JOURNAL NO. 103

Alonto. A. D.	Jamir, A. M. K.
Aquino, F. S.	Padilla. A. B
Azcuna, A. S.	Quesada, M. L. M
Bacani, T. C.	Rama, N. G
Bennagen, P. L	Regalado, F. D
Bernas, J. G.	De los Reyes, R. F
Rosario Braid, F	Rigos, C. A.
Calderon, J. D	Rodrigo, F. A
De Castro, C. M	Suarez, J. E
Colayco, J. C.	Sumulong, L. M
Concepcion, R. R	Tan, C.
Davide, H. G.	Tingson, G. J.
Foz, V. B.	Treñas, E. B
Garcia, E. G.	Uka, L. L
Gascon, J. L. M. C.	Villacorta, W. V.
Guingona, S. V.C	Villegas, B. M.

P.M.

 

Natividad, T. C

Tadeo, J. S. L.

Mrs. Muñoz Palma and Mr. Rosales were sick.

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 RESOLUTION AND COMMUNICATIONS

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

Proposed Resolution Mo. 547, entitled:

RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THANKS AND APPRECIATION TO THE
SECRETARY-GENERAL THE SECRETARIAT, THE TASK FORCE, THE PRESS CORPS, THE
VOLUNTEERS AND THE STAFF OF THE COMMISSIONERS’ OFFICES

Introduced by Hon. Villacorta, Muñoz Palma, Quesada, Maambong,
Lerum, Villegas, Uka, Bernas, Monsod, Bengzon, Jr., Davide, Jr.,
Sarmiento, Rama, Rodrigo, Bennagen, Nolledo, Guingona, Rosario Braid,
Abubakar, Alonto, Aquino, Rigos, Tadeo, Sumulong, Garcia, Natividad,
Nieva, De Castro, Jamir, Tingson, Bacani, Suarez, Treñas, Romulo,
Padilla, Regalado and Concepcion.

TO THE STEERING COMMITTEE

COMMUNICATIONS

Communication No. 1079 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Communication from Ms. Edna S. Galia, transmitting Resolution No.
82, series of 1986, adopted by the Sangguniang Bayan of Catarman, Samar,
requesting the Constitutional Commission to amend the draft
Constitution to grant autonomous government to Muslim Filipinos in
provinces and or islands of Mindanao where the greater majority or all
of the inhabitants thereof are Muslim Filipinos only

TO THE COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

Communication No. 1080 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Mr. Ciriaco Puson of Bakilid, Mandaue City, expressing opposition to any move to change the barangay system

TO THE COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

Communication No. 1081 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Communication from Mr. Silverio P. Alarcio of Laoac, Pangasinan,
seeking inclusion in the Constitution of a provision providing for free
elementary, secondary and college education

TO THE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

Communication No. 1082 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Mr. Teodoro C. Garcia of 481 Tiong St., Manaoag,
Pangasinan, expressing his views concerning the presence of foreign
bases in the country

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

Communication No. 1083 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Mr. Florencio B. Abad of 41-B Purdue St., Cubao,
Quezon City, transmitting a resolution adopted by the Lakas ng
Sambayanan of which he is the chairperson, supporting the proposal for
selective objection in the ratification of the proposed constitution

TO THE COMMITTEE ON AMENDMENTS AND TRANSITORY PROVISIONS

Communication No. 1084-Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Mr. Regner R. Ramirez of the National Manpower and
Youth Council, expressing his views and suggestions on a number of
issues related to constitution-making

TO THE STEERING COMMITTEE

Communication No. 1085 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Mr. Senador L. Zamora, transmitting Resolution No.
37-86 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Davao Oriental, requesting the
allocation of two (2) congressional seats for the Province of Davao
Oriental

TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE

Communication No. 1986 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Mr. Emmanuel V. de Ocampo, President, Veterans
Federation of the Philippines, Arroceros Street, Manila, expressing deep
and sincere gratitude for the inclusion of Section 4 of the Article on
General Provisions of the proposed Constitution

TO THE ARCHIVES

MOTION OF MR. TINGSON ON RESOLUTION NO. 547

On motion of Mr. Tingson, there being no objection, Resolution No.
547, entitled “Expressing thanks and appreciation to the
Secretary-General, the Secretariat, the Task Force, the Press Corps, the
volunteers and the staff of the Commissioners’ Offices” was unanimously
signed by all the Members of the Commission.

Upon inquiry of the Chair, Mr. Rama informed that copies of the
said Resolution have been furnished the Members of the Commission.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS: CONTINUATION OF CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 40 ON PETITION NO. 3

On motion of Mr. Rama, there being no objection, the Body resumed
consideration of Committee Report No. 40 on Petition No. 3 prepared by
the Steering Committee, entitled:

AN URGENT, PETITION TO REOPEN SECTIONS 5 AND 11 OF THE ARTICLE ON THE LEGISLATIVE POWER

Thereupon, the Chair recognized Mr. Davide, Chairman of the Committee on the Legislative Department.

THE PARLIAMENTARY SITUATION

Mr. Davide stated that the parliamentary situation called for the
consideration of Section 5, paragraph 3 of the Article on the
Legislative Department which reads as follows:

EACH LEGISLATIVE DISTRICT SHALL COMPRISE AS FAR AS PRACTICABLE,
CONTIGUOUS COMPACT, AND ADJACENT TERRITORY. EACH CITY WITH A POPULATION
OF AT LEAST TWO HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND, OR EACH PROVINCE SHALL HAVE AT
LEAST ONE REPRESENTATIVE.

He stated that the only amendment is the inclusion of the word
“fifty” thereby increasing the population requirement for cities to be
entitled to separate representation from the original 200,000 to
250,000. He explained that the original proposal of 200,000 would result
in the over-representation of cities and the under-representation of
provinces in which such cities are located as the ratio for the
provinces shall be 1 seat for every 400,000 population.

He then moved for the approval of paragraph 3 which, there being no objection, was approved by the Body.

The Body then proceeded to consider paragraph 4, which reads:

FOR THE FIRST ELECTION UNDER THIS CONSTITUTION, THE MEMBERSHIP OF
AND THE CONSTITUENCIES FOR THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, OTHER THAN
THOSE FOR THE PARTY-LIST, SHALL BE THE SAME AS THAT PROVIDED FOR IN THE
ORDINANCE GOVERNING THE PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION IN 1984.

INQUIRY OF MR. DE CASTRO

Mr. de Castro stated that he had just received a copy of the
COMELEC report dated July 28, 1986 on the redistricting of the
Philippines.

Mr. de Castro noted that the Body just approved paragraph 3 which
states that the legislative districts shall comprise as far as
practicable, contiguous, compact and adjacent territory.

Upon inquiry, Mr. Davide affirmed that he has a copy of the
COMELEC report which contains the proposed apportionment of
Congressional districts to which many provinces and sectors protested.

Mr. de Castro adverted to the 6th paragraph of the report to wit:

“. . . that there are provinces which, although no change was
necessary in the number of legislative districts because of population
limitation, had to be subjected to a regrouping of municipalities in
order to satisfy the standards of compactness, contiguity and
adjacentness”,

referring to the provinces of Capiz, Iloilo, Bohol and Sorsogon which complained to the Committee.

Mr. Davide replied that there are other provinces which complained
and that Appendix A (R-22) of the report contains the list of provinces
without changes while Appendix B contains the list of provinces with
changes.

On whether the redistricting in the said report meets the
standards of compactness, contiguity and adjacentness, Mr. Davide noted
that it may, since COMELEC based it on the configuration of the
provinces.

On the observation that a candidate for Congress in this case
would have difficulty crossing the river to reach other municipalities,
Mr. Davide remarked that since many candidates would run for seats they
could probably divide the province into portions which they will
represent. He stated that in Cebu, which is entitled to six
representatives, as a political strategy, the party or organization
shall see to it that the six candidates represent different areas and
not merely candidates represent different areas and not merely one area
of the province.

Mr. de Castro then inquired whether under such a strategy it would
be possible for a candidate to win even without meeting the people whom
he shall represent, to which Mr. Davide replied that-for a candidate to
win he must reach every nook and cranny of his province. Also a matter
to be considered, he added, is the people’s accessibility.

Adverting to a portion of the COMELEC report which states: “We are
prepared with statistics to support the above apportionment plan and we
would appreciate any opportunity that will be given the technical staff
that prepared this plan to explain its position and justify its
proposal”, Mr. de Castro inquired whether the technical staff was
consulted.

Replying thereto, Mr. Davide informed that the technical staff was
consulted several times and its explanations, more particularly by
Director Vicente de Lima, enabled the Committee to reach its
conclusions. Further, he stated that political and sectoral leaders of
the different areas found out that the districting of the provinces
resulted in many difficulties such as the difficulty of a candidate in
going from one end to the other, the difficulty of allotting seats to
provinces, when municipalities had to be realigned, owing to the
traditional sense of belongingness to a specific area. He cited Iloilo
as the best example, noting that Guimaras, while technically closely
associated with the third district, was placed in the second district
because of proximity although it is not easy to reach Guimaras from the
latter district.

Upon inquiry, Mr. Davide affirmed that in paragraph 5, Congress
would be mandated to make an apportionment of legislative districts. He
manifested his optimism that the First Congress would have ample time to
make the apportionment and opined that it would be in a better position
to determine the physical condition of the provinces and to delineate
the different areas to comprise a district.

In answer to Mr. de Castro’s inquiry as to whether the COMELEC may
do the redistricting, Mr. Davide noted that the Commission can only
include in the ordinance the number of seats for every province and
leave the rest to the COMELEC. He cautioned, however, that the COMELEC
might not be able to attend to its business properly if it has to do the
redistricting before the election.

Mr. Davide pointed out that the First Congress would have five years to do the apportionment.

Mr. de Castro observed that election by province would entail
expenses to the candidates who would have to travel all over the
province and that a poor candidate might not have any chance of being
elected. He opposed the idea on the ground that the representatives,
elected province-wide are seldom seen by the people whom they are
supposed to represent and that it breeds political warlordism.

Mr. Davide, on the other hand, manifested that political
warlordism will thrive if elections are done by districts. He stated
that a political warlord would not be able to control an entire province
and that a poor candidate has a better chance to be elected in an
election by province.

INQUIRY OF MR. RODRIGO

Upon inquiry of Mr. Rodrigo, Mr. Davide affirmed that the general
and permanent rule on the manner of electing Members of the Lower House
is contained in Section 5, paragraphs 1), 2) and 3), which paragraphs
state that the Members of the Lower House shall be elected by districts.
He also affirmed that the additional Section 4 is designed to be an
exception to the rule and is applicable only to the first election to be
held after the Constitution’s ratification.

As to how the Members of the House of Representatives would be
elected in the first congressional election after ratification of the
Constitution if an additional section has not been added to the article,
Mr. Davide stated that until the President enacts an apportionment law,
there would be no basis for election for Members of the Lower House.

Mr. Davide agreed that the President, under the Freedom
Constitution, would continue to have legislative powers even after the
ratification of the Constitution but before the convening of Congress
and can decide how the Members of the House of Representatives would be
elected in the first election after such ratification. He stated that
while the Commission had fixed the date of the congressional election
for the second Monday of May 1987, there is still need for a law for
such election. He affirmed that for the moment, it is only the President
who may enact a law for the purpose. However, the President may avail
of the services of the COMELEC.

INQUIRY OF MR. SUAREZ

In reply to Mr. Suarez’ query, Mr. Davide admitted the possibility
that all Representatives from a province would come from only one
municipality, although he opined that this would be poor strategy. He
inquired whether the Committee would entertain an amendment to prevent
such possibility, to which Mr. Davide replied that he would be willing
to consider such amendment.

With respect to the original proposal redistricting the
congressional districts, Mr. Davide affirmed that he had received
several protests and objections to it from the provinces. He pointed
out, however, that the redistricting scheme was submitted by the COMELEC
upon request of the Committee because it does not have the necessary
facilities to determine, among others, the new municipalities that had
been established from 1979 up to the dissolution of the regular Batasang
Pambansa.

On whether the COMELEC has time to conduct public hearings before
the congressional elections on May 11, 1987 should the Commission opt to
retain the original proposal, Mr. Davide opined that the COMELEC would
not have such time considering that it would have to attend to the
relisting, the plebiscite and preparations for the elections, which is
why he was suggesting to suspend implementation of the plan to have
elections on the district level. He maintained that the COMELEC or the
First Congress would have sufficient time to iron out all problems
connected with the plan.

INQUIRY OF MS. AQUINO

In reply to Ms. Aquino’s query as to how the proposal would affect
the problem of warlordism and the spoils system, Mr. Davide stated that
experience showed that warlordism thrived better in a smaller
constituency like the district rather than in a larger one like the
province. He also contended that the spoils system would be minimized in
a province-wide election because the people would have several choices
which discourage personal relationship between leader and constituency.

Mr. Davide, likewise, pointed out that it would be less expensive
for a candidate to run in a province than in a district where he has to
pamper the electorate. He stressed that a less expensive election
contributes more to the sanctity of the public office than one conducted
on a personalized basis.

