JOURNAL NO. 91

Wednesday, September 24, 1986

 

CALL TO ORDER

At 10:00 a.m., the President of the Constitutional Commission, the Honorable Cecilia Muñoz Palma, called the session to order.

NATIONAL ANTHEM AND PRAYER

The National Anthem was sung followed by a prayer led by Mr. Jose C. Colayco, to wit:

God our Father, You love our people and our country.
You heard our prayers when we cried out to you for release after years
of oppression. Pour out Your wise and gentle spirit upon the men and
women to whom You have entrusted the task of framing a fundamental law
that will guarantee our freedom under Your divine guidance and
protection. Let it bind us together as our seas bind our islands
together. Let our laws be just to everyone, allowing our people to
develop their talents together. Give a voice to everyone, to every
person a place in the sun. Let all wounds be healed, all strife come to
an end. Above all, bring us reconciliation. Let Muslim and Christian
live side by side in mutual respect, trust and peace, for we are all
Your children. With the help of Mary, we ask You: Bless our people and
our country for we love You, our God, forever and ever.

Amen.

ROLL CALL

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

 

 

A.M.

 

Mr. Rosales was sick.

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

Mr. Laurel was absent.

READING AND APPROVAL OF THE JOURNAL

On motion of Mr. Calderon, there being no objection,
the reading of the Journal of the previous session was dispensed with
and the said Journal was approved by the Body.

REFERENCE OF BUSINESS

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

REFERRAL TO COMMITTEES OF COMMUNICATIONS

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

Communication No. 969 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Communication from Mr. Felino C. Marcelo, Taytay,
Rizal, suggesting some amendments to the draft provision on the
separation of the Church and State

TO THE COMMITTEE ON GENERAL PROVISIONS

Communication No. 970 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Communication from Mr. Bantas W. Suanding, OIC,
Provincial Governor of Benguet, transmitting Resolution Not 53, s. 1986
of the Sangguniang Bayan of Bakun, Benguet, vehemently opposing the
establishment of a Cordillera Regional Autonomy and instead, favoring an
administrative regionalization.

TO THE COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

Communication No. 971 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Communication from the National Council of Churches
in the Philippines signed by its General Secretary, La Verne D. Mercado,
879 EDSA, Quezon City, registering its objection to the proposed
constitutional provision that would mandatorily allow the teaching of
religion in public elementary and high schools within the regular class
hour.

TO THE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

Communication No. 972 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Telegram from Mr. William Neves of Makati, Metro
Manila, suggesting the printing of the motto: “In God We Trust” on the
currency.

TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY

Communication No. 973 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Communication from Mr. Cecilio F. Hernandez of
Tanauan, Batangas, suggesting among others, that national issues be
submitted directly to the people or through local legislators.

TO THE COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

Communication No. 974 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Position paper of the Concerned Filipino Parents
containing various proposals on the declaration of principles, form of
government, education, and family, among others.

TO THE COMMITTEE ON PREAMBLE, NATIONAL TERRITORY AND DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES

Communication No. 975 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Communication from Mr. Florentino L. Ospick, San
Fernando, La Union, proposing that for purposes of teaching religion in
public schools, 15 Minutes A Day With the World’s Greatest Book” is
acceptable to all Bible reading Christians.

TO THE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

Communication Nos. 976, 977, 978, 979, 980, 981,
982, 983, 984, 985, 986, 987, 988, 989, 990, 991, 992, 993, 994, 995,
996, 997, 998, 999, 1000, 1001, 1002 and 1003 — Constitutional
Commission of 1986.

Communications seeking to include in the
Constitution a provision mandating the State to protect the life of the
unborn from the moment of conception, from:

1) Ms. Maria Rona T. Bueno

4 Scout Limbaga Street

Quezon City

2) On hundred eight signatories of the Brotherhood of Christian Businessmen and Professionals

3) Two thousand six hundred sixty-nine signatories
from St. Paul College — Pasig, St. Paul Street corner Meralco Avenue,
Pasig, Metro Manila

4) Mr. Ricardo P. Boto and seventy-eight other
members of Jesus is Coming Christian Fellowship, 3rd Floor, Roma
Building, Novaliches Plaza, Quezon City

5) Ms. Mercedes Urmenita and two hundred eighteen
other vendors of 21 West Riverside Drive, San Francisco del Monte,
Quezon City

6) Mr. Andrew Oback and forty-eight other bar candidates

7) Ms; Flora U. Kagaoan and fifty-six other employees of Quezon City Regional Health Office No. 4, Project 4, Quezon City

8) Mr. Rogelio Manigza and eighty-five other
employees, students, and concerned citizens, Barrio Palanas, Visayas
Avenue, Diliman, Quezon City

9) Ms. Ving Casison and two hundred seventy-seven other employees of the Philippine Airlines Comptroller’s Office

10) Mr. Amado Lucindo and one hundred twenty-eight others, # 5 Kalayaan, Gulod, Novaliches, Quezon City

11) Mr. Felix T. Antonio and ninety other employees, # 50-A Banana Road, Potrero, Malabon, Metro Manila

12) Ms. Elvira O. Nebre and two hundred twenty other employees from various government offices

13) Ms. Jocelyn S. Gonzales and ninety-eight other students from the university belt

14) Ms. Carmina C. Mallari and two hundred forty-five other school teachers from Pasig, Metro Manila

15) Mr. Armando Egonio and one hundred ninety-six other concerned citizens from San Juan, Metro Manila

16) Ms. Lita Diakono and ninety-three other mission of 1986 concerned citizens from San Francisco del Monte, Quezon City

17) Ms. Ma. Victoria A. Suarez and one hundred two other concerned citizens from Manila

18) Mr. Pablo A. Atienza and one hundred fifty-three other concerned citizens with their respective addresses

19) Dr. Joselito Matheus and eighty-one other
physicians, interns, nurses, medical consultants and employees of the
FEU Hospital

20) Mr. Antonio H. Ceniza and two hundred twenty-one other concerned citizens with their respective addresses

21) Mr. Jorge Quila and one hundred seventy-nine other students from the University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City

22) Mr. Mateo F. Lagoy and two hundred sixty-nine
other employees, vendors, and concerned citizens with their respective
addresses

23) Mr. Pio Aure and one hundred fifty other concerned citizens with their respective addresses

24) N. C. Fernandez and two hundred seventeen other
staff members of the National Investment and Development Corporation,
Makati, Metro Manila

25) Ms. Virginia P. Adriano and ninety-two medical
students from FEU and other concerned citizens with their respective
addresses

26) Ms. Gigi Martelino and one hundred eighty-three other concerned citizens with their respective addresses

27) Ms. Delia C. Endaya and one hundred eighteen other concerned citizens with their respective addresses

28) Sister Maria Consuelo B. Billanes and one is
hundred fifty-two faculty members and high school students of Qur Lady
of Grace Academy, 12th Avenue, Caloocan City

TO THE COMMITTEE ON PREAMBLE, NATIONAL TERRITORY AND DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES

Communication No. 1004 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Communication from five hundred signatories
expressing strong support for the approval of Proposed Resolution No.
272, incorporating in the new Constitution a separate article on the
protection and promotion of the rights of the family.

TO THE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

Communication No. 1005 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Mr. Gregorio L. Balanza, Jr.,
Officer-in-Charge, Public Information Assistance Staff, Ministry of
Information, furnishing the Constitutional Commission a copy of the “Ang
Tulong Sa Con-Com Ay Tulong Sa Bayan”, a compilation of the information
support made and accomplished by the Ministry, covering the period from
June 1 to September 15, 1986.

TO THE ARCHIVES

UNFINISHED BUSINESS: COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 36 ON PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 537 ON THE ARTICLE ON DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES

On motion of Mr. Rama, there being no objection, the
Body resumed consideration, on Second Reading, of Proposed Resolution
No. 537 (Committee Report No. 36) on the Article on the Declaration of
Principles, entitled:

Resolution to incorporate in the Constitution an Article on the Declaration of Principles.

Thereupon, the Chair recognized the Chairman and
Members of the Committee on Preamble, National Territory and Declaration
of Principles, who occupied the front table.

Mr. Azcuna informed that the Committee had accepted some proposed additional sections.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. DE CASTRO

As proposed by Mr. de Castro, a new section would read:

THE STATE SHALL TAKE POSITIVE AND EFFECTIVE MEASURES AGAINST GRAFT AND CORRUPTION IN ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT AND SOCIETY.

Mr. de Castro remarked that graft and corruption is
an evil which pervades society and that President Aquino, in
Proclamation No. 3, had said:

“Whereas, the direct mandate of the people as
manifested by their extraordinary action, demands the complete
reorganization of government, restoration of democracy, protection of
basic rights, rebuilding of confidence in the entire government system,
eradication of graft and corruption, restoration of peace and order,
maintenance of the supremacy of civilian authority over the military,
and the transition to a government under a new Constitution in the
shortest time possible.”

Moreover, he stated that graft and corruption have
caused demoralization in the Armed Forces because while soldiers are
being killed in the campaign against insurgency, high-ranking officers
are getting rich through graft and corrupt practices. He stressed that a
mandate recognizing this evil and taking positive and effective
measures against it must be included in .the Constitution.

OBJECTION OF MR. GUINGONA

Mr. Guingona objected to the proposed section on the following grounds:

1. The proposed provision could be better left to
statutory law and that the fundamental law should not constitutionalize
words such as “graft and corruption”.

2. The proposal assumes that graft and corruption
will persist and endure, which is debatable since there are
Constitutional provisions which would make public officials and
employees realize that public service is a public trust. He observed
that the Body has provided for this subject in the Article on
Accountability of Public Officers and even created the Office of the
Ombudsman. He maintained that with the present emphasis on values in
society and in educational institutions the time will come when this
evil will be reduced considerably.

