry out the provision in the
Constitution, in reply to which, Mr. Padilla stated that the provision
would be a mandate to Congress to provide for such a mandatory duty.

Adverting to line 24 in relation to Section 15 of the Article on
the National Economy and Patrimony, Mr. Padilla pointed out that the
60-40 ratio requirement is at variance with the two-thirds requirement
on activities which have lesser magnitude and significance to national
development.

Responding thereto, Mr. Nolledo stated that “public utility” is
almost synonymous with “public service” and that it includes the
following:

1) Transportation in all its ramifications — land, sea, water and ferry service;

2) Electric service;

3) Maintenance and operation of ice plants;

4) Telecommunications and others.

He stressed that Section 15 of the Article on National Economy and
Patrimony would not be violated as this would be an exception to the
60-40 rule, because commercial telecommunication seriously involves the
national interest, in particular, the national security.

Mr. Padilla, however, expressed disagreement thereto stating that
public utilities and natural resources are definitely at higher levels
than the private activities of advertising agencies. He suggested three
classification, which would require the revival of the distinctions
between 1) telecommunications; 2) mass media; 3) advertising agency. In
reply, Mr. Nolledo stated that national security and national interest
can still predominate without considering the economic aspect of the
question.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. GUINGONA

In reply to Mr. Guingona’s query on the distinction between the
citizen armed force and the regular force in Section 17, Mr. de Castro
stated that the citizen armed force refers to the whole Armed Forces of
the Philippines and that the regular force in Section 18(a) refers to
the force necessary to fight insurgency in the country which shall
eventually be reduced upon solution of the insurgency problem.

Adverting to his proposals which were incorporated into the draft
provisions, Mr. Guingona stated that all officers of the Armed Forces
due for retirement shall be retired in accordance with existing laws
except in times of war.

Mr. de Castro stated that in times of war or emergencies, there is
no retirement as even retired people are required to render military
service.

On the possible integration of the civilian police force into the
Armed Forces, Mr. Natividad stated that the result would be tragic for
the nation. He stressed that the military is trained to fight while the
police officers are trained to serve and to follow the law.

On whether the Committee would consider the proposed amendment which reads:

THE POLICE FORCE OF THE COUNTRY ARE CIVILIAN OFFICERS AND MAY NOT BE INTEGRATED INTO THE MILITARY EXCEPT IN TIMES OF WAR.

Mr. Natividad explained that the police is always a reserve force in times of war.

On whether the Committee would consider the exposed amendment which reads:

THE POLICE FORCE OF THE COUNTRY ARE CIVILIAN OFFICERS AND MAY NOT BE INTEGRATED INTO THE MILITARY,

Mr. Natividad stated that the provision precisely provides for the creation of a civilian police force.

ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION

On motion of Mr. Rama, there being no objection, the Chair
declared the session adjourned until nine-thirty in the morning of the
following day.

It was 6:11 p.m.

I hereby certify to the correctness of the foregoing.