Finally, he stressed that the proposal could put an end to
fratricidal wars because the people would look to the representative as
one who represents everybody in the whole province which, would in turn,
imbue him with a broader perspective rather than a parochial outlook
within the confines of a few municipalities. He maintained that with
political leaders who are more sensitive and responsive to the temper of
the people, the proposal would make a better-run society.

INQUIRY OF MR. RIGOS

In reply to Mr. Rigos’ query why the approved provision on the
election of members of Congress is by district if indeed election by
province is better, Mr. Davide stated that with the new Constitution,
the country’s electorate would develop, in the long run, a new sense of
responsibility which would outgrow their old sense of traditional and
political attachment and thus enable them to respond to the demands of
nation-building.

Mr. Rigos informed that in a series of meetings held by the
provincial governors, the consensus was that they would request the
President to have the election of Members of Congress by district and
that said governors are scheduled to meet with the President to present
their resolution.

INQUIRY OF MRS. QUESADA

In reply to Mrs. Quesada’s query on the assurance that after five
years the decision would still be a reapportionment by legislative
districts, Mr. Davide stated, firstly, that Section 5(4) provides for a
mandate to the First Congress to apportion the seats into legislative
districts; secondly, he foresees a Congress that would not be
politicking but one attuned to the mandate of a new order; and lastly,
that there would be adequate public hearings once Congress considers the
apportionment measure to ensure a more equitable distribution or
allocation of seats.

INQUIRY OF MR. TINGSON

In reply to Mr. Tingson’s query, Mr. Davide affirmed that the
issue is relevant only to the first election because the succeeding
elections would be by district.

Specifically, adverting to his province of Negros Occidental, Mr.
Tingson observed that an election by province would not benefit his
province because it is so large that not one of the Congressmen would be
able to adequately attend to all the needs of his constituents to which
Mr. Davide replied that a governor is elected at large, yet he is able
to attend to the needs of the entire province. He stated that it is only
a question of dedication, loyalty and devotion to public service on the
part of the candidates.

He affirmed, however, that for the succeeding elections, he would
be in favor of election by district, pointing out that it was in fact
the original wording of the provision, although the Commission would
have some difficulty in apportioning the district seats.

INQUIRY OF MS. TAN

Ms. Tan observed that one of the drawbacks of the political system
is that the people vote on the basis of personality rather than on
issues. She opined, however, that if elections were held by districts
the people would get to know the candidates more intimately, including
their motivations, excesses and weaknesses so that in the final
analysis, they would be voting not on the basis of personalities but
more on issues.

Responding thereto, Mr. Davide stated that the votes in an
election by province would not be on personalities because the
relationship is not very personal. He opined that the more capable
candidate has more chances of winning a province-wide election, to which
Ms. Tan replied that it is the candidate with more money who has more
chances of winning. Mr. Davide maintained, however, that it would even
be less expensive if the constituency is bigger.

INQUIRY OF MR. DE CASTRO

In reply to Mr. de Castro’s query on the rationale for allowing
election by legislative districts after the First Congress if indeed
election by province would be far more advantageous, Mr. Davide stated
that the Committee merely wanted to provide for a transition because a
new breed of politicians is expected.

INQUIRY OF MR. ALONTO

In reply to Mr. Alonto’s query, Mr. Davide affirmed that the first
election for Congressman would be in accordance with the 1984 Ordinance
appended to the 1973 Constitution.

As to how many legislative districts would Sulu now have under the
scheme that the Committee proposes, Mr. Davide stated that for the
first election, Sulu, with a projected population of 403,556 as of 1986,
would only have one because the constant is 400,000. He pointed out
that in the COMELEC plan, it is supposed to be two with one district
having a population of only 175,810 and the other with a population of
227,746. He explained that the second election in 1992 would already be
by district and Sulu, with the increase in its population, may even have
three districts. However, for the first election, he stated that the
province of Sulu would only have one seat.

Mr. Alonto opined that there must be some kind of scheme by which
Sulu could have two representatives because the Muslim areas are the
most under-represented in Congress. With respect to the province of
Lanao del Norte, he recalled that in the 1984 parliamentary elections,
the province was allotted one congressional seat while Iligan City was
disqualified, hence Lanao del Norte with Iligan City only had one
congressional seat.

In reply, Mr. Davide assured that Lanao del Norte, including
Iligan City, would not lose a seat in the sense that even under the
COMELEC proposal and the ordinance appended to the 1973 Constitution
both would have a separate seat. He stated that technically, should
paragraphs 2 and 3 of Section 5 be adopted, Iligan City with a
population of less than 250,000 would be disqualified from having a
congressional seat because it would have to be merged with other
municipalities in Lanao del Norte but if the 1984 ordinance is followed,
Lanao del Norte, as a province, and Iligan City would each have one
seat.

INQUIRY OF MR. GARCIA

Mr. Garcia stated that he could not quite understand the drift of
the arguments of the proponents of Subsections 4 and 5 in the light of
the admission that they are for legislative districts because of their
accountability and responsiveness to the people and yet in Subsection 4,
they are proposing a self-defeating transition. He stated that he could
not believe that the First Congress, empowered to subdivide the
political units into districts, would themselves not be tempted to
create fiefdoms. He opined that even if the Filipino may have been
transformed after the February Revolution, there must be an independent
structure that would create more responsive and accountable
representatives of the people. He stated that if the problem is the
practical difficulty and complexity of redistricting, he would propose
that an independent Constitutional Commission should be allowed to
provide for it in order to ensure that this process would be insulated
from politicians and at the same time provide the First Congress the
time and the expertise to be able to effect a redistricting that would
govern the succeeding congressional elections.

In reply, Mr. Davide stated that it is one alternative which he
would welcome at the proper time, the other alternative being that the
President herself, by law, would do it.

Mr. Garcia opined that the advantage of the COMELEC is that it is
an independent constitutional commission which could not be subject to
political pressures, to which Mr. Davide reiterated that he would
welcome the proposal for amendment.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. VILLACORTA

Relative to the arguments advanced by Mr. Davide that political
warlordism would be minimized through provincial representation but that
his preference and that of the Committee is district representation on
the belief that after the EDSA Revolution there would be a new breed of
Filipinos who would vote based on issues and not on personalities, Mr.
Villacorta raised the following questions: 1) on whether the problems of
certain districts are more the exceptions than the rule and if so,
whether the COMELEC, during the remaining seven months, could solve the
problems and come up with a rectified list of districts; and 2) how
valid is the claim that political warlordism would prevail more in
district representation on which he would like to hear the opinion of
seasoned politicians who are members of the Commission. Mr. Villacorta
opined that Congressmen should be elected by district because
representation from a smaller political base is more in line with the
principle of democratization and decentralization which are the thrusts
of the present government.

Replying thereto, Mr. Davide stated that he had already expressed
his views in favor of election by district but for purposes of the first
election, there should be some sort of a transition by allowing
representation to the First Congress on the basis of the ordinance which
governed the elections of Members of the Regular Batasang Pambansa in
the 1984 election. As to whether district representation would
perpetuate warlordism, he likewise stated that he had already expressed
his views on it. He opined that it is a matter of record that Cebu is
not the only exception.

Mr. Villacorta then asked for the opinion of other veteran
politicians in the Commission, to which Mr. Davide replied that any
further discussion on the matter would again lead to a discussion on the
merits. He stressed that the proposal is only to provide a sort of
transition in the sense that provincial and city representation would
only govern the first election after which there would be district
representation. He pointed out that it is no longer appropriate to
discuss the merits or demerits of the district scheme because the
general rule is representation by legislative districts.

Mr. Villacorta pointed out that the term of the First Congress
would be five years during which period the first set of elected
representatives would be able to entrench themselves in power. He
disagreed with Mr. Davide that the issue of political warlordism and
whether it is possible for a poor man to win an election are irrelevant
topics. He opined that these are fundamental issues for discussion even
if the matter on hand is about a transitory period.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. DE LOS REYES

In reply to Mr. de los Reyes’ query, Mr. Davide clarified that
although he is in favor of representation by district, he is proposing
that the first Congressional election should be by province and to leave
the redistricting to Congress.

Mr. de los Reyes asked whether this would not amount to passing
the buck when the Body could already make the apportionment on the basis
of the COMELEC recommendation. He inquired whether provincial
representation is being proposed because many politicians are against
the manner of redistricting and that they are threatening to campaign
against the ratification of the Constitution.

Reacting thereto, Mr. Davide stated that it is not only the
politicians who are complaining but organizations and private
individuals are also making counter-proposals. He denied that this would
be passing the buck because in the matter of apportionment, aside from
lack of time, it would be unfair to the other areas to just confront
them with an apportionment. He disclosed that the principal reason is
that if the Body insists on the COMELEC proposal despite the
counterproposals and protests of many, it might only provide the
widening of an area for possible rejection not only of the ordinance but
also the main Constitution itself.

With respect to the COMELEC recommendation, Mr. Davide admitted
that on the basis of the map of every province, the allocation is very
beautiful but even then, problems may still arise.

Mr. de los Reyes maintained that even on the assumption that the
apportionment may not be perfect, it could be remedied by a provision
that within three years following the return of every census, Congress
shall make a reapportionment of legislative districts based on the
standards provided in the provision. He argued that the Commission
should start on the right footing if the consensus is that district
representation is better than provincial representation.

In reply, Mr. Davide reiterated that the proposal is really a
transition for the first election and thereafter, the election would be
by district.

Mr. de los Reyes stated that even on a transition basis, it should
be by district and while the redistricting may not be perfect, the
future Congress can make a reapportionment within three years following
the return of every census. He pointed out that the bicameral system was
adopted on the assumption that Members of the House of Representatives
would be elected by district because provincial election is more
suitable for a unicameral system. He stated that for a starting
politician who has no organization, it is better to have it by district
because he would have more time to get in contact with the people. He
opined that election by district is better if the intent is to bring the
government closer to the people.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. MAAMBONG

In reply to Mr. Maambong’s queries, Mr. Davide affirmed that the
purpose of the amendment is only to comply with an urgent matter because
the Commission as a whole and the Committee do not have the facilities
nor the time to go into districting. He stated that the actual
apportionment into legislative districts shall have to be undertaken
during the first term of the First Congress.

On whether his opinion on election by province was influenced by
his victory in the 1978 parliamentary elections which was conducted on a
regional basis, Mr. Davide replied in the negative and urged everyone
to be pragmatic about it. He warned that the Body cannot afford to
create more grounds for opposition and a controversial ordinance might
only endanger the ratification of the entire Constitution.

On whether he personally favors election by province even after
the election of the First Congress, Mr. Davide stated that he is in
favor of election by district but he could sacrifice the first term. He
affirmed that the first elected Congressmen with a term of five years
could still run for reelection for two more terms because the basis is
the running for reelection and not the change in constituency.

With respect to the telegrams sent by former Assemblymen Diaz and
Llaguno indicating that the Commission might be guilty of
gerrymandering, Mr. Davide stated that they are only two of the many
protests which the Committee received and that this is one of the
reasons for the urgency of the proposed amendment.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. PADILLA

In reply to Mr. Padilla’s queries, Mr. Davide confirmed that
before martial law the Members of the House of Representatives were
elected by congressional districts and that in the 1978 Batasan
elections, the members were elected by regions. With respect to the
Ordinance governing the 1984 parliamentary election which was adopted by
the proposed amendment, he affirmed that the election was by province
and by city.

Mr. Padilla recalled that the Kilusang Bagong Lipunan under the
deposed President wanted election by region but considering the very
strong clamor for election by congressional districts, the election by
province and city was held as a compromise in order to partially appease
the opposition against the election by regions.

In reply, Mr. Davide stated that the statement was historically
correct. However, he disclosed that during the interim Batasan, of which
he was a member, the ruling party at that time was not originally for
election by region because they felt that they could not win in an
election by region so what came out as a compromise was an election by
province and city.

On whether it would be reasonable to expect that the congressional
districts adopted before martial law could be updated by the COMELEC.
Mr. Davide stated that the COMELEC, in fact, had already presented to
the Commission an apportionment plan which, he believed, was well done
although one can expect complaints. He explained that under the proposed
amendment, the 1984 Ordinance would be followed and thereafter the
First Congress would be allowed to adopt a redistricting for
congressional districts.

On Mr. Padilla’s observation that there would still be some
objections when the First Congress adopts a redistricting measure since
it may suit it to the individual preferences of its Members, so that the
matter has to be left to the COMELEC which is a constitutional body
that is less influenced by personal or party considerations, Mr. Davide
stated that he would welcome the proposal to vest upon the COMELEC the
authority to reapportion the seats in accordance with the standards
provided in Section 5 of the Article on Legislative Power, which
substitute proposal was presented by Messrs. Sarmiento, Garcia, Rama,
Monsod, Bernas and others.

Mr. Padilla added that such apportionment by the COMELEC may always be subject to improvement by Congress.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

At this juncture, the Chair suspended the session.

It was 11:39 a.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 11:51 a.m., the session was resumed.

PRIVILEGED MOTION OF MR. DAVIDE

Upon resumption of session, Mr. Davide moved that the Body decide
whether it would attach an ordinance to the Constitution allocating the
seats of the Lower House to the legislative districts or whether the
COMELEC would be mandated to make the apportionment.