3. The proposed provision is expressed in a negative
manner. He stated that it is better to express it positively by
reiterating or reincorporating in the Declaration of Principles Section 1
of the Article on Accountability of Public Officers, to wit: “Public
office is a public trust. Public officers and employees must at all
times be accountable to the people.”

4. The inclusion of “graft and corruption” in the
Constitution may give the misimpression that the Filipinos are
dishonest. He opined that the dishonest segment constitutes a very small
fraction of the 55 million people who are generally and fundamentally
honest.

REMARKS OF MR. BENNAGEN

Mr. Bennagen supported the proposed section, noting
that there is nothing to be embarrassed about or to be ashamed of in
stating something about “graft and corruption” which is an accepted fact
of life in both developed and underdeveloped countries. He cautioned
that unless strong and effective measures are taken, graft and
corruption might be exacerbated.

Referring to an empirical study done by an
international group of scientists, he stated that the findings which
were published in the book Bureaucratic Corruption in Asia: Causes,
Consequences and Controls concluded that “no anti-corruption policy can
be effective if it depends solely on legal and administrative measures .
. . more important, are the moral foundation of society and the active
cooperation of the population in controlling corruption.” He noted that
as a solution, it proposed that “emphasis should be on the improvement
of quality of life, the improvement of moral and value orientations as
well as, and very importantly, active participation of people’s
community in anti-corruption campaign.” He stressed that a provision in
the Declaration of Principles would be an important reminder to the
people to be ever vigilant of the ills of graft and corruption, which if
unchecked, could undermine any legitimate authority.

REMARKS OF MR. DE CASTRO

Mr. de Castro stated that he would be amenable to a
reformulation of the provision as long as the Article includes the
concept that graft and corruption should be eradicated from all levels
of society. He observed that Section 2 on Accountability of Public
Officers refers to graft and corruption as one of the grounds for
impeachment without mention of eradicating it.

Mr. de Castro informed that his resolution on this
matter was referred to the Committee on Accountability of Public
Officers and thereafter to the Committee on Declaration of Principles.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. PADILLA

Mr. Padilla proposed the following substitute amendment:

THE STATE SHALL MAINTAIN HONESTY AND INTEGRITY IN
THE PUBLIC SERVICE AND TAKE POSITIVE AND EFFECTIVE MEASURES AGAINST
GRAFT AND CORRUPTION.

Mr. de Castro accepted the amendment which, in turn, was accepted by the Committee.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. DAVIDE

Mr. Davide proposed to insert AND PROMOTE after “maintain.”

Mr. Padilla stated that the amendment may not be necessary because “maintain” includes promotion.

INQUIRY OF MR. SUAREZ

Upon inquiry of Mr. Suarez, Mr. Padilla confirmed that the provision would be limited to those in public service.

Mr. Suarez noted that the proposal of Mr. De Castro embraces not only those in public service but also those outside of it.

Mr. Padilla opined that the other sectors should be
covered by the moral integrity and moral standard provisions under the
education and improvement of the youth sections. He stated that it is
understood that honesty and truth are desirable virtues in society but
the matter of graft and corruption should have specific reference to
public service.

Mr. Suarez remarked that Mr. Padilla repeatedly
called attention to RA Nos. 3019 and 1379, to the Article on
Accountability of Public Officers, and to the creation of constitutional
agencies such as the Ombudsman, Tanodbayan and Sandiganbayan.

On whether the provision would be the culmination of
all measures designed to encourage public officers to be honest, Mr.
Padilla replied that all such provisions complement the principles of
honesty and integrity in public service.

REMARKS OF MRS. QUESADA

Mrs. Quesada urged Mr. de Castro to enlarge his
explanatory note by taking cognizance of the fact that graft and
corruption have not only demoralized the military and civil servants but
also affected the quality of service to the people. She stated that in
the health sector, she has witnessed how graft and corruption denied and
deprived the people of their right to basic health services. She
supported the proposal.

FURTHER REMARKS OF MR. BENNAGEN

Explaining further his support for the proposal, Mr.
Bennagen stated that even if it is limited to the public service, its
social impact should be far-reaching because those in the public service
are highly visible in social life and, as models for those outside of
the public service, their moral suasion could create a social
transformation.

Mr. Bennagen also opined that limiting the proposal
to those in the public service would not necessarily mean limiting the
effects of its re-moralization on those within the public service.

REMARKS OF MR. TADEO

Mr. Tadeo agreed that graft and corruption in
society should be eliminated. He pointed out, however, that the colonial
and feudalistic system is the root cause of the problem. He stated that
although the Philippines is said to be an independent country, it is
colonialistic because the United States dominates it politically,
economically and culturally. He also explained that the system is
feudalistic because most lands are owned by a few, mostly foreigners,
who are engaged in the export of raw materials. He noted that the
foreigners use the country’s capital not for industrialization but for
operations outside the country. He pointed out that this system created
three evils, namely, imperialism, through which monopolies dominate
society; officials enriching themselves while in office; and feudalism,
all of which are the roots of poverty.

Mr. Tadeo concluded by saying that the problem of
graft and corruption will never be solved if this colonialistic and
feudalistic system continues to exist.

REMARKS OF MR. BACANI

Speaking in support of Mr. de Castro’s proposal, Mr.
Bacani adverted to the draft pastoral letter of the Philippine Bishops
in 1975 which contained an analysis of Philippine society and noted its
two salient characteristics, widespread poverty and demoralization among
the people, which are closely linked in the sense that poverty is bred
by demoralization. He, likewise, cited a study which showed that graft
and corruption cost at least P20 billion annually, which cost is borne
by the people. It is for this reason, he stated, that there should be an
explicit provision in the Constitution to raise morale and morals in
the country.

Commenting on Mr. Tadeo’s remark that the structures
are very much at fault, Mr. Bacani stated that even more fundamental
than the structures are the human attitudes which they have underlined.
He believed that the approach should not simply be a change in
structures but a simultaneous change in the selfish, egocentric
attitudes of the people.

RESTATEMENT AND APPROVAL OF SECTION 24, AS PROPOSED BY MR. DE CASTRO AND AMENDED BY MR. PADILLA

Mr. Tingson restated Section 24 as proposed by Mr. de Castro and amended by Mr. Padilla, to wit:

THE STATE SHALL MAINTAIN HONESTY AND INTEGRITY IN
THE PUBLIC SERVICE AND TAKE POSITIVE AND EFFECTIVE MEASURES AGAINST
GRAFT AND CORRUPTION.

Submitted to a vote, and with 35 Members voting in
favor, none against and 3 abstentions, the Body approved Section 24, as
amended.

REMARKS/SUGGESTION OF MR. MAAMBONG

Mr. Maambong recalled that during the previous
session, his inquiry whether the provision on asylum to foreigners was
already approved in the Article on the Bill of Rights prompted Mr.
Bernas to present a motion to suspend consideration of Section 21 until
after verification of the records. He stated that on that same day the
Office of the Secretary-General furnished the Commission the record of
the proceedings on this provision during the consideration of the
Article on the Bill of Rights and as reflected in the Journal of July
18, 1986, it appeared that Section 21 as formulated is different from
the formulation presented by Mr. Nolledo at that time which reads:

“Section 10. Foreigners persecuted because of their
struggle in defense of human rights and in the liberation of their
country shall be given asylum in the Philippines and their extradition
shall not be allowed.”

Mr. Maambong pointed out that in the course of
deliberation on this Section, Mr. Guingona raised a point of order,
which the Chair sustained, on the ground that the discussion should be
deferred to the time when the Body would consider the proposal under the
Article on the Declaration of Principles. In view of what transpired at
that time, he opined that this section was never taken up nor was it
approved when it was considered in the Article on the Bill of Rights.
For this reason, he stated that the Body should be free to discuss it in
the Article on the Declaration of Principles as an entirely new
formulation. He then suggested that it be considered.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

At this juncture, the Chair suspended the session.

It was 10:41 a. m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 10:49 a.m., the session was resumed.

Upon resumption of session, Mr. Tingson informed that during the suspension, there was a suggestion to delete Section 21.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. GARCIA

Mr. Garcia stated that it was his understanding that
the Committee accepted the provision which reads: “The Philippines,
under the conditions laid down by law, shall grant asylum to foreigners
who are persecuted in their country in defense of human rights and in
the liberation of their country.” He recalled that during the previous
session the discussion was centered on Article XIV of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights which states that “Everyone has the right to
seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution” and it
was at that time when he read to the Body Article I of the Declaration
of Territorial Asylum which, he stated, was adopted by the General
Assembly of the United Nations on December 14, 1967. He recalled further
that at that time, it was stressed that asylum is a peaceful and a
humanitarian act which could not be regarded as unfriendly by any other
State. He stated that the Declaration governs the procedures,
restrictions and limitations and that it is the State granting asylum
which must evaluate the grounds therefor.

Mr. Garcia then proposed the following provisions:

THE PHILIPPINES, UNDER CONDITIONS LAID DOWN BY LAW,
SHALL GRANT ASYLUM TO FOREIGNERS WHO ARE PERSECUTED IN THEIR COUNTRY IN
DEFENSE OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND IN THE LIBERATION OF THEIR COUNTRY.

REMARKS OF MR. SARMIENTO

Speaking in support of Mr. Garcia’s proposal, Mr.
Sarmiento recalled that during the past regime, many Filipinos sought
for and were granted political asylum by the United States and European
countries. He opined that if Filipinos were beneficiaries of this kind
of treatment, in the spirit of internationalism, the Philippines should
not deny the same right to foreigners who are persecuted for their
defense of human rights and struggle for the liberation of their
country.

Upon inquiry of the Chair whether the United States
government was under obligation to grant asylum, Mr. Sarmiento explained
that persons who seek political asylum have to apply and the government
concerned may, if it deems wise, grant it.

On whether there have been cases of denial of
asylum, Mr. Sarmiento stated that he was not aware of any denial and
that the applications which he handled as a lawyer were all approved by
the United States and by other European countries.

INQUIRY OF MR. MAAMBONG

In reply to Mr. Maambong’s query whether the right
of asylum pertains to the individual or to the State, Mr. Azcuna
explained that a State may or may not grant asylum, however, the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights includes among the rights of
individuals the right of asylum. He stated that the practice has been to
recognize it as a right on the part of the State rather than a right of
the individual because not everything in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights is legally enforceable.

On whether the proposal, as formulated, would make
this right a demandable right in the sense that the so-called freedom
fighters from other countries may demand from the Philippine government
the right to asylum, Mr. Azcuna stated that with the phrase “under
conditions laid down by law”, Congress could lay down the parameters,
criteria and limitations under which foreigners may claim asylum.

Mr. Maambong recalled that during the deliberation
on this concept in the Article on the Bill of Rights, Mr. Ople mentioned
that the proposal might legitimize the extension of Philippine
hospitality to leaders of failed revolutions whose asylum in the
Philippines could provoke indignation and reprisal from friendly
countries in the region, in reply to which Mr. Azcuna stated that
Congress, in enacting an implementing law, could provide safeguards
against possible repercussions, one of which is to require reciprocity.

Mr. Maambong likewise adverted to Mr. Romulo’s
observation that whether or not someone is a freedom fighter in his
country is never a black and white question and that he was appalled by
the suggestion that the request for asylum could override national
interest, to which Mr. Azcuna reiterated that the implementing law
should see to it that the determination of whether or not the applicant
is a freedom fighter would be left to the State.

REMARKS OF MR. JAMIR

Mr. Jamir spoke against the inclusion of Section 21
in the Constitution on the ground that it could be an open invitation to
war with a friendly nation in the sense that the proposal as formulated
presupposes that the country of origin is persecuting him and this, he
stated, may constitute a prejudgment and a casus belli may arise.

He also pointed out that the provision under
Commonwealth Act No. 613+ known as the Philippine Immigration Act of
1940, authorized the President under Section 47, (b) thereof “for
humanitarian reasons and when not opposed to the public interest, to
admit aliens who are refugees for religious, political, or racial
reasons in such cases and under such conditions as he may prescribe”
would be sufficient to guarantee asylum to a refugee in case the
President deems it necessary and proper, and it would be a superfluity
to provide it in the Constitution.

Mr. Nolledo stated, however, that a Constitutional
mandate is necessary so that the President may not refuse to grant
asylum to deserving political prisoners just because he is a friend of
the tyrant President of said political prisoners. He disclosed that the
Committee’s proposal is based on the recommendation of former Senator
Lorenzo Tañada and on the firm belief that the freedom guaranteed by the
Bill of Rights would be held sacred and inviolable.

INQUIRY OF MR. GUINGONA

In reply to Mr. Guingona’s query, Mr. Garcia
explained that although the non-inclusion of the proposal in the
Constitution would not prevent the government from granting asylum, such
Constitutional provision would be a guiding principle that affirms the
same provision in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

On the fear of discrimination or abuse, Mr. Garcia
pointed out that Subsection (3), Article I of the Declaration on
Territorial Asylum provides that “It shall rest with the State granting
asylum to evaluate the grounds for the grant of asylum.”

Mr. Guingona contended that since the Philippines is
a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the country
is morally bound to it and it would not be necessary to
constitutionalize the provision, in reply to which, Mr. Garcia stated
that since many great Filipino heroes fought for human rights and
liberation and that since the country has been liberated, the proposal
would manifest the Filipinos’ willingness to protect the rights of
foreigners by accepting them into the country.

In view of the admission that the non-inclusion of
the proposed section on the grant of political asylum would not prevent
the government from granting it, Mr. Guingona moved to delete said
proposal.

VOTING ON THE DELETION OF SECTION 21

Submitted to a vote and with 24 Members voting in favor, 14 against, and 1 abstention, the motion was approved by the Body.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. PADILLA

Thereafter, Mr. Tingson explained that with the
deletion of the proposed Section 21, the propose amendment of Mr.
Padilla would be Section 22 which reads:

THE MAINTENANCE OF PEACE AND ORDER, THE PROTECTION
OF LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY, AND THE PROMOTION OF THE GENERAL WELFARE
SHALL BE PURSUED BY THE STATE FOR THE ENJOYMENT BY ALL THE PEOPLE OF THE
BLESSINGS OF DEMOCRACY.

Mr. Padilla stated that his proposed amendment was
self-explanatory, although the problem of insurgency has to be included
in the interpretation of peace and order that will entail the protection
of life, liberty and property. He added that the general welfare or the
common good should be the primary concern in the exercise of the police
power of the State in order that the people may enjoy the blessing of
democracy as contained in the Preamble.

INQUIRY OF MR. BENGZON

In reply to Mr. Bengzon’s query on whether Mr.
Padilla would propose to delete the same concept found in the General
Provisions if his proposal is approved, the latter opined that although
the concepts in the General Provisions refer to defense and security of
the State by the Armed Forces, the basic principle should be placed in
the Declaration of Principles and that he would not object to the
deletion of superfluous concepts in the General Provisions.

REMARKS OF MR. DE CASTRO

Mr. de Castro pointed out that the proposed
amendment of Mr. Padilla speaks of maintenance of peace and order while
the proviso in the General Provisions refers to the security and defense
of the State, which are two different matters, the former having
reference to the police while the latter to the Armed Forces. He
underscored, however, that both have to be included in the Constitution
because of the importance of peace and order and the security and
defense of the nation, without which other goals such as social justice,
free education and national economy would not be attainable.

Mr. Bengzon, however, opined that such maintenance
of peace and order is inherent in the exercise of the police power of
the State. He suggested that it be submitted to a vote.

REMARKS OF MR. GASCON

Speaking against Mr. Padilla’s proposal, Mr. Gascon
observed that the sense of the amendment is already contained in many
parts of the Constitution and is, therefore, superfluous.

COMMITTEE’S REFORMULATION OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT

Thereupon, Mr. Tingson reformulated Mr. Padilla’s proposed amendment, to read:

THE STATE SHALL PURSUE THE MAINTENANCE OF PEACE AND
ORDER, THE PROTECTION OF LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY, AND THE PROMOTION
OF THE GENERAL WELFARE FOR THE ENJOYMENT BY ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE
BLESSINGS OF DEMOCRACY.

Mr. Padilla opined that as a matter of style, the
provision should begin with the phrase “The maintenance of peace and
order . . .” which shall be pursued by the State necessarily for the
protection of other rights.

INQUIRY OF MR. OPLE

Mr. Ople observed that the formulation of the
proposed amendment postulates peace and order as the fundamental concern
of the Constitution to protect life, liberty and property, and might
evoke conflict on the primacy of rights contained in the Bill of Rights,
such that property rights might also undermine the rights to life and
liberty.

Mr. Padilla underscored that the proper situs of his
proposal would be the Article on Declaration of Principles because the
Bill of Rights speaks of the delineation of governmental powers against
individual rights. He added that his proposed amendment speaks of the
right to life, liberty and property in the same order they appear in the
Bill of Rights in relation to due process and equal protection of law.

He affirmed that nothing in the formulation of his
proposal would prejudice the rights of farmers and workers as provided
for in the Article on Social Justice because it would actually promote
the general welfare or the common good.

REMARKS OF MR. GARCIA

Mr. Garcia opined that the proposed amendment would
not be proper in the Declaration of Principles because it would give
primacy to police power and would encourage militarism. He stated that
the solution to social, economic and political problems would actually
require social and economic justice and popular democracy.

MR. GUINGONA’S PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT

Mr. Guingona proposed to amend Mr. Padilla’s amendment, to read:

THE MAINTENANCE OF PEACE AND ORDER THE PROTECTION OF LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY SHALL BE PURSUED BY THE STATE.

He opined that “promotion of the general welfare” is
too broad and is already included in the inherent duty of the State
through the exercise of police power.

Mr. Padilla did not accept the proposed amendment to
his amendment because although it follows his brevity and simplicity in
style, the promotion of the general welfare should be explicitated as
the reason for maintaining peace and order, and protecting life, liberty
and property.

APPROVAL OF MR. PADILLA’S AMENDMENT

Thereafter, Mr. Tingson restated the new formulation of Mr. Padilla’s proposed amendment, which would be Section 24, to wit:

THE MAINTENANCE OF PEACE AND ORDER, THE PROTECTION
OF LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY, AND THE PROMOTION OF THE GENERAL WELFARE
SHALL BE PURSUED BY THE STATE FOR THE ENJOYMENT BY ALL THE PEOPLE OF THE
BLESSINGS OF DEMOCRACY.

Submitted to a vote, and with 24 Members voting in favor, and 12 against, the proposed amendment was approved by the Body.

CLARIFICATION OF MR. MAAMBONG

At this juncture, Mr. Maambong pointed out that Mr.
Padilla’s amendment should be Section 25 and not Section 24, in reply to
which Mr. Tingson explained that the original Section 24 was deleted,
such that the provision on the supremacy of civilian authority over the
military would be the new Section 21; separation of church and state
would be the new Section 22; honesty and integrity in public service
would be Section 23; and Mr. Padilla’s amendment would be the new
Section 24.

CONSIDERATION/APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 546

Upon call of Mr. Bennagen, the Body proceeded to the consideration of Proposed Resolution No. 546, entitled:

Resolution urging the Constitutional Commission to
agree to conclude its work soonest but in no case later than October 15,
1986.

He stated that the Proposed Resolution was signed by
Messrs. Ople, Rama, de los Reyes, Natividad, Monsod, Tingson, Jamir,
Regalado, Treñas, Uka, Concepcion, Sumulong, Padilla, Maambong,
Calderon, Rigos, Romulo, de Castro, Rodrigo, Colayco, Lerum, Villegas,
Alonto, Guingona, Bacani Bengzon, Ms. Tan and Mr. Gascon.