REMARKS OF MR. DE CASTRO

Mr. de Castro manifested that he would rather not append such
apportionment of seats to the Constitution because the COMELEC has
already prepared a report on the congressional districts and it would
only need some time to perfect said report.

REMARKS OF MR. BENGZON

Mr. Bengzon, however, opined that the reapportionment should be
done by the Constitutional Commission because it requires a legislative
fiat. He added that the Committee on the Legislative was not adopting
the entire report of the COMELEC although it was the basis of the
Committee proposal. He stated that the Committee was maintaining its
original decision of election of Congressmen by district, the details of
which will be appended to the Constitution.

MANIFESTATION OF MR. MONSOD

Thereupon, Mr. Monsod stated that although the Body had previously
voted in favor of election by district after a lengthy debate on its
merits as against election by province, there was a recent survey on the
same question, and it would only be proper for the Body to first get a
consensus on the matter in order to erase any doubt on the real intent
of the Commission, before deciding who will make the reapportionment.

REMARKS OF MR. RODRIGO

Reacting to Mr. Bengzon’s remarks, Mr. Rodrigo stated that he was
not yet ready to accept the Committee’s proposal because he had no basis
for a decision on the matter. He added that since there were only a few
days left before adjournment of the Constitutional Commission, the
matter should be left to the COMELEC which is an independent body.

REMARKS OF MR. GUINGONA

Mr. Guingona likewise expressed his apprehension on Mr. Bengzon’s
proposal because it would be unfair and dangerous to append an ordinance
which had not been fully studied and deliberated upon by the Body.

INQUIRY OF MR. GASCON

In reply to Mr. Gascon’s query in relation to Mr. Monsod’s earlier
suggestion to first decide on whether the Body would opt for district
or provincial representation in the First Congress, the latter explained
that he was not only seeking the Body’s decision on the manner of
representation in the First Congress but in all Congresses.

Mr. Monsod stated that his suggestion was based on the observation
that some Members advocating district representation were agreeable to
provincial representation in the First Congress. He underscored the need
to first know the real sense of the Commission on the matter.

POINT OF ORDER OF MR. BENGZON

At this juncture, Mr. Bengzon raised a point of order, stating
that the discussion on district or provincial representation would
necessarily reopen Section 5 of the Article on Legislative Power, which
would require suspension of the Rules.

In reply thereto, Mr. Monsod stated that the Body can decide on the matter without invoking technicality.

Mr. Bengzon clarified that he was not against Mr. Monsod’s
suggestion but he was only informing the Body on the proper procedure.

Mr. Ople expressed support for Mr. Monsod’s suggestion, stating
that the Body may discuss the matter without reopening Section 5 of the
Article if only to have a balanced judgment on the question.

Mr. Bengzon, however, maintained that the discussion on the merits
of district or provincial representation would effect the reopening of
Section 5.

Mr. Monsod opined that the Rules would have to be suspended to
reopen Section 5 only when the Body decides on provincial
representation, but when it affirms it original decision to have
district representation, the Rules does not have to be suspended to
reopen Section 5.

Mr. Bernas stated that it is not just a matter of technicality but
a dangerous precedent that sets aside the regular procedure provided
for in the Rules.

COMMENTS OF MR. DE CASTRO

Mr. de Castro pointed out that it would not be necessary to further
discuss the issue of legislative representation because the Body had
already voted in favor of election by districts during the

deliberations on Section 5, but the question before the Body was
whether the First Congress would also have district representation as
proposed by the Committee as an amendment to Section 5(4).

He moved that the Body proceed with the amendments.

The Chair stated that there was a pending motion because of which
Mr. de Castro could not present any other motion. Mr. de Castro,
however, replied that it was the previous motion that was out of order
because the Body had already decided on the election of Congressmen by
districts.

INQUIRY OF THE CHAIR

In reply to the Chair’s query on how the discussion on the
legislative representation would affect Section 5, Mr. Bengzon explained
that Section 5(1) had already provided that the Members of the House of
Representatives would be elected by district. He stated that although
the amendment of Mr. Davide was only to have the election of the Members
of the First Congress by province, the suggestion of other Members to
provide for provincial representation would be contrary to the
provisions of Section 5, thus the need for its reopening.

The Chair pointed out that since Section 5(1) requires the
election of the Members of the House of Representatives by legislative
district, the proposed amendment of Mr. Davide would not really infringe
on it.

Mr. Monsod contended that while the “whereas” clause of Petition
No. 3 introduced by the Committee on the Legislative speaks of “a clamor
to reassess the manner of representation and to consider the possible
change from representation by legislative district to representation by
province”, it does not state that the election of the Members of the
House of Representatives by province would only be for the First
Congress. He opined that the “whereas” clauses raised the issue of
whether the Body should consider election by province or by legislative
district.

POINT OF ORDER OF MR. BERNAS

At this juncture, Mr. Bernas raised a point of order on the ground
that Mr. Monsod proposed to consider not just the manner of
representation in the first Congress but all succeeding Congresses. He
maintained that the reopening of the manner of representation after the
first Congress would require suspension of the Rules.

Additionally, Mr. Bengzon pointed out that during the previous
session, the Body had already considered and voted upon Section 5(1). He
stated that the Section had already been reopened, discussed and
approved by the Body and that Mr. Monsod would like to reopen it again
to allow the election of the Members of the House of Representatives by
province as a permanent arrangement.

Mr. Monsod maintained that the Body is still considering Section 5
and what is merely needed is a motion to reconsider and not a motion
for suspension of the Rules.

Mr. de Castro observed that although the “whereas” clauses in
Petition No. 3 submitted by the Committee on the Legislative are broad,
the proposed amendment thereto is specific in that it only seeks the
election by province of the Congressmen for the First Congress, hence
there is no need for reopening the whole Section 5.

Mr. Gascon opined that Mr. Monsod’s proposal is out of order
unless another motion for suspension of the Rules is presented inasmuch
as it was the agreement during the previous session that the Body would
only consider the proposals submitted by the Committee on the
Legislative.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

At this juncture, the Chair suspended the session.

It was 12:13 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 12:18 p.m., the session was resumed.

Upon resumption of session, Mr. Davide stated that several Members
are prepared to submit amendments to the proposed paragraphs 4) and 5).
He then asked whether the Body is in the period of amendments.

At this juncture, Mr. Bengzon withdrew his point of order.

Thereupon, Mr. Monsod manifested the agreement that the Body would
first consider the manner of representation for the Members of the
House of Representatives and should the Body opt for representation by
legislative district he would then withdraw his motion but should the
Body opt for representation by province he would then ask for the
reopening of the section to pave the way for a proposal that it be made a
permanent feature of the Constitution.

MOTION OF MR. DAVIDE

Thereupon, Mr. Davide moved that the Members of the first House of Representatives be elected by province or city.

In reply to Mr. Rodrigo’s query as to how the Members of the lower
House would be elected if the Section would not be reopened, Mr. Davide
replied that they would be elected by legislative districts, in which
case, the problem would be as to who would make the apportionment.

Mr. Rodrigo stated that approval of the motion would require two-thirds vote, to which Mr: Davide agreed.

On Mr. Romulo’s query as to how the Members of the House of
Representatives would be elected by province or city, Mr. Davide
explained that the Body would adopt the ordinance which governed the
parliamentary election of 1984.

Mr. Romulo then queried as to how the provinces could be
redistricted if the first motion would not be approved, to which Mr.
Davide replied that the Body could choose one of three options, namely:
1) the President could do it by law; 2) the Body could mandate the
COMELEC to do it; and 3) the Body itself could do it by way of an
ordinance to be appended to the Constitution.

Mr. Romulo stated that those three choices should be settled
first, otherwise, a prejudicial question may arise since a Member may
only vote for representation by province if the manner of redistricting
is not to his liking.

Mr. Bernas stated that as pointed out by Mr. Rodrigo the present
provision provides for representation by district and, therefore, a
decision as to how these districts would be divided and who would divide
them would foreclose the possibility of representation by province. He
suggested that Mr. Davide’s motion be decided first.

Mr. Bengzon concurred.

Mr. Davide pointed out that Mr. Romulo has a pending question.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

At 3:04 p.m., the session was resumed.

RESOLUTION NO. 547 RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THANKS AND APPRECIATION
TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, THE SECRETARIAT, THE TASK FORCE, THE PRESS
CORPS, THE VOLUNTEERS AND THE STAFF OF THE COMMISSIONERS’ OFFICES

On motion of Mr. Villacorta, there being no objection, the Body unanimously approved Resolution No. 547, which reads:

RESOLUTION EXPRESSING THANKS AND APPRECIATION TO THE
SECRETARY-GENERAL, THE SECRETARIAT, THE TASK FORCE, THE PRESS CORPS, THE
VOLUNTEERS AND THE STAFF OF THE COMMISSIONERS’ OFFICES

Whereas the Constitutional Commission of 1986 would not have
effectively accomplished its important task without the efficient,
whole-hearted and dedicated service of the Secretariat, the Task Force,
the Volunteers and the Staff of the Commissioners’ Offices;

Whereas, the Press Corps was admirably committed in its coverage
of the Constitutional Commission and in bringing the updated results of
the Commission’s deliberations to the public;

Whereas, the Secretariat, under the leadership of Prof. Flerida
Ruth P. Romero, and Mr. Roberto P. Nazareno and the Task Force under its
Administrator, Mr. Roberto San Andres, have selflessly worked for
twelve hours or more everyday, including Saturdays and during the public
hearings, including Sundays, in servicing the needs of the
Constitutional Commission;

Be it resolved, therefore: That the Members of the Constitutional
Commission manifest their sincerest appreciation and gratitude to
Secretary-General Flerida Ruth P. Romero, Mr. Roberto Nazareno and Task
Force Administrator, Mr. Roberto San Andres, and the Secretariat, the
Task Force, the Press Corps, the Volunteers and the Staff of the
Commissioners’ Offices for their invaluable cooperation with the
Constitutional Commission and service to the Filipino people.

He stated that the Resolution was signed by the forty-seven Members of the Constitutional Commission.

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING COMMISSIONER DECOROSO ROSALES TO CAST HIS
VOTE ON THE FINAL DRAFT OF THE NEW CONSTITUTION AND CREATING A SPECIAL
COMMITTEE TO WITNESS HIS VOTING

On motion of Mr. Bengzon, there being no objection, the Body approved the following Resolution:

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING COMMISSIONER DECOROSO ROSALES, WHO IS AT
PRESENT SERIOUSLY ILL, TO CAST HIS VOTE WHEREVER HE MAY BE, BY HIS
SIGNATURE OR THUMBMARK ON THE CONSIDERATION OF THE FINAL DRAFT OF THE
NEW CONSTITUTION, AND CREATING A SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO WITNESS HIS
VOTING.

WHEREAS, Commissioner Decoroso Rosales a Member of the
Constitutional Commission of 1986, has been suffering from a serious
ailment for the last two months;

WHEREAS, during the past few weeks, his condition became serious;

WHEREAS, at present, he is confined at St. Luke’s Hospital, Quezon
City, thereby preventing him from attending the sessions of the
Commission;

WHEREAS, the final draft of the new Constitution is about to be
completed, and the approval of the same by the Commissioners will
follow;

WHEREAS, due to his predicament, he may not be able to attend the
session when the consideration of the final draft will be made which is a
very momentous event; Now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED BY THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION, to authorize, as it
hereby authorizes, Commissioner Decoroso Rosales, to cast his vote
wherever he may be by his signature or thumbmark on the consideration of
the final draft of the new Constitution, and creating a special
Committee to witness his voting.

Mr. Bengzon stated that the Resolution was signed by Messrs: Rama,
Padilla, Uka, Laurel, Rodrigo, Jamir, Rigos, Bengzon, Romulo, Calderon,
Monsod, Mrs. Cecilia Muñoz Palma, Messrs. Sumulong, Colayco, Treñas,
Alonto, Nolledo, Natividad, Abubakar, de los Reyes, de Castro, Guingona,
Ople, Garcia, Maambong, Azcuna, Mrs. Rosario Braid, Mr. Suarez, Mrs.
Nieva, Mr. Tingson, Ms. Tan, Mr. Regalado, Ms. Aquino, Mr. Davide, Mrs.
Quesada, Messrs. Sarmiento, Tadeo, Bernas, Villacorta, Lerum, Bacani,
Foz, Concepcion and Gascon.

WITHDRAWAL OF MR. ROMULO’S PREJUDICIAL QUESTION

At this juncture, Mr. Davide stated that the Body was considering
the proposed subsections 4) and 5) of the reopened Section 5 of the
Article on the Legislative and that there were proposals to amend them.
He stated that Mr. Romulo had raised a prejudicial question on how the
issues would be presented.

Responding thereto, Mr. Romulo manifested withdrawal of the prejudicial question.

Thereupon, Mr. Davide stated that the parliamentary situation
would revert to his original motion that for purposes of the first
election, the membership and constituencies of the House of
Representatives shall be by province or city, as provided for in the
ordinance governing the parliamentary election of 1984.