Thereupon, on motion of Mr. Bengzon, there being no objection, the Body approved Proposed Resolution No. 546, unanimously.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. GUINGONA

Mr. Guingona proposed to transpose the first
sentence of Section 9 in Proposed Resolution No. 531 as a new section in
the Article on Declaration of Principles, to wit: THE STATE RECOGNIZES
THE VITAL ROLE OF COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION IN NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT.

Mr. Tingson accepted the proposal.

In reply to Mr. Monsod’s query whether there is any
approved or proposed provision in the Constitution that would
operationalize the principle, Mrs. Rosario Braid stated that there is
such provision in the Article on General Provisions. She denied,
however, that operationalization of the principle would involve the
establishment of an authority, explaining that the government’s role
would merely be that of a facilitator of private development of
communication facilities and resources.

In reply to Mr. Ople’s query on the meaning of
“communication”, Mrs. Rosario Braid explained that it encompasses the
entire information industry and all forms of media including computers
and audio-visuals. She disclosed that it is the intent of the Committee
to give high priority to the telecommunications industry so that it
could serve all the islands of the archipelago.

Upon Mr. Bennagen’s query, Mrs. Rosario Braid affirmed that “communication” includes interpersonal communications.

Mr. Bennagen then queried whether the Committee is
aware of an Indian study which shows that mass media and other forms of
mass communications have not contributed much to national development
insofar as equitable distribution of income is concerned and that it is
the interpersonal communications between and among the people’s
organizations and the bureaucratic hierarchy that have really
contributed to national development.

In reply, Mrs. Rosario Braid stated that the
Committee is aware of such study. She explained that the provision would
also mean changing or improving the content of information coursed
through media channels by having more balanced programs and by linking
mass media with interpersonal communications to complement communication
among small groups.

On whether it is the State that would implement this
interpersonal communications, Mrs. Rosario Braid replied that the State
would only provide the climate to encourage private initiative such as
by providing incentives to small or rural media companies.

On Mr. de Castro’s query whether Section 9 of
Proposed Resolution No. 531 would be transposed to the Article on
General Provisions, Mrs. Rosario Braid replied in the affirmative.

MOTION OF MR. BERNAS

At this juncture, Mr. Bernas moved that the Body
defer consideration of the proposal until it considers the Article on
General Provisions for two reasons: 1) there is an abundance of
provisions about communications in the General Provisions; and 2) the
Article being considered is the Article on Declaration of Principles
which, according to the sponsorship speech, “embodies the section which
state the general philosophical foundations of our Constitution.”

Mr. Bernas pointed out that the provision sought to
be transposed does not state a principle but refers more to
implementation. He suggested that it would be better to consider this
provision together with the other provisions on telecommunications in
the General Provisions so that it could be seen in its proper context.

Responding thereto, Mrs. Rosario Braid stated that
the Body should not belabor the importance of communication because it
could be the medium to project positive models of honesty, peace and
integrity as well as a vehicle for the attainment of national
development.

At this juncture, Mr. Maambong, who is a member of
the Committee on General Provisions, called attention to the fact that
the Article on General Provisions contains many provisions on
communications in Sections 9, 10, 11 and 12 thereof. He then asked if it
would be better to separate the first sentence of Section 9 from the
rest of the provisions.

Mr. Rama requested that the Body consider Mr. Bernas’ motion for deferment.

In reply to Mr. Guingona’s query whether the
approval of Mr. Bernas’ would preclude the inclusion of the proposal in
the Article on Declaration of Principles, Mr. Bernas replied in the
affirmative although, he stated, it could be adopted in the Article on
General Provisions.

Thereupon, Mr. Guingona registered his objection to the motion.

Upon request from the Chair, Mr. Bernas restated his
motion to defer consideration of the section until the Body considers
the Article on General Provisions.

Mr. Gascon also objected to Mr. Bernas’ motion
stating that it is high time that the country gave priority to
information and communication by incorporating a principle thereon in
the Article on Declaration of Principles.

Mr. Guingona assured the Body that the proposed
section to be transposed would not entail State involvement in or
control of any of the areas of communication.

At this juncture, Mr. Davide requested that the Body accord equal treatment to the Committee in the matter of transpositions.

Thereupon, Mr. Bernas modified his motion to a
deferment of the discussion of the section until the Body takes up the
Article on General Provisions without prejudice to putting it back in
the Article on Declaration of Principles if the Body so decides.

Mrs. Rosario Braid and Mr. Guingona agreed.

Submitted to a vote, and there being no objection, Mr. Bernas’ modified motion was approved by the Body.

AMENDMENT OF MRS. QUESADA

Thereafter, Mrs. Quesada proposed, subject to
restyling by the Committees on Style and Sponsorship, to transpose the
first sentence of the Article on National Economy and Patrimony to the
Article on Declaration of Principles, to wit: THE STATE SHALL DEVELOP A
SELF-RELIANT AND INDEPENDENT NATIONAL ECONOMY EFFECTIVELY CONTROLLED BY
FILIPINOS.

Mr. Azcuna accepted the proposal.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

At this juncture, the Chair suspended the session.

It was 11:52 a.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 11:54 a. m., the session was resumed.

Upon resumption of session, Mr. Quesada’s proposal
was submitted to a vote, and with 30 Members voting in favor, and none
against the same was approved by the Body.

At this juncture, Mr. Ople observed that there seems
to be a trend towards transposing the most significant parts of the
flagship provisions to the Article on Declaration of Principles. He then
inquired if this would not impoverish the flagship sections of the
other articles, in reply to which Mr. Monsod stated that the
transposition would not detract anything from the Article on National
Economy and Patrimony.

Mr. Bennagen stated that while the drafting of the
Constitution should have started with the definition of principles which
the Body failed to do for one reason or another, the transposition of
the so-called flagship provisions from the various articles to the
Declaration of Principles would enrich this Article because, as
principles, they would constitute the richest contribution from the
plenary sessions.

MOTION OF MR. RAMA TO CLOSE THE PERIOD OF AMENDMENTS

At this juncture, Mr. Rama moved to close the Period
of amendments on the Article on Declaration of Principles and State
Policies subject to the reservation of Mrs. Rosario Braid and Messrs.
Padilla and Sarmiento.

In reply to the Chair’s query on whether the Committee had been consulted, Mr. Rama answered in the affirmative.

Mr. Tingson clarified that except for the reservations, the Committee had practically finished its work.

Speaking on behalf of Mr. Sarmiento, Mr. Bengzon
stated that Mr. Sarmiento would be willing to forego his proposed
amendment which reads: THE STATE SHALL PROVIDE LIVELIHOOD OPPORTUNITIES
FOR THE FILIPINO PEOPLE, should the concept be contained in the Article
on Social Justice, subject to confirmation of the Committees on
Declaration of Principles and State Policies, and National Economy and
Patrimony.

Mrs. Quesada gave the assurance that the concept is
contained in the Article on Social Justice as well as in Section 9 of
the Declaration of Principles and State Policies.

On behalf of the Committee on the National Economy
and Patrimony, Mr. Monsod explained that Mr. Sarmiento’s concern is
covered by the provisions on equitable distribution of opportunities,
income and wealth. On the Article on Social Justice, he stated that it
is contained in the provisions to create economic opportunities based on
the freedom of initiative and principle of self-reliance.

Thereupon, Mr. Rama reiterated his motion.

Mr. Maambong, however, reminded the Committee of his
suggestion to arrange the provisions in such a manner that the
principles precede the policies which should be submitted to the
Committee on Sponsorship, to which Mr. Tingson concurred.

VOTING ON MR. RAMA’S MOTION

Mr. Rama requested that his motion be submitted to a vote.

Thereupon, submitted to a vote, with 28 Members
voting in favor, 1 against and 1 abstention, the Body approved to close
the period of amendments.

MANIFESTATION OF MR. MONSOD

Mr. Monsod manifested that he registered the
reservation in line with Mr. Padilla’s and Mrs. Quesada’s reservation
and that he would confer with them on the matter.

MOTION TO VOTE ON SECOND READING ON THE ARTICLE ON EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, SPORTS, ARTS AND CULTURE

At this juncture, Mr. Rama, on behalf of Mr.
Villacorta, moved for a vote on Second Reading on the Article on
Education, Science and Technology, Sports, Arts and Culture.

Mr. Monsod stated that he registered his reservation
to consolidate the Sections on culture which contain certain
repetitions and which should be resolved first.

Mr. Bennagen confirmed Mr. Monsod’s statement,
stating that the reservation was made with respect to the concept of
popularization. Mr. Monsod stated that he had a formulation on which he
wanted to consult with Mr. Bennagen.

Mr. Maambong invited attention to the omission of
RESEARCHERS between “investors” and “technologists” which did not appear
in the amended copy of the Article but which was duly corrected by Mr.
Villacorta.

Regarding the provision on assistance, scholarships
and grants, Mr. Gascon stated that during the discussions with Mr.
Guingona, the Subcommittee Chairman on Education, the Committee proposed
to substitute “subsidy” with DEMOCRATIZED SUBSIDY to make the intent of
providing continuous education for the underprivileged clearer, to
which Mr. Monsod objected.

The Chair noted that the voting on Second Reading
would have to be deferred because of the differences, for which reason,
Mr. Rama withdrew his motion.

Mr. Ople stated that he was about to endorse the
Chair’s proposal to defer because of a proposed amendment which is
complementary to Mr. De Castro’s amendment dealing with the principle of
full public disclosure of the affairs of the government in the
Declaration of Principles and State Policies.

MOTION TO VOTE ON THIRD READING ON PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 534

Mr. Rama moved for a vote on Third Reading on Proposed Resolution No. 534, entitled:

Resolution to incorporate in the New Constitution a separate Article on Social Justice.

(At this juncture, the President relinquished the Chair to the Honorable Ricardo J. Romulo.)

Thereupon, Mr. Rama manifested that the Committee on Social Justice was not yet ready to present the Article for Third Reading.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

On motion of Mr. Rama, the Chair suspended the session until two-thirty in the afternoon.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 2:56 p.m., the session was resumed with the Honorable Jose C. Colayco presiding.

Upon resumption of session, Mr. Rama stated the
parliamentary situation, which was the closing of the period of
amendments on the Article on the Declaration of Principles, subject to
the reservations made by Messrs. Ople and Padilla.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. PADILLA

Mr. Padilla proposed the following amendment as a new section, to wit:

THE STATE RECOGNIZES THE INDISPENSABLE ROLE OF THE
PRIVATE SECTOR IN NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, ENCOURAGES PRIVATE INITIATIVE
AND FREE ENTERPRISE, ACKNOWLEDGES THE NEED FOR INVESTMENTS BOTH DOMESTIC
AND FOREIGN FOR ECONOMIC PROGRESS AND SOCIAL BENEFITS FOR ALL THE
PEOPLE.

In reply to Mrs. Quesada’s query on how the proposal
would dovetail with the basic provisions on private initiative in the
Article on National Economy and Patrimony, Mr. Padilla stated that his
proposal does not call for the transposition of any provision already
approved under the Article on National Economy and Patrimony and its
objective is consistent with said Article. He requested the Committee
and the Members to carefully consider it.

MRS. QUESADA’S AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT

Mrs. Quesada proposed to amend the amendment, to read:

THE STATE SHALL RECOGNIZE THE INDISPENSABLE ROLE OF
THE PRIVATE SECTOR, ENCOURAGE PRIVATE INITIATIVE AND PROVIDE INCENTIVES
TO NEEDED INVESTMENTS.

Mr. Padilla further modified the amendment by changing “shall recognize” to RECOGNIZES.

Mrs. Quesada accepted the amendment on behalf of the Committee.

MR. OPLE’S AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT

Mr. Ople proposed to amend the amendment, to read:

THE STATE RECOGNIZES THE INDISPENSABLE ROLE OF THE
PRIVATE SECTOR IN NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CONSISTENT WITH SOCIAL EQUITY,
ENCOURAGES PRIVATE INITIATIVE AND ENTERPRISE IN A MIXED ECONOMY AND
ACKNOWLEDGES THE NEED FOR INVESTMENTS FOR ECONOMIC PROGRESS AND SOCIAL
BENEFITS FOR ALL THE PEOPLE.

Mr. Padilla stated that he would have no objection to the amendment since it follows the sense of his proposal.

Mr. Monsod observed that the balancing phrase on
social equity may not be necessary because the balance should be in the
context of the entire article and not in every section, and that as he
saw it, the provision would balance with other sections in the article
which already promotes the social aspect of development.

Reacting thereto, Mr. Ople stated that considering
the Declaration of Principles as a general framework which establishes
the directive principles of the entire Constitution, he thought of
establishing a balance right in this section. He stated, however, that
if the Committee would accept Mr. Monsod’s interpretation that this
section is in effect also controlled by the entire Article on the
Declaration of Principles, he would not insist on his amendment.

Mr. Davide, likewise, observed that the concept
sought to be inserted in the Article on the Declaration of Principles is
also provided in the Article on National Economy and Patrimony, in
reply to which Mrs. Quesada stated that the Committee would leave the
matter to the Body.

VOTING ON MR. PADILLA’S AMENDMENT

Mrs. Quesada restated Mr. Padilla’s amendment, to wit:

THE STATE RECOGNIZES THE INDISPENSABLE ROLE OF THE
PRIVATE SECTOR, ENCOURAGES PRIVATE ENTERPRISE AND PROVIDES INCENTIVES TO
NEEDED INVESTMENTS.

Submitted to a vote, and with 20 Members voting in favor and 9 against, the amendment was approved by the Body.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. OPLE

Mr. Ople proposed the following amendment, with
Messrs. Rama, Treñas, Romulo, Regalado and Mrs. Rosario Braid as
coauthors, to wit:

SECTION 24. THE STATE SHALL ADOPT AND IMPLEMENT A
POLICY OF FULL PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF ALL ITS TRANSACTIONS SUBJECT TO
REASONABLE SAFEGUARDS ON NATIONAL INTEREST AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW.

Mr. Ople stated that his proposal would provide an
umbrella statement in the Declaration of Principles for all the
safeguards for an open and honest government distributed all over the
draft Constitution and would establish a concrete ethical principle for
the conduct of public affairs in a genuinely open democracy, with the
people’s right to know as the centerpiece.

INQUIRY OF MRS. ROSARIO BRAID

In reply to Mrs. Rosario Braid’s query as to how the
proposal would complement Section 6 of the Bill of Rights in terms of
the right to know if it would be subject to safeguards with exceptions
and limitations as may be provided by law, Mr. Ople stated that the
provision would mandate the State to be accountable by following a
policy of full public disclosures especially on information concerning
loans contracted by the government and the statement of assets and
liabilities of public officials, therefore, establish a kind of ethical
principle for public officials as a great deterrent to conflicts of
interest in government.

INQUIRY OF MR. JAMIR

In reply to Mr. Jamir’s query if the proposal would
not deter the grant of loans by banks which would not like their
competitors to know the conditions under which they are granted, Mr.
Ople stated that loans invested with color of public interest would be
covered, otherwise, it would be covered by the exception in the last
clause “reasonable safeguards on national interest” which would include
national security. He gave assurance that unless there is a court order,
his proposal would not impinge on the secrecy of banking transactions.

INQUIRY OF MR. SUAREZ

In reply to Mr. Suarez’ query, Mr. Ople affirmed
that the phrase “a policy of full public disclosure of all its
transactions” would refer to transactions of the State and all its
agencies, departments, ministries, government-owned and controlled
corporations, instrumentalities of the government and its individual
public officers.

He, likewise, stated that “transactions” is used in a
generic sense and would refer to both the steps leading to the
consummation of a contract subject to reasonable safeguards on national
interest and to the treaties, executive agreements and service contracts
that should be disclosed to the public periodically according to a
system that the government would establish as may be provided by law and
also upon reasonable demand by the public.

Mr. Ople further stated that Congress may provide
that all public officers should submit their statements of assets and
liabilities as may be required by law for public scrutiny and would,
therefore, require some publication thereof, the implementing law
therefor to be enacted by Congress.

REMARKS OF MR. SARMIENTO

Speaking against the proposed amendment, Mr.
Sarmiento stated that it may be difficult to realize the thrust of the
proposal in view of the clause “subject to safeguards on national
security” which was the very same concept used and exploited by the past
era to justify the proclamation of martial law, arrest of persons and
issuance of decrees and letters of instructions.

Reacting thereto, Mr. Ople maintained that the
provision shall be subject to reasonable safeguards on national interest
and national security, stating he does not want to be reckless on
matters of national security. Moreover, he stated that good faith and
regularity of transactions should be presumed and that the burden of
providing a color of national interest or security rests on the public
officials or government authorities concerned.

INQUIRY OF MR. BERNAS

In reply to Mr. Bernas’ observation that the same
policy sought to be enunciated in the proposal is already embodied in
Section 6 of the Bill of Rights, Mr. Ople maintained that his proposal
is wider in scope, one of its objectives being the development of a
higher level of ethical practice in the government and would, therefore,
put all public officers under duty to disclose their own conflicts of
interest.

REMARKS OF MR. BERNAS

Mr. Bernas stated that Section 6 refers to the right
of the people to information and that to every right corresponds a duty
which, in this particular case, is the duty of the State to make
information of public concern available to the people. He opined that
Section 6, which is broadly stated to cover anything of public concern,
is a challenge to the people to be active in seeking for themselves
information rather than depend on whatever the State may release to
them.

REMARKS OF MR. RAMA

Mr. Rama pointed out that there is a basic
difference between the provision in the Article on Declaration of
Principles and the provision in the Bill of Rights, in the sense, that
under the Bill of Rights, the provision contemplates a collision between
the rights of the citizens and those of the State such that it is the
right of every citizen to demand to know, whereas under the provision in
the Article on the Declaration of Principles it shall be the policy of
the State of disclose information and transactions.

INQUIRY OF MR. DE CASTRO

On Mr. de Castro’s initial inquiry, Mr. Ople
affirmed that full public disclosure of all transactions is subject to
safeguards on national interest as provided for by law. He stated that
originally, the provision used the words “national security” which was
changed, at the instance of Mr. Regalado, to “national interest”, to
which Mr. de Castro agreed considering that as earlier stated, national
interest includes national security.

On the final query of Mr. de Castro, Mr. Ople affirmed that the last proviso contains the phrase “as may be provided by law”.

INQUIRIES OF MR. NOLLEDO

On Mr. Nolledo’s query whether he would agree that
not all transactions of the government affect public interest, Mr. Ople
stated that any transaction of the State potentially affects the public
interest.

On certain contracts entered into by government
corporations with the private sector where public interest is not
necessarily involved, Mr. Ople stated that if the government corporation
is performing a proprietary rather than a government function, then
this would be uncontroversial and regular and it would not be subject to
the obligation to publish the transaction. He pointed out, however,
that the past, most local government units borrowed heavily from the
Land Bank and the Development Bank of the Philippines to build public
markets, and experience showed that these transactions later on became
focal points of local political disputes because of alleged kickbacks.
It was for this reason, he stated, that he initiated, as member of the
Land Bank Board, a full disclosure policy so that transactions with
respect to public markets are posted conspicuously right in the
municipal buildings. He stated that this full disclosure policy proved
successful because complete transaction data were made known to the
people that if there was something suspicious about it, a dialogue could
take place with the mayor and the municipal council.

Mr. Nolledo opined that this would overburden the
State because it has to initiate full disclosure whereas the general
proposition is that all interested individuals in any part of the
country should have access to public records such that the initiative
comes from the private parties. He opined that this would be costly to
the government if it is given the burden to fully disclose all its
transactions.