INQUIRY OF MR. MAAMBONG

In reply to Mr. Maambong’s query whether the proposed provision
would be included in the body of the Article on the Legislative
considering its transitory nature, Mr. Davide stated that technically
and logically, it is transitory in character which could be included in
the Transitory Provisions.

OBJECTION OF MR. DE CASTRO

Mr. de Castro objected to the proposal and requested for a vote,
in reply to which, Mr. Davide clarified that what should be voted upon
would be his motion that election should be by province and city for the
first election and not the text thereof.

REMARKS OF MR. MAAMBONG

Adverting to Mr. Davide’s reply to Mr. de Castro, Mr. Maambong
manifested that the Committee on Transitory Provisions intended to ask
for reconsideration of the vote on Second Reading of the Transitory
Provisions because of two important articles which should be inserted
therein in relation to the amendment introduced by Mr. Sumulong on the
Article on the Executive. He stated that should the proposal of Mr.
Davide pertain to the Transitory Provisions, the same should be properly
considered by the Committee on Transitory Provisions.

SUGGESTION OF MR. PADILLA

Mr. Padilla stated that in view of paragraphs 4) and 5) of the proposed amendment, he would suggest the following: :

FOR THE FIRST ELECTION, UNDER THIS CONSTITUTION, THE LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS SHALL BE APPORTIONED BY THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS.

He stated that it could be placed on the Transitory Provisions.

Mr. Davide stated that there was a prior motion to vote on the
concept and that should the motion be rejected, Mr. Padilla’s proposal
may be introduced as an amendment.

MOTION OF MR. DE CASTRO

Thereupon, Mr. de Castro moved for a nominal voting.

INQUIRY OF MR. GASCON

In reply to Mr. Gascon’s query whether two-thirds vote of all the
Members present would be required for its approval, Mr. Davide stated
that since the Transitory Provisions is the proper place for the
proposed provision, the two-thirds vote would be required.

Mr. Gascon stated that as pointed out by Mr. Rodrigo during the
previous session, with the suspension of the Rules, any measure
presented to the Body under such situation would require two-thirds vote
for approval. He pointed out that the Body is still considering a
measure proposed by the Committee on the Legislative for which the Rules
were suspended and that the part pertaining to the Transitory
Provisions had not yet been touched.

Mr. Davide stated that he would submit to the ruling of the Chair.

REMARKS OF MR. BENGZON

Mr. Bengzon observed that Mr. Davide had abandoned his previous
position of including the proposed provision in the Article on the
Legislative for which reason the two-thirds vote requirement would no
longer apply, in reply to which, Mr. Davide stated that the same could
be approved and that it would be up to the Body to transfer it to the
Transitory Provisions.

REMARKS OF MR. DE CASTRO

Mr. de Castro stated that two-thirds vote would be required to
approve Mr. Davide’s proposal and in support of his stand, he adverted
to Mr. Rodrigo’s earlier remarks in relation to the discussion on the
need for suspension of the Rules.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

At this juncture, the Chair suspended the session.

It was 3:21 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 3:23 p.m., the session was resumed.

INQUIRY OF MR. RIGOS

In reply to Mr. Rigos’ query whether it would be appropriate to
act first on the suggestion of Mr. Padilla which amounts to an amendment
to Mr. Davide’s proposal, the Chair stated that Mr. Davide had rejected
Mr. Padilla’s proposal.

Mr. Davide stated that his objection was not on the merits of Mr.
Padilla’s proposal but on the procedure since there was a pending
motion.

RULING OF THE CHAIR

Thereupon, the Chair ruled that two-thirds vote would be required.

INQUIRY OF MR. SARMIENTO

In reply to Mr. Sarmiento’s query on the parliamentary situation,
Mr. Davide stated that the Body would be voting on his motion that the
first election of the Members of the Lower House of the First Congress
of the Philippines shall be by province or city.

NOMINAL VOTING

The Chair declared nominal voting in order pursuant to the motion
made and, thereupon, directed the Secretary-General to call the Roll.
Thereafter, a second Roll Call was made.

RESULT OF THE VOTING

The result of the voting was as follows:

In favor:

Bengzon	Nolledo	Sumulong
Davide	Rama	Tadeo
Foz	Romulo	Uka
Guingona	Sarmiento	Villacorta
Maambong	Suarez	Villegas
Monsod

Against:

Abubakar	Colayco	Padilla
Aquino	Concepcion	Quesada
Azcuna	Garcia	Regalado
Bennagen	Gascon	Rigos
Bernas	Jamir	Rodrigo
Rosario Braid	Nieva	Tan
De Castro	Ople

With 16 Members voting in favor and 20 against, the Chair declared the motion lost.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. SARMIENTO

Mr. Sarmiento proposed, jointly with Messrs. Bernas, Villacorta,
de Castro, Guingona, Azcuna, Suarez, de los Reyes, Garcia, Mrs. Quesada,
Ms. Aquino, Messrs. Nolledo, Gascon, Rama, Ople, Maambong, Bengzon,
Rigos and Foz, the following amendment:

FOR THE FIRST ELECTION UNDER THIS CONSTITUTION, THE COMELEC,
WITHIN ONE MONTH FROM THE RATIFICATION OF THIS CONSTITUTION, SHALL
APPORTION LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS BASED ON THE STANDARDS PROVIDED IN THIS
CONSTITUTION. THE FIRST CONGRESS SHALL MAKE REAPPORTIONMENT THEREOF
BASED ON THE SAME STANDARDS PROVIDED HEREIN.

REMARKS OF MR. PADILLA

Mr. Padilla invited attention to the fact that he had proposed a prior amendment by substitution which reads:

FOR THE FIRST ELECTION UNDER THIS CONSTITUTION THE LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS SHALL BE APPORTIONED BY THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS.

He insisted on his proposed formulation.

Mr. Davide stated that the effect on apportionment is the same but
that the Bernas-Sarmiento proposal would also provide a mandate on the
apportionment at a later time which, in effect, embodies the same
concept in the provision already approved by the Body.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

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

It was 3:33 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 3:40 p.m., the session was resumed.

Thereupon, Mr. Davide proposed to delete subparagraph 4 and all the capitalized words in paragraph 5 such that it will read:

“Within three years following the return of every census, the
Congress shall make a reapportionment of legislative districts based on
the standards provided in this section.”

An ordinance, he informed, shall be appended to the Constitution which shall provide:

FOR PURPOSES OF THE ELECTION OF MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES IN THE FIRST CONGRESSIONAL ELECTION IMMEDIATELY
FOLLOWING THE RATIFICATION OF THIS CONSTITUTION PROPOSED BY THE 1986
CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION AND SUBSEQUENT ELECTIONS AND UNTIL OTHERWISE
PROVIDED BY LAW, THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES SHALL BE
ELECTED FROM LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS APPORTIONED AMONG THE PROVINCES,
CITIES AND THE METROPOLITAN MANILA AREA AS FOLLOWS:

which would then be followed by the allocation of seats to
Metropolitan Manila, the provinces and cities without indicating the
municipalities which shall comprise each of the districts. Section 2, he
stated, shall mandate the Commission on Elections (COMELEC) to make the
actual apportionment on the basis of the number of seats provided for
and allocated to each province by the Commission.

OBJECTION OF MS. AQUINO

Ms. Aquino objected to the proposal which shall mandate the
COMELEC to do the redistricting which, she opined, is linked to the
practice of spheres of influence or gerrymandering. She argued that the
commission being a non-partisan, non-political deliberative Body is in
the best position to undertake the responsibility. Additionally, she
noted that the Committee on the Legislative has already prepared a
report based on the recommendation of the COMELEC.

REMARKS OF MR. OPLE

Mr. Ople, in supporting the position of Ms. Aquino, observed that,
reapportionment of provinces and cities for the purpose of
redistricting is generally inherent in the constituent power or in the
legislative power. He expressed apprehension in delegating such
authority to a quasi-judicial body even if it is created by the
Constitution. He pointed out that, as Mr. Davide had mentioned, the
Committee could complete the work on the reapportionment, based on the
COMELEC plan which it had thoroughly studied and which was available to
the Body.

Mr. Davide stated that the issue which the Body has to decide is
whether the Body shall make the apportionment or leave it to the
COMELEC. The Committee, he advised, would act accordingly on the basis
of the Body’s decision.

REMARKS OF MR. BENGZON

Apropos the statement of Mr: Davide, Mr. Bengzon informed that the
Committee had already worked on the apportionment of the entire country
into various districts based on the recommendations of the COMELEC. He
stated that the report could be appended to the Constitution and should
the Body accept it, there would be no problem.

INQUIRY OF MR. RODRIGO

Mr. Rodrigo inquired whether the apportionment would apply only to
the first election after the ratification of the Constitution, to which
Mr. Davide clarified that based on Mr. Padilla’s proposal, it would
apply to the first election and based on Mr. Sarmiento’s proposal it
would also apply to the first election and thereafter the Congress shall
have the power to reapportion.

Mr. Rodrigo observed that should the apportionment, based on the
COMELEC study, be appended to the Constitution, the COMELEC may no
longer have the power to change the scheme.

Mr. Davide pointed out that once the apportionment, which is to be
presented as a separate issue, is approved by the people, the COMELEC
would no longer have the authority, unless in the ordinance itself the
Commission would determine the number of seats for a particular province
and leave the COMELEC to make the actual allocation of the different
municipalities.

On whether the apportionment is based on the COMELEC study, Mr.
Davide clarified it is not necessarily based thereon inasmuch as the
Committee seeks to reduce the number of seats from 199 recommended by
the COMELEC to 183. Mr. Davide further stated that the Body could
determine how many seats would be allotted to the different provinces
such that only the number of seats would appear in the ordinance.
Section 2, he noted, should mandate the COMELEC to apportion the
provinces on the basis of the number of seats allotted to them and
determine what municipalities would comprise a district.

INQUIRY OF MR. REGALADO

On the basis of the proposed apportionment, Mr. Regalado inquired
whether the reduction of seats from 199 to 183 would result in
under-representation or non-representation of areas. In reply thereto,
Mr. Davide assured the Body that there would be no case of inequitable
distribution. He informed that the ratio used is 1 seat for every
350,000 or 400,000 inhabitants which would be within the standard.

STATEMENT OF THE PARLIAMENTARY SITUATION

On the parliamentary situation, Mr. Rama informed that there was a
motion by Mr. Sarmiento to mandate the COMELEC to do the redistricting
while Mr. Padilla had another motion to the same effect. On the other
hand, he noted that a prejudicial question had been raised in the form
of an amendment to the amendment proposed by Ms. Aquino that the
Commission, not the COMELEC, should do the redistricting. He then
requested Ms. Aquino to make a formal motion to enable the Body to vote
on it.

MOTION OF MS. AQUINO

Thereupon, Ms. Aquino moved that the Commission undertake the
apportionment of the legislative districts instead of delegating the
responsibility to the COMELEC.

REMARKS OF MR. GUINGONA

Mr. Guingona remarked that the Body would not be able to vote on
the motion unless the Committee explains the apportionment relative to
the number of seats being proposed and the reasons therefor.

Mr. Davide informed that the Committee would be prepared to submit
an apportionment to be appended is an ordinance to the new
Constitution. The COMELEC, he stated, had submitted to the Committee its
own apportionment scheme and that the Committee could make certain
adjustments thereon to reduce the total number of seats allocated by the
COMELEC from 199 to 183 which would affect a few areas.

Mr. Guingona stated that the Commission itself should make the
decision, and not the Committee, for which reason it should be given the
necessary information.

In reply, Mr. Davide pointed out that the Committee would like to
expedite the matter inasmuch as it is related to the reopening of the
Article. He assured that should the Commission decide to apportion the
seats in the ordinance, the Committee can immediately come up with such
an apportionment.

To Mr. Guingona’s inquiry whether the Body could review the
proposal, Mr. Davide replied that the Committee would prefer the
Commission to mandate it to prepare the apportionment in order to
facilitate the matter.

Mr. Guingona then queried whether the Commission, should it reject
the proposed apportionment, can still consider the proposal of Messrs.
Bernas, Sarmiento and others. Mr. Davide stated that the Body can then
consider as an alternative amendment Mr. Padilla’s proposal.

Mr. Guingona suggested a deferment to enable the Body to study the
proposal, in response to which, Mr. Davide requested that it be
withdrawn. He urged the Body to decide whether the Commission would make
the apportionment to enable the Committee to prepare it and submit it
to the Body.

Upon inquiry, Mr. Davide informed that the report on the
apportionment can be submitted, at the earliest, on the afternoon of the
next day although the decision on the actual configuration and whether
it would be in an ordinance could already be done by the Body.

Mr. Guingona withdrew his motion on the understanding that the
mandate is for the Committee to prepare a recommendation for approval by
the Body.

REMARKS OF MR. MONSOD

In reply to the Chair’s query, Mr. Monsod informed that the Body
is not asked to give the guidelines on the number of representatives,
because these guidelines are not the same as those submitted by the
COMELEC.

INQUIRY OF MR. MAAMBONG

On the inquiry of Mr. Maambong, Mr. Davide affirmed that he was
referring to the proposed apportionment submitted by the COMELEC Ad Hoc
Committee which apportioned the whole country into 199 legislative
districts.

In the event that the Commission decides to make the
apportionment, Mr. Maambong inquired whether the COMELEC report could be
used as a guide. Mr. Davide affirmed that it could although some
adjustments have to be made in view of the protests of some affected
constituencies. He further affirmed that the Committee would only
readjust the number of seats from 199 to 183 and that basically the
Commission would, in effect, follow the COMELEC’s recommendation.

INQUIRY OF MR. SUAREZ

Upon inquiry of Mr. Suarez whether the Body is going to determine
the number of legislative districts which would total to 183 seats, Mr.
Davide affirmed that the Body could, although it could also determine
the municipalities to comprise each district, should it follow Ms.
Aquino’s proposal.

In answer to the inquiry whether the matter would be taken up in
the afternoon session or deferred for the next day, Mr. Davide stated
that should the Body decide that the Commission itself make the
apportionment, the Committee would take it as a mandate to come up with
an ordinance indicating what municipalities would comprise a particular
legislative district and it would be guided by the COMELEC report,
taking into account the objections from certain quarters. He noted that
it would just be a matter of making some adjustments.

INQUIRY OF MR. OPLE

Mr. Ople inquired as to what specific areas would be affected should the number of seats be reduced from 199 to 183.

In reply thereto, Mr. Davide stated that certain areas, which
otherwise should have been given more seats, would retain the number of
seats they had in the 1984 election. Thereafter, he cited the following
provinces:

	Recommended Number of Seats	Original Number of Seats
Palawan (with Puerto Princesa )	2	1
Masbate	3	2
Isabela	4	3
Zamboanga del Norte (with Dapitan and Dipolog)	3	2
Zamboanga del Sur (with Pagadian City )	4	3
Agusan del Norte	2	1
Bukidnon	3	2

Bulacan, Mr. Davide informed, would not be affected.

Mr. Ople observed that the 183 seats were based on the
parliamentary election, by province, in 1984 and queried why the Body
could not adopt the 199 seats which were calculated to fit a district
system of congressional elections.

In reply thereto, Mr. Davide stated that although he is prepared
to accept 199 to reduce the Committee’s problem, there were strong
objections to a very large Lower House, hence there was a proposal to
reduce the original 250 to 200. He opined that 200 could not be
accommodated in the hall; in fact, the Senate, he stated, would have to
occupy the South Caucus Room.

Mr. Ople observed that should the decision be influenced by the
actual size in square meters of the plenary hall, 199 would not seem
exorbitant, to which Mr. Davide replied that should the Commission peg
the membership of the Lower House for the regular districts at 199, the
Committee would have no problem with the COMELEC’s proposal.

INQUIRY OF MR. BERNAS

In reply to Mr. Bernas’ query on whether public hearings were
conducted to determine the proposal’s acceptability, Mr. Davide stated
that the Committee based its proposal completely on the 1984
apportionment which was, in turn, based on the projected population at
that time.

On whether the recommendation was based on reconsideration of what
was presented by the COMELEC after hearing the protests, Mr. Davide
stated that the protests were not on population or on
under-representation or over-representation but on the compactness of
the area. He stated that some of those would amount to gerrymandering.

Mr. Bernas pointed out that there was no announcement and the
protests came from people who just happened to know that there was an
apportionment. In reply, Mr. Davide stated that the Committee could not
extend invitations to all the provinces, however, the COMELEC, took into
account population, contiguity, adjacentness and compactness of
territories. He disclosed that the Committee only heard the COMELEC and
some of those who protested.

On the basis for the departure from the recommendation of the
COMELEC, Mr. Davide stated that the Committee partially departed from
the COMELEC recommendation in the light of some objections. He stated
that the Committee had no chance to go around the provinces to conduct
public hearings on the apportionment because it was physically
impossible for the Members to do so, in view of which, it had to rely on
the COMELEC proposal.

As a rejoinders Mr. Ople stated that in all meetings of the
Committee on the Legislative which he attended all experts of the
COMELEC were present and were consulted on every question raised and
that the COMELEC was always behind the Committee on the issues
considered.

REMARKS OF MR. AZCUNA

Mr. Azcuna opined that the COMELEC proposal of 199 representatives
is not unreasonable considering that it merely added 16 more seats to
the 183 seats in 1984 to reflect growth in population since the last
census. He expressed objection to the Committee’s departure from the
COMELEC proposal.

On the total number of representatives, Mr. Azcuna stated that his
researches showed that Canada, with a population of only 24 million,
has a Senate of 104 Members and a Lower House of 282 and France, with a
54 million population, has 280 Senators and 491 Lower House Deputies, or
an average of one representative for every 300 to 350 thousand persons.

INQUIRY OF MR. MAAMBONG

In reply to Mr. Maambong’s query whether retaining the COMELEC
recommendation of 199 and reducing the seats to 183 would violate the
Constitution, Mr. Davide stated it would not as long as it does not
exceed the 250 maximum.

At this juncture, Mr. Rama drew attention to the joint amendment
of Messrs. Padilla and Sarmiento, as amended, to mandate the COMELEC to
do the redistricting.

RESTATEMENT OF THE AMENDMENT

Mr. Sarmiento restated the amendment, to wit:

FOR THE FIRST ELECTION UNDER THIS CONSTITUTION THIS COMMISSION
SHALL APPORTION LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS BASED ON THE STANDARDS PROVIDED IN
THE CONSTITUTION. THE FIRST CONGRESS SHALL MAKE REAPPORTIONMENT THEREOF
BASED ON THE SAME STANDARDS PROVIDED HEREIN.

INQUIRY OF MR. DAVIDE

In reply to Mr. Davide’s query, Mr. Sarmiento stated that the proposal would be in substitution of paragraph 4.

INQUIRY OF MR. OPLE

In reply to Mr. Ople’s query on whether the reapportionment would
be based on 199 seats, Mr. Davide stated that his original
recommendation was 183, which was objected to by Mr. Azcuna.

Mr. Davide suggested that the mandate given to the Commission be
placed in Section 5 of the Article on Legislative Power. He then
suggested the deletion of paragraph 4 and approval of a motion to have
an ordinance instead of incorporating the amendment.

Thereupon, Mr. Ople suggested that the Body incorporate in the
motion a statement that the apportionment should be based on not more
than 199 seats.

INQUIRY OF MR. MONSOD

Mr. Monsod invited attention to Section 3 which seeks to increase
the population limit to 250,000 from 200,000, to which Mr. Davide
replied that said limit would originally affect only Butuan, Iligan,
Baguio, Olongapo and Angeles City.

Mr. Monsod observed that, looking at the COMELEC apportionment,
quite a number of districts are below 250,000 and above 200,000, in
reply to which Mr: Davide stated that this could be taken care of by the
configuration and adjustments to be made later.

On the observation that the 250,000 guideline would automatically
eliminate many districts, Mr. Davide stated that it would only eliminate
4 cities. He affirmed that the Commission is really adopting the
COMELEC apportionment except for the reduction of certain cities which
would no longer qualify.

INQUIRY OF MR. BENGZON

In reply to Mr. Bengzon’s query, Mr. Davide stated that under the
199 proposal the representation of some provinces would not be reduced
but would, in fact, increase like for instance Manila and Pangasinan
which would have an addition of one seat each.

CALL FOR THE PREVIOUS QUESTION

Thereupon, Mr. Rama called for the previous question.

INQUIRY OF MR. SARMIENTO

In reply to Mr. Sarmiento’s query on whether his proposal was an
amendment or a motion, Mr. Davide requested that it be treated as a
motion to be followed by the deletion of paragraph 4), the reason being
that it should not appear as a paragraph in Section 5 so that it would
not reflect in the Constitution that the Commission is vested with the
authority, yet could not exercise such authority until after
ratification of the new Constitution.

Mr. Sarmiento agreed to Mr. Davide’s request.

INQUIRY OF MS. AQUINO

In reply to Ms. Aquino’s query, the Chair stated that it would only require a two-thirds vote to adopt the motion.

APPROVAL OF THE MOTION

Thereafter, Mr. Sarmiento moved that the Commission do the reappointment of the legislative districts.

Submitted to a vote, and with 30 Members voting in favor and none against, the motion was approved by the Body.

MOTION OF MR. DAVIDE

As a consequence of the approval of Mr. Sarmiento’s motion, Mr.
Davide moved to delete paragraph 43 of the proposed Section 5 of the
Article on the Legislative.

There being no objection, the motion was approved by the Body.

PROPOSED MOTION OF MR. DAVIDE

Mr. Davide moved that the new paragraph 4) of Section 5 read as follows.

WITHIN THREE YEARS FOLLOWING THE RETURN OF EVERY CENSUS, THE
CONGRESS SHALL MAKE A REAPPORTIONMENT OF LEGISLATIVE DISTRICTS BASED ON
THE STANDARDS PROVIDED IN THIS SECTION.

INQUIRY OF MR. OPLE

In reply to Mr. Ople’s query on the meaning of the phrase “within
three years following the return of every census”, Mr. Davide stated
that generally the census takes place every three years. He affirmed
that the First Congress may not disturb the apportionment to be ordained
by the Commission until 1990 when it could actually make the
apportionment because 1990 is within three years after its election and
before the end of its term.

APPROVAL OF THE MOTION

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

PROPOSED MOTION OF MR. OPLE

Mr. Ople moved that the Commission, in the exercise of its
apportionment function, adhere to the original COMELEC recommendation of
199 seats.

SUGGESTION OF MR. MONSOD

Mr. Monsod observed that the motion is too rigid because the
minimum has been changed from 200 to 250. He suggested maintaining “not
more than 200” since it is already in Section 1.

Mr. Ople agreed.

MODIFIED MOTION OF MR. OPLE

Mr. Ople modified his motion to the effect that the Commission reaffirm its adherence to not more than 200 seats.

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

INQUIRY OF MR. MAAMBONG

In reply to Mr. Maambong’s’ query whether it is the sense of the
Committee that the Commission stick to 199 if it is at all possible
under the present guidelines, Mr. Davide stated that with 4 or 5 cities
losing a seat on account of the increase in population requirement, it
could even be less than 199.

INQUIRY OF MR. GASCON

In reply to Mr. Gascon’s query, Mr. Davide affirmed that with the
approval of Mr. Sarmiento’s motion, the Commission reapportionment would
be a separate document to be voted upon separately.

AMENDMENT OF MR. DAVIDE

Mr. Davide proposed an amendment to Section 11 of the draft
Article on the Legislative, to add a second paragraph to subsection 4)
of Section 11, to wit:

EACH HOUSE SHALL ALSO KEEP A RECORD OF ITS PROCEEDINGS

Submitted to a vote, and there being no objection, the amendment was approved by the Body.

APPROVAL ON SECOND READING OF THE ARTICLE ON THE LEGISLATIVE

On motion of Mr. Rama, there being no objection, the Body
approved, on Second Reading, the Article on the Legislative, as amended.

Mr. Rama moved for the approval, on Third Reading, of the Article on the Legislative.

Mr. de Castro stated that the Body would still be to approve the
apportionment which would be contained in the ordinance, to which Mr.
Davide replied that the ordinance would be a separate resolution such
that the Body could vote, on Third Reading, on the main body of the
Article on the Legislative and then later on, on the ordinance which is
entirely a different matter.

APPROVAL ON THIRD READING OF THE ARTICLE ON THE LEGISLATIVE

Mr. Rama then moved for the approval, on Third Reading, of the Article on the Legislative.

Thereupon, the Body proceeded to vote, on Third Reading, on the Article on the Legislative.

Upon direction of the Chair, the Secretary-General called the Roll for nominal voting. Thereafter, a second Roll Call was made.

EXPLANATION OF VOTES

The following Members explained their votes, to wit:

By Mr. Garcia:

Mr. Garcia stated that he was abstaining because he believed that
the bicameral system does not actually provide a more democratic,
structure for participation and that he has some reservation regarding
the lack of a permanent sectoral representation.

By Mr. Gascon:

Mr. Gascon, likewise, abstained because he believed that a
unicameral system would be a better form of legislature for the people,
it being more democratic and that while sectoral representation is
provided, it lacks permanence. He recognized, however, that the Article
on the Legislative is an improvement over the 1935 Constitution in the
sense that a party list system and sectoral representation are provided.

By Mr. Padilla:

Mr. Padilla stated that he was voting Yes principally because of the restoration of the bicameral system.

By Mrs. Quesada:

Mrs. Quesada abstained for the following reasons: 1) the Body
adopted a bicameral system which is against the wishes of the people;
and 2) the Body failed to enshrine in the Constitution the permanent
reserved seats for sectoral representatives.

By Mr. Sarmiento:

Mr. Sarmiento stated that he was abstaining because he believed
that a unicameral legislature is more responsive to the needs and wishes
of the Third People.

By Mr. Suarez:

Mr. Suarez abstained for the reasons already stated by his colleagues.

By Mr. Villacorta:

Mr. Villacorta stated that he was abstaining because of a
provision for the Senate which, he believed, would once more bring about
a political aristocracy.