Replying thereto, Mr. Ople referred Mr. Nolledo to
the exact text which reads “The State shall adopt and implement a policy
of full public disclosure of all its transactions”. He explained that
this would apply not only to the State as a corporate entity but also to
the public officers serving the State. He stated that under the
provision, all public officials shall be obliged by law to publish and
not merely to submit to the Archives their statements of assets and
liabilities so that the people would be able to know and judge for
themselves. He described as commendable acts of disclosure President
Aquino’s and her Cabinet Members’ voluntarily submission of their
statements of assets and liabilities for publication.

On whether this proviso duplicates his earlier
proposal on full disclosure of assets and liabilities which was
considered in the report of the Committee on Accountability of Public
Officers, Mr. Ople stated that the proviso is an umbrella statement
which offers a symmetry to Section 6 of the Bill of Rights in the sense
that it complements the obligation imposed on Members of Congress to
state potential conflicts of interests whenever called upon to sponsor
bills.

In order to lessen the burden of the government in
complying with this provision, Mr. Nolledo proposed to amend Mr. Ople’s
proposal so that it would read:

THE STATE SHALL PURSUE A POLICY OF FULL DISCLOSURE
OF ALL ITS TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING THE PUBLIC INTEREST, SUBJECT TO
SAFEGUARDS ON NATIONAL SECURITY.

Mr. Ople accepted Mr. Nolledo’s proposed amendment to his amendment.

INQUIRIES OF MRS. ROSARIO BRAID

On whether the disclosure made by the government
should be published in the newspapers and other forms of mass media, Mr.
Ople stated that in the case of statements of assets and liabilities of
public officials, the law would determine the manner of publication. He
opined that it is sufficient that every public officer releases,
according to law, his statement of assets and liabilities so that the
press could publish it, although, there would be no compulsion on the
press to publish it.

REMINDER OF THE CHAIR

At this juncture, the Chair stated that the proposal
involves the issue of whether government transactions should be subject
to disclosure and that the discussion on statements of assets and
liabilities of individual public officials is out of context, to which
Mr. Ople maintained that the discussion is pertinent thereto.

CONTINUATION OF MRS. ROSARIO BRAID’S INQUIRIES

Mrs. Rosario Braid stated that if the transaction is
of national interest, everybody has the right to know. Considering that
newspapers cater to only ten percent of the entire population she
inquired whether the proposal contemplates that other forms of media
like the radio also carry the disclosure so that the people would know
and participate in the discussions in the barangay level.

In reply thereto, Mr. Ople stated that inasmuch as
newspapers may have limited reach, radio and television networks could
help disseminate the news to a bigger audience.

On whether the government would provide feedback
mechanisms in areas where there are no existing media facilities so that
the people could participate and react. Mr. Ople opined that their
elected representatives could air their sentiments.

Mrs. Rosario Braid accepted Mr. Ople’s amendments, as amended, on behalf of the Committee.

INQUIRES OF MR. DAVIDE

On whether this is a self-executing provision which
would no longer require an implementing legislation by Congress, Mr.
Ople stated that it was originally intended to be self-executing but
with Mr. Regalado’s amendment adding the phrase “as may be provided by
Law”, legislation may be needed to implement the provision.

On whether the provision, as worded, would
immediately take effect with Congress still being able to provide for
reasonable safeguards on the ground of national interest, Mr. Ople
replied that it should immediately influence the climate of the conduct
of public affairs but Congress may no longer pass a law revoking it.

Mr. Davide pointed out that the only possible ground
for withholding disclosure would be national security subject to such
reasonable conditions as Congress may provide. He then inquired whether
the proposal would not be inconsistent with Section 6 of the Bill of
Rights under which the limitations are not limited to national interest.

Mr. Ople maintained that this would not, in any
manner, impose a limitation on the scope of Section 6 of the Bill of
Rights because what is referred to in the proposal is an obligation of
the State to follow and, within its own realm, enforce a policy of full
public disclosure. He stated that with respect to actions initiated by
citizens for information from the government as contemplated in Section 6
of the Bill of Rights, there is nothing in the proposal that would
constrain the exercise of that right.

Mr. Davide maintained that the proposal is really
related to Section 6 because the said Section is actually a compliance
of the proposed directive to be included in the Article on the Bill of
Rights. He noted that under the proposal, the limitation is very
restrictive because it only relates to national interest whereas in
Section 6 Congress may provide any limitation. In the matter of
interpretation, he inquired as to which of the two would prevail.

Replying thereto, Mr. Ople stated that relative to
the right of citizens to information from the government, when the
citizens initiate requests for such information, there is no question
that the coverage of Section 6 is primary.

On Mr. Davide’s contention that approval of the
proposal would render Section 6 useless because it is already the duty
of the State to fully disclose its transactions, Mr. Ople stated that
his proposal would complement the right of the citizens in Section 6
because it obliges the State to adopt and implement a policy of full
public disclosure even without the citizenry demanding such disclosure
in specific instances. He opined that Mr. Davide’s fears are not
well-founded because there is no conflict between the obligation of the
State to make full public disclosure and the right of the citizens to
get information from the State.

INQUIRIES OF MR. MONSOD

Mr. Monsod observed that the Committee
interpretation that the proposal puts a responsibility on the government
to establish a network or mechanism by which these transactions could
be disclosed to the public if combined with the interpretation that
there may be limitations in the public interest may translate into
selective dissemination of information through a government network.

Reacting thereto, Mr. Ople observed that Mrs.
Rosario Braid accepted his interpretation that the feedback process
could be satisfied through the elected representatives of the people.

Mr. Monsod recalled that during the past 15 years,
barangay officials were used in the dissemination of selective
information and this, he warned, may give the government the basis for
retaining a centralized propaganda network which was once controlled by
the Office of Media Affairs.

REMARKS OF MRS. ROSARIO BRAID

Mrs. Rosario Braid stated that the feedback network
referred to is not necessarily meant for public officials but for
community-based organizations which, she opined, would lend more
credence. She allayed the fear that there would be another Office of
Media Affairs in the making.

REMARKS OF MS. TAN

Ms. Tan stated that at the outset, she thought that
the provision would be harmless but with the participation of barangay
officials, who in the past, never told the truth, she might vote against
the proposal.

Reacting thereto, Mr. Ople clarified that this would
apply to barangay affairs because the barangay council is obliged to
disclosed to the constituency its transactions, which are often the
subject of disputes and suspicion on the part of barangay members.

RESTATEMENT OF MR. OPLE’S AMENDMENT, AS AMENDED

Mr. Ople restated this amendment, as amended, to wit:

THE STATE SHALL ADOPT AND IMPLEMENT A POLICY OF FULL
PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF ALL ITS TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING PUBLIC INTEREST,
SUBJECT TO REASONABLE SAFEGUARDS OF THE NATIONAL INTEREST AS MAY BE
PROVIDED BY LAW.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. DAVIDE

Mr. Davide proposed the following amendments:

1. Before the word “The” at the start of the
proviso, insert the words SUBJECT TO REASONABLE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED BY
LAW and a comma (,); and

2. Delete the words “shall adopt and implement” and in lieu thereof, substitute with the words, ADOPTS AND IMPLEMENTS.

As amended, the proviso would read:

SUBJECT TO REASONABLE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED BY LAW,
THE STATE ADOPTS AND IMPLEMENTS A POLICY OF FULL PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF
ALL ITS TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING PUBLIC INTEREST.

APPROVAL OF MR. OPLE’S AMENDMENT, AS AMENDED

Submitted to a vote, and with 25 Members voting in
favor, 4 Members against and 1 abstention, the Body approved Mr. Ople’s
amendment, as amended.

MANIFESTATION OF MR. OPLE

Mr. Ople manifested for the record that the
amendment was coauthored by Messrs. Rama, Davide, Nolledo, Treñas,
Romulo, Regalado and Mrs. Rosario Braid.

INQUIRY OF MR. SARMIENTO

On Mr. Sarmiento’s query on the status of his
proposed amendment submitted to the Committee which reads THE STATE
SHALL PROVIDE LIVELIHOOD OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE FILIPINO PEOPLE, Mrs.
Quesada informed that she had already submitted it to Messrs. Romulo and
Bengzon during the morning session.

Mr. Sarmiento stated that he was unable to
participate in the deliberation because he was absent at that time, for
which reason, he asked that it be discussed in his presence.

POINT OF INFORMATION OF MR. MAAMBONG

Mr. Maambong, on a point of information, stated that
in the absence of Mr. Sarmiento, Mr. Bengzon, Chairman of the Steering
Committee, informed the Chair that the proposed amendment would not be
pursued if its contents and sense will be covered by the other
provisions being discussed on the floor and with that understanding, Mr.
Bengzon withdrew the proposed amendment submitted by Mr. Sarmiento. He
stated that he would not know if Mr. Sarmiento would confirm the
delegated authority he gave to Mr. Bengzon to make that manifestation.
Mr. Maambong further stated that if Mr. Sarmiento disagrees with the
manifestation, he could proceed with his own formulation.

As to what were the provisions that would cover his
proposed amendment, Mrs. Quesada cited Section 7 of the Declaration of
Principles which reads: “The State shall promote a just and dynamic
order that will ensure the prosperity and independence of the nation and
free the people from poverty through policies that provide adequate
social services, promote full employment, a rising standard of living
and improved quality of life for all.” She affirmed that livelihood
projects are already covered by the provisions on the promotion of full
employment, comprehensive rural development, and social justice in all
phases of development.

She added that the State would continue to assist
the ongoing national livelihood projects that are part of the effort to
bring about social justice.

In view of Mrs. Quesada’s explanations,; Mr. Sarmiento withdrew his proposed amendment.

MANIFESTATION OF MRS. ROSARIO BRAID

Thereupon, Mrs. Rosario Braid stated that the
Committee would also withdraw its proposal which was incorporated in the
proposed amendment, on the understanding that medium-scale industries,
productivity and entrepreneurship are also covered by the provisions
cited by Mrs. Quesada.

MANIFESTATION OF MR. RAMA

Thereafter, Mr. Rama stated that there were no more
amendments to be proposed on the Article on Declaration of Principles,
but the voting on Second Reading would be done after a clean draft of
the Article, as amended, shall have been distributed to the Members of
the Commission.

REQUESTS OF MR. TINGSON

Mr. Tingson pointed out that the Body had approved
27 Sections in the Article on Declaration of Principles, and requested
that Proposed Resolution No. 216, authored by Mr. de los Reyes, be
included among the references of the Committee Report.

He also stated that the suggestion of Messrs.
Maambong and Padilla to put subheadings on the principles, policies and
aspirations, had been accepted by the Committee and requested that Mr.
Maambong be the technical assistant to the Committee for the purpose.

APPROVAL OF THE REVISED SECTIONS 1 TO 5 ON ARTS AND CULTURE

Thereupon, Mr. Villacorta invited attention to the
new version of Sections 1 to 5 on Arts and Culture as agreed upon by the
Committee and Mr. Monsod, copies of which were distributed to the
Members of the Commission.

He moved that the Body vote on said revised Sections
1 to 5 on Arts and Culture which were actually amendments to the
Article, to ‘wit:

SECTION 1. THE STATE SHALL FOSTER THE PRESERVATIONS
ENRICHMENT AND DYNAMIC EVOLUTION OF A FILIPINO NATIONAL CULTURE BASED ON
THE PRINCIPLE OF UNITY IN DIVERSITY IN A CLIMATE OF FREE ARTISTIC AND
INTELLECTUAL EXPRESSION.

SECTION 2. ARTS AND LETTERS SHALL ENJOY THE
PATRONAGE OF THE STATE. THE STATE SHALL CONSERVE, PROMOTE AND POPULARIZE
THE NATION’S HISTORICAL AND CULTURAL HERITAGE, ARTISTIC CREATIONS AND
RESOURCES.

SECTION 3. ALL THE COUNTRY’S ARTISTIC AND HISTORIC
WEALTH CONSTITUTES THE CULTURAL TREASURE OF THE NATION AND SHALL BE
UNDER THE PROTECTION OF THE STATE WHICH MAY REGULATE ITS DISPOSITION.

SECTION 4. THE STATE SHALL RECOGNIZE, RESPECT AND
PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS CULTURAL COMMUNITIES TO PRESERVE AND
ENRICH THEIR CULTURES, TRADITIONS AND INSTITUTIONS. IT SHALL CONSIDER
THESE RIGHTS IN THE FORMULATION OF NATIONAL PLANS AND POLICIES.

SECTION 5. (a) THE STATE SHALL ENSURE EQUAL ACCESS
TO CULTURAL OPPORTUNITIES THROUGH THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM, PUBLIC OR
PRIVATE CULTURAL ENTITIES, SCHOLARSHIPS, GRANTS AND OTHER INCENTIVES,
AND COMMUNITY CULTURAL CENTERS AND OTHER PUBLIC VENUES.

(b ) THE STATE SHALL ENCOURAGE AND SUPPORT RESEARCHES AND STUDIES ON THE ARTS AND CULTURE.

In reply to Mr. Maambong’s inquiry, Mr. Villacorta
stated that there were no substantial difference between the formulation
of the provisions on Arts and Culture in the draft that would be
approved on Second Reading and the revised formulation since the
amendments of Mr. Monsod were mostly on matters of style. He also
affirmed that the Committee on Human Resources would allow the Committee
on Sponsorship to renumber all the Sections from Education to Arts and
Culture.

Submitted to a vote, and with 27 Members voting in
favor, and none against, the reformulation of Sections 1 to 5 on Arts
and Culture was approved by the Body.

In reply to Mr. Maambong’s further query, Mr.
Villacorta explained that Section 5(c) of the original provisions on
Arts and Culture was incorporated in reformulated Section 2, so that the
provision on popularization of parks and public venues in the original
draft that would be approved on Second Reading would be deleted.

APPROVAL ON SECOND READING OF THE ARTICLE ON EDUCATION SCIENCE,TECHNOLOGY, SPORTS, ARTS, AND CULTURE

Thereafter, there being no other reservations to
propose amendment, on motion of Mr. Rama, there being no objection, the
Body proceeded to voting on Second Reading, on the Article on Education,
Science, Technology, Sports, Arts and Culture.

Submitted to a vote, and with 32 Members voting in
favor, and none against, the Body approved, on Second Reading, the
Article on Education, Science, Technology, Sports, Arts and Culture.

CONSIDERATION ON SECOND READING OF JOINT COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 39 ON PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 542 ON THE ARTICLE ON FAMILY RIGHTS

Thereafter, on motion of Mr. Rama, there being no
objection, the Body proceeded to the 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.

On request of Mr. Rama, the Chair recognized the Chairmen and Members of the Committees on Social Justice; and Human Resources.

Thereupon, Mrs. Nieva was recognized for the sponsorship.

SPONSORSHIP REMARKS OF MRS. NIEVA

Mrs. Nieva stated that the rights of persons, which
the Constitution protects, have fundamental social dimension in the
institution of the family. She noted that family exists prior to the
State and other communities, and as stated by Pope John Paul II, the
future of humanity passes by way of the family, which possesses inherent
and inalienable rights that are intrinsic to its very existence and
perpetuity.

She observed, however, that while history affirms
the family’s indispensable role as primary educator, economic provider,
cultural mediator and spiritual formator, the rights of the family have
often been ignored and undermined by legal, social and economic
structures and programs of many countries.

But unlike other peoples, she underscored that the
Filipinos are family-centered, which trait has been a real strength of
the nation. She noted the deep concern of Filipino parents for their
children’s welfare, education and future, and in turn, the children take
good care of their elderly parents with personal sacrifice.

She maintained that the family system should be
preserved not only in the country but in all the world, because without
such protection there would be a gradual collapse of the family
considering the various powerful forces in society.

Moreover, she adverted to the new dimension of the
family as an agent of social change and development, and called on the
State to protect such rights of the family in order that it can
cooperate with other families for the defense of its rights and
responsibilities, for the development of society and for the planning,
formulation and implementation of family policies and programs that
affect them.

She stated that the Constitutional Commission should
take advantage of the opportunities to provide in the Constitution
certain safeguards for the inalienable family rights while enhancing its
total development.

She pointed out that since some of the provisions on
the family had already been considered in other Articles, the proposed
Article on Family Rights had been abbreviated. She explained that
Section 1 provides for the promotion of the total development of the
Filipino family; and Section 2, as amended by Mr. Gascon, provides that
the institution of marriage is the foundation of the family, hence, the
protection of the rights of the spouses to found a family, the rights of
the family to a decent living wage, and the right of the elderly to
family care.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. DE CASTRO

In reply to Mr. de Castro’s query on Section 1, Mrs.
Nieva explained that “total development” refers to the social,
economic, spiritual, intellectual and cultural aspects of family life.
She stated that the Committee would, however, welcome any amendment on
the use of the term “actively promote”.

Mr. Gascon also stated that Mr. de Castro’s
suggestion to refer to marriage as a social institution as found in the
Civil Code would be considered in the period of amendments.

On Section 2(g), on the right of the elderly to
family care, Mrs. Nieva pointed out that in Western countries, the
elderly are sent to institutions for the aged because their social and
economic structures do not allow the elderly to be maintained in their
own homes, which practice does not obtain in the Philippines.

Mr. de Castro disclosed that in Switzerland, the
elderly are given some help instead of sending them to homes for the
aged, and their family takes care of them.

On whether the Committee intends that the State
should take care of the elderly, Mrs. Nieva stated that such assistance
would be extended when necessary, for instance, when the family is
financially unable to support them.

Mr. Gascon explained that what the Article would
like to discourage would be the impersonal care given to the elderly in
old folk homes and by their own families.

On the age classification of “elderly”, Mrs. Nieva
explained that the term refers to those who are incapacitated or unable
to support themselves. Additionally, Mr. Gascon explained that “elderly”
refers to persons who are no longer as productive as they used to be
but have the right to care from the family which they had supported.

Mr. de Castro contended that taking care of the
elderly is already a Filipino tradition and, therefore, there is no need
for the provision in the Constitution, to which Mrs. Nieva replied that
the Constitution is for future generations who, because of modern
trends, may take the elderly for granted.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. NOLLEDO

In reply to Mr. Nolledo’s query as to what a
Filipino family is, Mrs. Nieva stated that the Committee has adopted
Article 217 of the New Civil Code as the basic definition thereof. She
also agreed with Mr. Nolledo’s observation that the Committee has
adopted the stipulation in the New Civil Code which directs the State to
defend the rearing of children in accordance with religious convictions
and demands of responsible parenthood.

Additionally, Mr. Gascon stated that it would also
mean that the State shall defend the primary right of the parents to
determine how many children they wish to have, and that there would be
no law authorizing the State to dictate on families how many children
they could have.

On Mr. Nolledo’s query as to the meaning of
children, Mrs. Nieva explained that it refers to legitimate,
legitimated, natural children by legal fiction, acknowledged natural
children and other illegitimate children.

As to the meaning of decent living wage, Mrs. Nieva
explained that it means the employment of at least a member of the
family on a wage that will allow it to live a decent life supplemented
by social service, housing, health, education and other help from the
State.

On Mr. Nolledo’s query whether the Committee is
aware that a minor who is employed by his parents need not be
compensated, Mrs. Nieva stated that what the Committee contemplates is
employment of the child by a third person.

As to how the State could defend the institution of
marriage as the foundation of the family, Mr. Gascon stated that it
could discourage divorce, but what the Committee would want to emphasize
is that those who wish to marry and establish a family have the right
to expect from society the moral, educational, social and economic
conditions that would enable them to exercise their right to marry in
maturity and responsibility.

On whether the provision would outlaw live-in
relationship Mrs. Nieva replied that it certainly does not encourage
such relationship because according to psychologists and educators many
delinquent children who eventually become criminals come from families
or homes which were not stable. Additionally, Mr. Gascon stated that
although the provision does not encourage live-in relationship, it also
acknowledges the fact that some poor people establish families without
marriage but who should not be discriminated.