RESULT OF THE VOTING

The result of the voting was as follows:

In favor:

Alonto	Davide	Padilla
Aquino	Foz	Rama
Azcuna	Guingona	Regalado
Bengzon	Jamir	Rodrigo
Bennagen	Maambong	Sumulong
Bernas	Monsod	Tan
Rosario Braid	Nieva	Uka
De Castro	Nolledo	Villegas
Concepcion	Ople

Against:
None

Abstention

Garcia	Sarmiento	Tadeo
Gascon	Suarez	Villacorta
Quesada

With 29 Members voting in favor, none against and 7 abstentions,
the Body approved, on Third Reading, the Article on the Legislative.

APPROVAL ON THIRD READING OF THE ARTICLE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND AUTONOMOUS REGIONS

Mr. Rama moved for the approval, on Third Reading, of the Article on Local Governments and Autonomous Regions.

Thereupon, the Body proceeded to vote, on Third Reading, on the Article on Local Governments and Autonomous Regions.

Upon direction of the Chair, the Secretary-General called the Roll for nominal voting. Thereafter, a second Roll Call was made.

EXPLANATION OF VOTES

The following Members explained their votes:

By Mr. Ople:

In explaining his affirmative vote, Mr. Ople congratulated the
Committee on Local Governments for the efforts it exerted to give real
substance to the principle of local autonomy. He further stated that the
Commission, as a whole, has created the autonomous regions for Muslim
Mindanao and the Cordilleras, and laid the basis for enduring peace and
fraternity in these troubled parts of the country.

By Mr. Padilla:

Mr. Padilla stated that he was voting Yes despite his opposition
to the creation and maintenance of special courts in the autonomous
regions and to Section 18 which grants these regions extensive
legislative powers.

RESULT OF THE VOTING

The result of the voting was as follows:

In favor:

Alonto	Garcia	Rama
Aquino	Gascon	Regalado
Azcuna	Guingona	Rodrigo
Bengzon	Jamir	Sarmiento
Bennagen	Maambong	Suarez
Bernas	Monsod	Sumulong
Rosario Braid	Natividad	Tadeo
Calderon	Nieva	Tan
De Castro	Nolledo	Treñas
Concepcion	Ople	Uka
Davide	Padilla	Villacorta
Foz	Quesada	Villegas

With 36 Members voting in favor, none against and no abstention,
the Body approved, on Third Reading, the Article on Local Governments
and Autonomous Regions.

MOTION OF MR. RAMA

Thereafter, Mr. Rama moved that the Body take up the report of the Committee on Style.

PRIVILEGED MOTION OF MR. DAVIDE

At this juncture, Mr. Davide moved that the draft Constitution
should be titled: THE NEW CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES.

Mr. Guingona stated that the 1973 Constitution has also been
referred to as the New Constitution and that he was thinking that it
would be better to refer to it as THE 1986 CONSTITUTION.

Mr. de Castro concurred with the comments of Mr. Guingona.

On Mr. Ople’s query how new would the Constitution look twenty or
one hundred years later, Mr. Davide stated that the Constitution would
never lose its newness because this is a dynamic, growing document. He
opined that if this is labelled as the 1986 Constitution, there would be
no permanence whereas his proposal would imprint some kind of stability
and permanence.

POINT OF ORDER OF MR. MAAMBONG

At this juncture, Mr. Maambong raised a point of order on the
ground that the title of any law, according to parliamentary practice,
is always the last part to be taken up, to which Mr. Davide replied that
the Body had already gone over every provision of the Constitution. He
stated that he presented the motion because the Committee on Style might
also re-style it.

Mr. Maambong asked for the ruling of the Chair.

Upon request of Mr. Ople, Mr. Maambong withdrew his point of order.

Mr. Ople inquired if Messrs. Davide and Maambong would agree to
put the nomenclature of the Constitution at the very end of the agenda
in accordance with time-honored practice.

In reply, Mrs. Davide agreed and asked for the deferment of his motion.

Mr. Guingona agreed to the deferment and reserved his right to
present his proposal at the proper time, which reservation was noted by
the Chair.

Mr. Uka suggested that the Constitution be known as THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE NEW REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, to which the Chair
stated that discussion on the matter had already been deferred.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

At this juncture, the Chair suspended the session.

It was 4:51 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 5:26 p.m., the session was resumed.

CONSIDERATION OF THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON STYLE

Upon resumption of session, on request of Mr. Rama, the Chair
recognized the Chairman and Members of the Committee on Style for the
sponsorship of its Report.

SPONSORSHIP REMARKS OF MR. RODRIGO

Mr. Rodrigo prefaced his remarks by stating that the function of
the Committee on Style is contained in Subsection 16, Rule II of the
Rules of the Commission, which provides that “all matters relating to
the correction of the phraseology and form, and the consistency and
accuracy of proposals, shall be referred to the Committee, but it shall
have no authority to change the sense, substance or purpose of any
proposal.”

He disclosed that the Committee had 19 meetings in the past two
months, and had created an ad hoc Committee with the acronym ADAN based
on the names of its three members, namely Messrs. Azcuna, Davide, and
Nolledo. He also stated that during its work, the Committee found that
the Committee on Sponsorship was also reviewing the corrections on the
provisions that had been approved, so, a “conference committee” was
formed from the two committees with Messrs. Rodrigo, Treñas, Azcuna,
Davide and Nolledo representing the Committee on Style and with Messrs.
Guingona, Sumulong, Garcia, Maambong, de los Reyes, and Ms. Aquino
representing the Committee on Sponsorship; and with the invaluable help
of Atty. Honorata Orquiola.

He explained that two documents were distributed to the Members of
the Commission, one entitled ”1986 Constitution Based on the Engrossed
Copy” which contains the provisions as originally approved by the Body;
and the other entitled “1986 Draft Constitution as Appreciated by the
Committee on Style” which contains its suggestions and corrections.

On the general rule on the use of commas in case of enumeration
consisting of more than two words, he stated that the Committee had two
options: the American system which does not put a comma (,) between the
last two words in the enumeration but are separated by the conjunctions
“and” or “or”; and the British system which puts a comma (,) between the
last two words in the enumeration even if they are separated by the
conjunctions “and” or “or”.

Mr. Rodrigo explained that the Committee on Style decided to
follow the British system which was also followed in the 1935 and 1973
Constitutions. He added that when reference is made to Congress “the” is
added as it is also the phraseology in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions.

He also stated that the Committee decided to make “percent”
uniform adopting percentum in italics. On numbers, he stated that the
Committee decided to use only the words and not words and figures; and
to capitalize the letter M in “Members” in all cases. He also stated
that the Committee placed a comma (,) before and after every “by law”
for uniformity. He also explained that the Committee capitalized the
letter s in “State”; used Roman numbers to designate the Sections and
the subsections; delete as much as possible the phrase “provided that”
because it is not usually used in a constitution; and only used either
“and” or “or” instead of “and/or”.

On the Preamble, Mr. Rodrigo stated that the Committee decided to
use GOD ALMIGHTY instead of “Almighty God”, inserted IN ORDER after the
phrase following the text of the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions; added
INDEPENDENCE AND before “democracy”; and inserted FRATERNITY before “and
love”.

REMARKS OF MR. DE CASTRO

Thereupon, Mr. de Castro stated that the Committee has indicated
the phraseology it had changed and the words added, but not the words it
has omitted. He pointed out that the Preamble originally approved by
the Body contains the word “hereby” between “do and “ordain”.

Mr. Rodrigo explained that he inadvertently forgot to mention the omission.

In reply to Mr. de Castro’s query, whether there are other
omissions which were not indicated, Mr. Rodrigo replied in the negative.

REMARKS OF MRS. QUESADA

Mrs. Quesada opined that the word “fraternity” is sexist and
discriminates against women because the Committee could have also added
the word SORORITY.

Reacting thereto, Mr. Sumulong explained that the Committee
originally intended to substitute “love” with FRATERNITY, however, there
was a memorandum submitted asking for the restoration of “love” which
was finally approved with a vote of 5 to 3

Mrs. Quesada pointed out that the Body deliberated on the
insertion of the word “love”. She then queried whether the Committee has
the authority to add words which had not been deliberated upon by the
Body.

Mr. Rodrigo stated that the Body could vote on either the deletion or retention of FRATERNITY.

At this juncture, Mr. Villegas explained that FRATERNITY does not
have a sexist connotation because it is derived from the Latin words
fraternitas, atis meaning friendship. He added that the word frater
means brother.

Mrs. Quesada contended that the word FRATERNITY still means brotherhood.

Thereupon, Mr. Bengzon pointed out that Mrs. Quesada was merely
questioning the authority of the Committee on Style to insert words
which have not been approved by the Body. He opined that the Committee’s
move to delete “love” should not have been done because it was approved
by the Body.

Thereafter, Mrs. Quesada moved for the deletion of the word FRATERNITY.

POINT OF ORDER OF MR. MAAMBONG

At this juncture, Mr. Maambong raised a point of order on the
ground that the addition of FRATERNITY would, in effect, reopen the
whole Preamble.

Mr. Bengzon disagreed and explained that the Body is not adding
the word but is, in fact, in the process of deleting it because Mrs.
Quesada questioned the authority of the Committee on Style to insert
words which have not been deliberated by the Body.

Mr. Maambong explained that he is not really concerned with the
retention or deletion of the said word but with respect to those added
or deleted in the other articles or sections, he stated that the matter
should be resolved.

In reply to Ms. Tan’s query whether the Committee has the
authority to delete or add words, Mr. Rodrigo explained that it could if
it is just to improve the phraseology and style without necessarily
changing the content or substance.

Thereupon, Ms. Tan opined that FRATERNITY is not essential.

Mr. Rama opined that the motion to delete is in order. He then moved for a vote on the matter.

At this juncture, Mr. Bengzon stated that Mr. Maambong’s position
is correct because Mrs. Quesada’s motion, in effect, questions the
Committee’s authority to add or delete words. He stated that Mrs.
Quesada should withdraw her motion and merely request the Committee to
delete the word; otherwise, the Body would be reopening the whole
Preamble.

Mr. Rama pointed out that when Mrs. Quesada questioned the
propriety of the insertion of FRATERNITY she was already questioning the
Committee’s authority. He then requested for a vote on the matter.

Mr. de Castro manifested his concurrence with Mr. Maambong’s
opinion that voting on the insertion would, in effect, reopen the whole
Preamble.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

At this juncture, the Chair suspended the session.

It was 5:50 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 6:00 p.m., the session was resumed.

Upon resumption of session, Mr. Rama moved for voting on the matter.

Mr. Rodrigo agreed.

However, Mr. de Castro pointed out that the issue is not really to
delete or-retain the word but the extent of the authority of the
Committee on Style to add, remove and rearrange the words. He cited, for
example, that during the deliberations he fought hard for the insertion
of “truth” but the Committee’s recommendation was to have it after
“freedom”.

Replying thereto, Mr. Rodrigo maintained that the Committee has
the authority on matters of style and form and, if any Member wants to
maintain the original sequencing of words, he could file a corresponding
motion which the Committee may accept.

Mr. de Castro expressed dissatisfaction on the manipulation of the words.

At this juncture, the Chair motu proprio directed the deletion of the word “manipulation” as unparliamentary.

Ms. Aquino opined that the deletion of the word FRATERNITY would
not necessarily mean a reopening of the whole Preamble because the Body
has the right to either confirm or reject the Committee’s recommendation
.

RESULT OF THE VOTING

Submitted to a vote, and with 20 Members voting in favor, 4
against and 1 abstention, the Body approved the deletion of
“fraternity”.

MOTION OF MR. CONCEPCION

Mr. Concepcion moved to restore the original sequence: truth, justice, freedom, equality, peace and love.

Mr. Rodrigo pointed out that originally “love” was between “freedom” and “equality”.

Mr. Concepcion agreed to maintain the original formulation indicated, which Mr. Rodrigo accepted.

REMARKS OF MR. PADILLA

Mr. Padilla suggested the insertion of the phrase “and progress”
after “peace” in line with other articles which included “progress”. He
stressed that the Preamble expresses the aims, aspirations and ideals of
our people, but without progress, the quality of life would not be
improved.

In reply to the Chair’s query, Mr. Padilla stated that it is not
his intention to reopen the Preamble. He noted that the Committee on
Style inserted “independence” and “fraternity”. As a member of said
Committee, he asked if he cannot propose the addition of the suggested
word “progress”, for the approval of the Commission. The word “progress”
would not do violence or result in inconsistency but contribute to the
aims and ideals expressed in the Preamble.

The Chair observed that Mr. Padilla’s stand partakes of the nature
of a reconsideration for reopening which would be improper at the stage
of the proceedings.

Mr. Padilla clarified that he was not seeking reconsideration but was merely making a suggestion.

The Chair stated, however, that it could pave the way for similar requests.

INQUIRY OF MS. AQUINO

Ms. Aquino inquired whether Mr. Concepcion’s motion to retain the
original sequence had been voted upon and, if not, she would move for
confirmation of the original Committee recommendation which sequenced
the virtues as “freedom, truth, justice, equality, peace and love”.