Mr. Nolledo agreed with Mr. Suarez’ observation that
Article 216 of the New Civil Code is also the thrust of the Family
Rights and that Article 218 of the same Code which provides that “no
custom, practice or agreement which is destructive of the family shall
be recognized or given any effect” can be very effective. However, Mr.
Nolledo stated that this has to be read in the light of the
Constitutional provision which respects indigenous customs and tradition
and the decree of Mr. Marcos recognizing Muslim laws on persons which
allow divorce. With respect to Article 219 thereof, which provides for
mutual aid, both moral and material, to be rendered to members of the
same family, Mr. Nolledo stated that this is covered by Section 2 and,
in the same manner, Articles 220, 222 are also covered.

On whether there is still need for a constitutional
provision despite these provisions of the Civil Code, Mr. Nolledo stated
that the importance of the family as a basic institution must be
underscored and raised to the level of a constitutional provision.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. BERNAS

In reply to Mr. Bernas’ query whether the proposal
of Mr. Gascon means prohibiting a general law on divorce, Mr. Gascon
replied that such is not his intention and that he merely wanted to
encourage the social institution of marriage.

INTERPELLATION OF MRS. QUESADA

In reply to Mrs. Quesada’s query as to how would the
State actively promote the spiritual development of the Filipino
family, Mr. Bacani explained that it could be through education,
specifically through the constitutional provision allowing religious
instruction in public and private schools, and by safeguarding the
freedom of worship and religion.

On Mrs. Quesada’s contention that the State should
not impose on the family how the members should develop spiritually, Mr.
Bacani replied that this is not the intention of the Committee.

As to why the word “defend” was used in Section 2
instead of other words like “promote”, “protect” or “encourage”, Mrs.
Nieva explained that the Section speaks of rights and rights must be
defended. She stated, however, that the Committee would be willing to
consider alternatives at the proper time.

On the reason why the Committee has limited the
right of the spouses to found a family in accordance with their
religious convictions, Mrs. Nieva stated that the Committee would be
willing to accept amendments at the proper time.

As to what assistance could be extended to the
children, Mrs. Nieva explained that this would involve the whole gamut
of social services, education, moral, health, physical, spiritual and
others.

At this juncture, Mr. Bacani informed that one
proposed amendment on the assistance for children reads as follows:
CHILDREN SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO PROPER CARE, NUTRITION, A RELEVANT,
NON-SEXIST AND QUALITY EDUCATION, AS WELL AS PROTECTION FROM
EXPLOITATION AND MENTAL AND PHYSICAL ABUSE.

exploitation, the Body should be more explicit in the kind of assistance that should be extended to the children.

Mr. Villacorta stated that some Members have suggested that “assistance” should be substituted with PROPER CARE AND NUTRITION.

On Mrs. Quesada’s query whether the Committee would
be amenable to including a provision that would liberate the women or
the girls of the family from the bondage of household chores such as
cooking, washing and cleaning, Mr. Bacani stated that the Body has
already approved a provision regarding the fundamental equality between
men and women.

Mrs. Quesada opined that the fundamental equality
between men and women should also apply to all members of the family so
that the boys and the girls would have to share responsibility and learn
the basic things to make the family more cohesive. She added that there
should be reorientation of roles and that she would present an
amendment to that effect.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

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

It was 4:53 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 5:23 p.m., the session was resumed.

Upon resumption of session, Mr. Rama moved that Mr. Tingson be recognized for his interpellation.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. TINGSON

Mr. Tingson suggested that the article be entitled
“Family Rights AND RESPONSIBILITIES” stating that it is necessary to
inculcate into the minds of husbands, wives and other family members
that the enjoyment of rights would be meaningless unless fulfilled with
their respective responsibilities. Mrs. Nieva replied that she has no
objection although it might mean reformulating the whole Section to
include the different responsibilities of the family and that the
Section might then become unwieldy.

Reacting thereto, Mr. Tingson remarked that if it is
the conviction that responsibilities should accompany those rights, the
Article would become more meaningful. Then adverting to the saying “No
success elsewhere could ever compensate for failure at home”, he
inquired whether this is one of the reasons for stating in the Article
that marriage as an institution is the foundation of the family, to
which Mr. Gascon replied that he believes marriage encourages a strong
family, although, there are instances of successful families not founded
on marriage. He concurred with Mr. Tingson’s statement that there is a
lot of merit in developing values and proper family perspectives which
are beneficial to society.

Mr. Tingson observed that the amendment “the
institution of marriage as the foundation of the family” is a positive
suggestion that the family should be based on marriage, to which Mr.
Gascon agreed. Likewise, to his inquiry whether a good marriage is based
on the husband’s and wife’s respect for each other, Mr. Gascon noted
that one of the basic things needed in the development of the family is
love and partnership upon which the success of the family is based, with
proper values encouraged within the home.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. BENNAGEN

In reply to Mr. Bennagen’s inquiry on the
Committee’s understanding of “marriage”, Mrs. Nieva stated that it is
the union of man and woman.

As to whether this would be the same as the folk
norm of “nagsama sila”, Mrs. Nieva stated that the Committee does not
define marriage as a mere agreement between the two spouses without
legal sanction.

On whether marriages which have not gone through
religious or legal rituals would be defended by the State, Mrs. Nieva
replied that “marriage” should be understood in its general sense.

As to whether this would compel all spouses to
undergo a certain legal or religious ritual in lieu of folk ritual in
the concept of “nagsama”, Mrs. Nieva replied that it would not for
purposes of receiving protection from the State.

Mr. Nieva clarified that what the Committee tries to
project is that marriages are founded on full consent of the spouses
and that other cultures which may have other traditional models of
marriage and family life would be respected.

On the meaning of “religious convictions”, Mrs.
Nieva stated, by way of example, that the Catholics do not believe that
the State has the right to dictate the number of children and impose
certain methods to limit such number.

On the question whether “religious convictions”
would include convictions of animists and pantheists, Mrs. Nieva replied
that the State should respect their beliefs provided that they are not
against the law.

On the matter of promoting and defending the family,
Mrs. Nieva stressed that the State should exert efforts to promote or
defend the family in the same manner as in the Social Justice
provisions.

Mr. Bennagen informed that a recent study conducted
by the Communications Research Center headed by Mr. Villegas claims that
the threshold wage of a Metro Manila family is around P5,865 per month.
He noted that the Article does not state that there should only be one
wage earner who should earn enough to maintain the family. To his
inquiry as to what the families earning wages below this level can do in
relation to their claims on the State, Mrs. Nieva answered that the
remunerations are provided in the provisions on labor.

Mr. Bennagen, however, pointed out that this would
differ from labor in the sense that a laborer can claim his right for a
decent family living wage from capital.

Mrs. Nieva stated that what is emphasized is that
families have a right to live decent human lives and that the State
should do everything in its power to help the family achieve this goal.
She noted, however, that there are no sanctions against the State in
case it fails to do so.

On whether the failure of the State to meet the goal
of providing families with a decent family living wage would not set
into motion some kind of revolution of rising expectations, Mrs. Nieva
answered that it shall all depend on what the State has in its power to
provide.

OBSERVATIONS OF MRS. ROSARIO BRAID

Mrs. Rosario Braid prefaced her observation by
stating that a decision has to be made on whether a full Article would
be provided or the provisions would be placed under one of the other
Articles which shall be determined by the kind of amendments made
thereon.

On Section 1, she observed that “total human
development” would mean that the family, as the basic social
institution, would provide the moral and intellectual foundation,
orientation for a fully developed personality and the stronghold of
emotional stabilization, in addition to material and physical needs.

She expressed the hope that, should the provision be
a whole Article, it would look at the values which the people would
like to preserve, re-orient or restructure with reference to such
matters as rigidity in family roles, allowing the school to undertake
the entire socialization process, the closeness of family ties or family
solidarity which at times fosters nepotism in large businesses, and the
value of women in a family life.

Reacting thereto, Mr. Gascon observed that the
family rights issue deserves due recognition, perhaps, through the
institutionalization of an Article on Family Rights. He added that the
Committee recognizes family as a basic social institution.

Mrs. Nieva stated that the Committee would welcome Mrs. Rosario Braid’s suggestions or amendments at the proper time.

REMARKS OF MR. MAAMBONG

Mr. Maambong urged that the Body make sure that the
family rights provisions would not conflict with the Civil Code. On
Section 1, he suggested that “solidarity”, which is the thrust of the
Civil Code provisions, could be incorporated therein.

To underscore his point, he noted that the Civil
Code provides that in violation of the freedom of contract, two married
people cannot enter into a contract for legal separation. They cannot
even dissolve the conjugal partnerships of gains.

He stated that in case of annulment or an action for
legal separation, the fiscal is duty-bound to see to it that there is
no collusion between the parties, which proves that solidarity is the
thrust of the Civil Code.

On Mr. Gascon’s proposed provision making the
institution of marriage as the foundation of the family, Mr. Maambong
pointed out that what the Civil Code defends in Article 52 is marriage
as an inviolable social institution and not the institution of marriage.

He suggested that the provision be reworded.

On Section 2 which provides several rights, he
stated that when there are rights, there are corresponding duties. The
Civil Code, he informed, provides for rights under parental authority
and care and education of the children. He noted that the Body can
particularize the persons duty-bound to be liable for violation of such
rights.

TERMINATION OF THE PERIOD OF SPONSORSHIP AND INTERPELLATIONS

On motion of Mr. Rama, there being no objection, the
Body closed the period of sponsorship and interpellations on the
Article on Family Rights.

ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION

Thereafter, 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 5:44 p.m.

I hereby certify to the correctness of the foregoing.

(SGD.) FLERIDA RUTH P. ROMERO
Secretary-General

ATTESTED:

(SGD.) CECILIA MUÑOZ PALMA
President

Approved on September 25, 1986