The Chair stated that it is of the impression that Mr. Rodrigo had agreed to do so.

Mr. Rodrigo, however, confirmed Ms. Aquino’s observation.

Thereupon, she moved for confirmation of the Committee recommendation.

MOTION OF MR. DE CASTRO

Mr. de Castro moved that the Body first resolve the motion of Mr. Concepcion before considering Ms. Aquino’s motion.

Mr. Rama stated that Mr. de Castro’s motion is in order.

RESULT OF THE VOTING

Thereupon, submitted to a vote, and with 14 Members voting in
favor, 9 against and 1 abstention, the Body approved Mr. Concepcion’s
motion.

MOTION OF MR. SUAREZ

Mr. Suarez moved for the restoration of ALMIGHTY GOD in lieu of “God Almighty” stating that “almighty” qualifies “God”.

Submitted to a vote, and with 17 Members voting in favor, 7 against and 3 abstentions,. the Body approved Mr. Suarez’ motion.

RESTATEMENT OF THE PREAMBLE AS AMENDED

Upon request of Mr. Rama, Mr. Rodrigo read the Preamble, as amended, to wit:

We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty
God, in order to build a just and humane society and establish a
Government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations, promote the
common good, conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves
and our posterity the blessings of independence and democracy under the
rule of law and a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality and
peace, do ordain and promulgate this Constitution.

Submitted to a vote, and with 26 Members voting in favor, 1
against and 1 abstention, the Body approved the Preamble, as amended.

MANIFESTATION OF MR. RAMA

Mr. Rama stated that the Body would vote on every article as a whole and not by section to expedite the proceedings.

MOTION OF MR. DAVIDE

On motion of Mr. Davide, accepted by the Committee and there being
no objection, the Body approved the deletion of quotation marks
enclosing the text of the Preamble.

AMENDMENTS ON THE ARTICLE ON NATIONAL TERRITORY

Mr. Rodrigo stated that the amendments on Article I are as follows:

1) On line 5, substitute “the” after “including” with ITS;

2) On line 7, delete “thereof” after “areas”; and

3) On line 8, substitute “irrespective” with REGARDLESS.

INQUIRY OF MR. FOZ

In reply to Mr. Foz’ query, Mr. Rodrigo stated that “Philippines” is the antecedent of “its”.

Submitted to a vote, and with 26 Members voting in favor and none
against, the Body approved the Article on National Territory, as
amended.

AMENDMENTS ON THE ARTICLE ON CITIZENSHIP

On motion of Mr. Rodrigo, there being no objection, the Body
approved the following modifications on the Article on Citizenship:

1) On lines 8 and 9 of Section 1, transpose “elect Philippine citizenship” between “who” and “upon”;

2) On Section 2, line 12, delete “their citizenship”; and

3) On Section 4, delete “provided that” on line 19; on line 12,
substitute “hereof” with ABOVE; and delete “also” after “shall”.

MANIFESTATION OF MR. RAMA

At this juncture, Mr. Rama suggested that the Body avoid repetitious voting and vote for all the articles at the end.

AMENDMENTS ON THE ARTICLE ON SUFFRAGE

On motion of Mr. Rodrigo, there being no objection, the Body approved the following modifications on the Article on Suffrage:

1) On line 5, add IMMEDIATELY after “six months”; and

2) On line 9, delete the words after “for the purpose of”.

Mr. Rodrigo stated that Mr. Azcuna proposed to reformulate the fourth paragraph to read:

IT SHALL ALSO DESIGN A PROCEDURE FOR THE DISABLED AND THE
ILLITERATES TO VOTE WITHOUT THE ASSISTANCE OF ANOTHER PERSON. UNTIL
THEN, THEY SHALL BE ALLOWED TO VOTE UNDER EXISTING LAWS AND SUCH RULES
AS THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS MAY PROMULGATE TO PROTECT THE SECRECY OF
THE BALLOT.

Mr. Foz suggested that OTHER PERSON is more appropriate than “another person” on line 13, which Mr. Rodrigo accepted.

INQUIRY OF MR. DE CASTRO

In reply to Mr. de Castro’s query, Mr. Rodrigo affirmed that “It” on line 12 refers to Congress.

Mr. de Castro pointed out that during the deliberations, vigorous
objections were expressed against assistors for the illiterates to be
able to vote. He inquired whether they would be allowed to extend the
assistance during the ratification of the Constitution or during the
first election.

Replying thereto, Mr. Rama volunteered the information that
assistors would be absolutely barred from helping illiterates to vote to
maintain and protect the secrecy of the ballot. He stated that it was
agreed during the deliberations that pictures of candidates shall be
utilized for the illiterates to be able to identify the candidates of
their choice.

SUGGESTIONS OF MR. SUAREZ

On line 12, Mr. Suarez suggested to substitute “It” with THE CONGRESS, which the Committee accepted.

In reply to Mr. Suarez’ query whether there is any difference
between “secrecy and sanctity of the vote” appearing on line 10 and
“protect the secrecy of the ballot” on line 16, Mr. Azcuna stated that
the Committee followed the original language and did not change the
concept.

Mr. Suarez suggested to substitute “vote” on line 10 with BALLOT, which the Committee accepted.

REMARKS OF MR. MONSOD

Expressing disagreement to Mr. Rama’s point of information, Mr.
Monsod stated that the phrase “to protect the secrecy of the ballot”
applies to such other rules that the Commission on Elections may
promulgate and it means that illiterates and disabled persons may still
vote with the assistance of another unless the COMELEC promulgates new
rules in accordance with the first sentence of the provision.

Mr. Rama remarked that protection of the secrecy of the ballot
cannot be given meaning if other persons are allowed to vote for
illiterates.

By way of clarification, Mr. Monsod informed that the last
sentence was placed so that there will be exceptions until Congress
shall have enacted new laws and until the COMELEC shall have promulgated
new rules to protect the secrecy of the ballot. He stated that existing
laws, which contain provisions for assistance, would allow the
illiterates to vote. He stressed that this is the reason for a transit
rule.

Ms. Aquino manifested that the controlling interpretation is Mr.
Monsod’s and the reason why she and Mr. Bernas introduced the last
sentence was because the effect of the amendment in the Article on
Suffrage would be the temporary disenfranchisement of the illiterates
pending the issuance of rules and regulations.

INQUIRY OF MR. OPLE

Mr. Ople inquired whether it would be in order to discuss the
intent behind the provision beyond the matter of style. He cautioned
that allowing such discussion would jeopardize completion of the
Commission’s task according to the timetable it has adopted.

Mr. Rama stated that Mr. Ople’s observation is correct and that he
merely raised the point of information in answer to the query of Mr. de
Castro.

The Chair noted that it was about to admonish the Body, that with
respect to the work of the Committee on Style, the Body has to ensure
that the style was correct and that no substantial changes have been
made on the provisions.

Upon. inquiry of Mr. Davide, Mr. Rodrigo affirmed that the Foz amendment was “other persons”.

Submitted to a vote, and with 24 Members voting in favor and none against, the Body approved the Article on Suffrage.

ARTICLE ON CITIZENSHIP

Thereafter, the Body voted on the Article on Citizenship and with
25 Members voting in favor and none against, the same was approved by
the Body.

ARTICLE ON THE BILL OF RIGHTS

Mr. Rodrigo informed that there were no modifications made on
Sections 1, 2 and 3 of the Bill of Rights and that the second sentence
of Section 4 was converted into a separate paragraph.

Upon inquiry of Ms. Tan, Mr. Rodrigo clarified that line 5 states “equal protection of laws”.

On Section 1, line 4, Mr. Davide proposed and the Committee
accepted the insertion of a comma (,) after the word “liberty” which was
subsequently approved by the Body.

On Section 6, Mr. Rodrigo informed that the Word “to” was inserted
between the words “as well as” and “government research” such that the
clause would read:

“and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as TO government research”.

On Section 7, Mr. Rodrigo stated that on line 14, a comma (,) had
been placed after the word “people” and on line 15 a comma (,) had also
been placed after the word “sectors”.

On line 16 of the same section, Mr. Lerum proposed to place the
word “unions” before associations which was accepted by the Committee.

There being no objection, the same was approved by the Body.

On Section 9, Mr. Rodrigo informed that the word “of” was inserted
before the word “expression” on line 26. The same was approved by the
Body.

SECTION 13

Mr. Maambong stated that Section 13 provides:

No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a
punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted

while Section 17(1) states:

No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without
due process of law nor shall any person be detained merely by reason of
his political beliefs and aspirations

and that he and Mr. Azcuna felt that the phrase “nor shall any
person be detained merely by reason of his political beliefs and
aspirations” does not belong to Section 17(1) for which reason they
reformulated Section 13 by transposing the particular phrase thereto.
Section 13, as reformulated, would then provide:

No person shall be detained merely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations.

No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a
punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.

Mr. Maambong reasoned that by putting it in Section 13, it became a
substantive right while in Section 17 it was a procedural right.

Mr. Azcuna confirmed Mr. Maambong’s observation and stated that
they worked together on the reformulation on instruction of their
respective Committees on Style and Sponsorship.

Mr. Maambong informed that Section 17(1) would read:

“No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.”

Mr. Davide proposed and the Committee accepted, to change the word “merely” to SOLELY such that the sentence would read:

“No person shall be detained SOLELY by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations.”

There being no objection, the same was approved the Body.

Mr. Azcuna clarified that there are instances when the
underlinings of certain words do not indicate corrections. Certain
words, he noted, such as habeas corpus and ex post facto should be
underlined.

On Section 15, Mr. Rodrigo stated that on line 19 the word “may”
between “or” and “the” was deleted and the word “release” was modified
to RELEASED. The line would then read “…. be bailable by sufficient
sureties, or be RELEASED on recognizance”.

On Section 17, Mr. Rodrigo informed that “(1)” was placed before the words “No person . . .” so that it becomes subparagraph 1.

On Section 19, Mr. Rodrigo stated that prior to the statement of
provisions, paragraphs “(1)” and “(2)” were placed. On line 24, he noted
that a comma (,) was placed after the word “intimidation”, and another
comma (,) was placed after the word “incommunicado”.

Subparagraph (3), Mr. Rodrigo informed, was rewritten by Mr. Azcuna.

As originally worded, it read:

Penal and civil sanctions for violations of this Section as well
as compensation for and rehabilitation of victims of tortures or similar
practices and of their families shall be provided by law

which was revised to:

THE LAW SHALL PROVIDE FOR PENAL AND CIVIL SANCTIONS FOR VIOLATIONS
OF THIS SECTION AS WELL AS COMPENSATION AND REHABILITATION OF VICTIMS
OF TORTURES OR SIMILAR PRACTICES AND OF THEIR FAMILIES.

Mr. Ople inquired whether “rehabilitation” would apply to
“families”. He noted that families are not victims of tortures or
similar practices and queried whether they should also be entitled to
rehabilitation.

Mr. Azcuna replied that it refers only to compensation although the provision can still be improved.

Mr. Monsod proposed to use the phrase “as well as rehabilitation
of victims of tortures or similar practices and compensation to them and
their families” which proposal was accepted by the Committee.

Submitted to a vote, and with 22 Members voting in favor and none against, subparagraph (3) was approved by the Body.

SECTION 20

Section 20(1), Mr. Rodrigo stated, was also reformulated by Mr. Azcuna.

Mr. Azcuna clarified that in the section, the Committee changed the original wordings which stated:

EXCESSIVE FINES SHALL NOT BE IMPOSED, NOR CRUEL, DEGRADING OR
INHUMAN PUNISHMENT, INFLICTED. NEITHER SHALL THE DEATH PENALTY BE
IMPOSED. UNLESS FOR COMPELLING REASONS INVOLVING HEINOUS CRIMES CONGRESS
HEREAFTER PROVIDES FOR IT. DEATH PENALTY ALREADY IMPOSED SHALL BE
REDUCED TO RECLUSION PERPETUA.

Mr. Davide proposed to delete the comma (,) after punishment and to insert the word “THE” before “Congress”.

The Committee accepted the changes.

On subparagraph 2 of the same Section, Mr. Rodrigo informed that
there is a comma (,) after “psychological” and the word “should” was
changed to SHALL such that it would read: ” . . . under subhuman
conditions shall be dealt with by law”.

There being no objection to the modifications the same were approved by the Body.

Mr. Padilla proposed to make paragraph (3) into paragraph (4) and
paragraph (4) into paragraph (5) for a more logical sequencing.

RESERVATION OF MR. SARMIENTO

With respect to paragraph (3), now paragraph (4), Mr. Sarmiento
made a reservation inasmuch as when he sponsored the provision it was
pointed out that rehabilitation should also cover families as they are
also affected by tortures committed against their loved ones.

He asked the permission of the Chair to check the records so as to correctly reflect the intent of the provision.

Mr. Suarez, in view, of the Davide amendment, proposed to place a
comma (,) after the word “crimes” which amendment was accepted by the
Committee.

Mr. Ople inquired whether the word “THE” should be placed before the words “death penalty” on Section 20(1).

Mr. Azcuna proposed “ANY” instead of “The”.

On line 14, Ms. Aquino proposed to insert the clause THE
EMPLOYMENT OF before the word “physical” as what is being prohibited is
the employment of physical punishment. Mr. Azcuna noted that it was the
original wording.

On the same section, Mr. Davide proposed to place a comma (,) after the word “detainee” on line 15.

There being no objection to the amendments, the same were approved by the Body.

Mr. Maambong indicated that the Committees agreed that the words
“life imprisonment” should be changed to RECLUSION PERPETUA and that
other provisions which contain such words must be changed accordingly.

Thereafter, submitted to a vote, and with 25 Members voting in
favor and none against, the Article on the Bill of Rights, with the
reservation made by Mr. Sarmiento on paragraph (4), was approved 9 the
Body.

INQUIRY OF MR. PADILLA

In reply to Mr. Padilla’s query on the number assigned to the
Article on the Judiciary, Mr. Rodrigo stated that this would be Article
IV.

Mr. Padilla then suggested that the Bill of Rights be followed by
Family Rights, the Executive, the Legislative, then the Judiciary, to
which Mr. Rodrigo stated that Mr. Padilla could sponsor it in the
Sponsorship Committee.

REMARKS OF MR. MAAMBONG

Mr. Maambong informed that as early as two weeks ago, the
Subcommittee on Rubrics of the Committee on Sponsorship distributed to
all the Members its report indicating the sequence of the Articles for
comments, but it received none, in view of which, he assumed that the
sequence would be followed. He stated, however, that the Committee is
willing to accept any amendment before printing the draft Articles.

REMARKS OF MR. MONSOD

With respect to the Article on the Judiciary, Mr. Monsod observed
that amendments approved in previous sessions were not yet engrossed, in
view of which, he moved for its deferment.

Mr. Rodrigo acceded and, thereafter, directed the Secretary-General to furnish the Members with updated copies.

CONSIDERATION OF THE ARTICLE ON THE EXECUTIVE

Mr. Rodrigo then presented the following amendments, to wit:

On Section 1, change “A” to THE;

On Section 2, line 6, add A between “and” and “resident” to read “and A resident of the Philippines”.

Mr. Rodrigo manifested that there has been no change on Section 3.

On Section 4, there has been a reformulation of the sentence on lines 19 to 21.

Mr. Azcuna stated that there was an amendment on line 11 to read “The President and the Vice President shall be elected . . .”

Mr. Ople proposed that, on line 13, letter “c”, the word “cabinet” should be capitalized.

Mr. Rodrigo acceded and likewise capitalized the M in “member”.

At this juncture, Mr. Maambong recalled that there was an
amendment by insertion to what appears now to be the second paragraph of
Section 4, to wit:

“Unless otherwise provided by law, the regular election for
President and Vice-President shall be held on the second Monday of May “

Mr. Maambong stated that this is on page 19, between lines 5 and
6. He pointed out that the Body may have to file a new formulation in
the Transitory Provisions because this only mentions regular elections
on the second Monday of May. He noted that there is no provision in the
Constitution as to when the first elections under the new Constitution
would be held.

On Section 4, page 18, Mr. Davide recalled that there was also an amendment by Mr. Sumulong to before the word “other”.

Going back to Section 2, Mr. Foz noted that the proposal reads;

“The Vice-President may be appointed as a member of the Cabinet. Such appointment requires no confirmation.”

Mr. Foz noted that the second paragraph is understood that the
appointment requires no confirmation from the Commission on
Appointments, the intent of which is not clarified in the Constitution.

Mr. Rodrigo manifested that there has been no change except capitalizing the letters M in “member” and C in “cabinet”.

On Section 6, line 20, Mr. Rodrigo proposed the deletion of the
word “any” from the phrase “any other source”; and delete the sentence
“The Congress shall provide by law for the annual salaries of the
President and Vice-President.”

On the rationale for the deletion, Mr. Azcuna explained that at
the moment, the salaries would be found in the Transitory Provisions.

REMARKS OF MR. MAAMBONG

At this juncture, Mr. Maambong informed that he received a note
from the printer, through the Computer Section, saying that for purposes
of layouting, the Body should decide in advance the presentation of the
articles, otherwise, it would be too late.

Mr. Bengzon suggested that the Body go over the rubrics of the articles the next day.

Mr. Nolledo supported Mr. Maambong’s motion.

Mr. Rodrigo manifested willingness to give way to the motion.

Mr. Nolledo pointed out the urgency of the situation since the
printer might start typesetting early in the morning of the next day. In
this connection, he stated that Mr. Maambong already presented a
motion, which he seconded.

At this juncture, Mr. Bengzon reminded the Body that Saturday or
Sunday would be too late and that the matter be decided not later than
the next day.

Mr. Azcuna interposed no objection.

REMARKS OF MR. GUINGONA

As Chairman of the Sponsorship Committee, Mr. Guingona stated that
the Body was supposed to present the sequencing right after the
presentation of the Committee on Style, and that unless there are
objections on the floor, the presentation could be considered early the
next session.

Thereupon, Mr. Rodrigo reiterated that he would not object to the
interruption or suspension of the report of the Committee on Style to
give way to the report of the Sponsorship Committee.

CONSIDERATION OF THE REPORT OF THE SPONSORSHIP COMMITTEE

Thereafter, the Body proceeded to the Report of the Sponsorship
Committee on the consideration of the sequencing of the draft articles
presented by Mr. Maambong, to wit:

Preamble

Article I Declaration of Principles and State Policies

Article II National Territory

Article III Citizenship

Article IV Bill of Rights

Article V Family Rights

Article VI Social Justice

Article VII Education, Science, Technology, paragraphs of Section 7 of the Article on the Sports, Arts and Culture

Article VIII Suffrage

Article IX Executive Department

Article X Legislative Department

Article XI The Judiciary

Article XII Local Government

Article XIII The Constitutional Commissions

Article XIV Accountability of Public Officers

Article XV National Economy and Patrimony

Article XVI General Provisions

Article XVII Amendments or Revisions

SUGGESTION OF MR. MONSOD

Mr. Monsod stated that the Articles on National Economy and Social
Justice should be next to each other because one relates to the
creation of wealth and the other to its distribution.

OBSERVATION OF MR. OPLE

Mr. Ople informed that in most Constitutions, the formation of
government comes ahead. He suggested that the structure of government
follow the Declaration of Principles and State Policies.

He stated that the Constitution itself consists of two parts: the
form of government and the rights of the people against the State. He
then inquired whether the Sponsorship Committee should follow the rule
in constitution-making of having, for its first part, the constitutional
amenities and declarations, the form of government, the form of the
State; and, for its second part, the rights of the people.

MOTION OF MR. GUINGONA

Thereafter, Mr. Guingona moved for the consideration of the
sequencing of the Articles the next day and, there being no objection,
the motion was approved by the Body.

SUGGESTION OF MR. NOLLEDO

Mr. Nolledo suggested that the Sponsorship Committee prepare a new
sequence for consideration the following day, to which Mr. Maambong
stated that he would have the sequence recopied for distribution.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

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

It was 7:30 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 8:23 p.m., the session was resumed.

REFORMULATION OF THE SIXTH PARAGRAPH OF SECTION 7

Upon resumption of session, Mr. Rodrigo stated that there was no change in the first to the fifth Executive Department.

Mr. Azcuna, however, presented the Committee’s reformulation of
the sixth paragraph, in lieu of the provision in the Third Reading copy,
to wit:

THE CONGRESS SHALL BY LAW PROVIDE FOR THE MANNER IN WHICH ONE WHO
IS TO ACT AS PRESIDENT SHALL BE SELECTED UNTIL A PRESIDENT OR A
VICE-PRESIDENT SHALL HAVE QUALIFIED, IN CASE OF DEATH, PERMANENT
DISABILITY, OR INABILITY OF THE OFFICIALS MENTIONED IN THE NEXT
PRECEDING PARAGRAPH.

There being no objection, the proposed amendment was approved by the Body.

REFORMULATION OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF SECTION 8

Mr. Rodrigo manifested that there was no change in. the first paragraph of Section 8.

On the second paragraph, Mr. Azcuna proposed a reformulation which reads:

THE CONGRESS SHALL BY LAW PROVIDE WHO SHALL SERVE AS PRESIDENT IN
CASE OF DEATH, PERMANENT DISABILITY, OR RESIGNATION OF THE ACTING
PRESIDENT. HE SHALL SERVE UNTIL THE PRESIDENT OR VICE-PRESIDENT SHALL
HAVE BEEN ELECTED AND QUALIFIED, AND BE SUBJECT TO THE SAME RESTRICTIONS
OF POWERS AND DISQUALIFICATIONS AS THE ACTING PRESIDENT.

There being no objection, the amendment was approved by the Body.

SECTION 9

Mr. Rodrigo stated that there was no change in Section 9.

SECTION 10

On Section 10, page 22, he stated that commas (,) were put
accordingly; on lines 22 and 23, the figure “2” filled the blank after
“paragraph”; the figure “27” placed after the word “Section”, and the
Roman numeral “VIII” after the word “Article”; on line 27, the figure
“4” was placed after “paragraph”; and on line 28, the figure “26” was
placed after “Section”.

There being no objection, the amendments on Section 10 were approved by the Body.

REFORMULATION OF SECTION 11

Mr. Azcuna then proposed a reformulation of Section 11, to wit:

WHENEVER THE PRESIDENT TRANSMITS TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE
AND THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES HIS WRITTEN DECLARATION
THAT HE IS UNABLE TO DISCHARGE THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF HIS OFFICE, AND
UNTIL HE TRANSMITS TO THEM A WRITTEN DECLARATION TO THE CONTRARY, SUCH
POWERS AND DUTIES SHALL BE DISCHARGED BY THE VICE-PRESIDENT AS ACTING
PRESIDENT.

WHENEVER A MAJORITY OF ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE CABINET TRANSMIT TO
THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE AND TO THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES THEIR WRITTEN DECLARATION THAT THE PRESIDENT IS UNABLE
TO DISCHARGE THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF HIS OFFICE, THE VICE-PRESIDENT
SHALL IMMEDIATELY ASSUME THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE OFFICE AS ACTING
PRESIDENT.

THEREAFTER, WHEN THE PRESIDENT TRANSMITS TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE
SENATE AND TO THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES HIS WRITTEN
DECLARATION THAT NO INABILITY EXISTS, HE SHALL REASSUME THE POWERS AND
DUTIES OF HIS OFFICE. MEANWHILE, SHOULD A MAJORITY OF ALL THE MEMBERS OF
THE CABINET TRANSMIT WITHIN FIVE DAYS TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE
AND TO THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES THEIR WRITTEN
DECLARATION THAT THE PRESIDENT IS UNABLE TO DISCHARGE THE POWERS AND
DUTIES OF HIS OFFICE, THE CONGRESS SHALL DECIDE THE ISSUE. FOR THAT
PURPOSE, THE CONGRESS SHALL CONVENE IF IT IS NOT IN SESSION, WITHIN
FORTY-EIGHT HOURS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS RULES AND WITHOUT NEED OF
CALL.

IF THE CONGRESS, WITHIN TEN DAYS AFTER RECEIPT OF THE LAST WRITTEN
DECLARATION OR, IF NOT IN SESSION, WITHIN TWELVE DAYS AFTER IT IS
REQUIRED TO ASSEMBLE, DETERMINES BY A TWO-THIRDS VOTE OF BOTH HOUSES,
VOTING SEPARATELY, THAT THE PRESIDENT IS UNABLE TO DISCHARGE THE POWERS
AND DUTIES OF HIS OFFICE, THE VICE-PRESIDENT SHALL ACT AS PRESIDENT;
OTHERWISE, THE PRESIDENT SHALL CONTINUE EXERCISING THE POWERS AND DUTIES
OF HIS OFFICE.

On page 23, line 28, Mr. Maambong proposed to change the letter
“R” in “Rules” to a small letter “r”, which Mr. Rodrigo accepted.

As proposed by Mr. Azcuna, there being no objection, the Body
approved the reformulation of Section 11 as amended by Mr. Maambong.

SECTION 12

On Section 12, page 24, line 11, Mr. Rodrigo proposed to change
the words “Cabinet Ministers” to MEMBERS OF THE CABINET, and to
transpose the phrase “shall not be denied access to the President during
such times” after the words “Armed Forces of the Philippines”, but to
change “during such times” to DURING SUCH ILLNESS, so that Section 12
would read:

IN CASE OF SERIOUS ILLNESS OF THE PRESIDENT, THE PUBLIC SHALL BE
INFORMED OF THE STATE OF HIS HEALTH. THE MEMBERS OF THE CABINET IN
CHARGE OF NATIONAL SECURITY AND FOREIGN RELATIONS AND THE CHIEF OF STAFF
OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES, SHALL NOT BE DENIED ACCESS TO
THE PRESIDENT DURING SUCH ILLNESS.

There being no objection, the amendments were approved by the Body.

REFORMULATION OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF SECTION 13

Mr. Azcuna proposed to refomulate Section 13, to read:

THE PRESIDENT, VICE-PRESIDENT, THE MEMBERS OF THE CABINET, AND
THEIR DEPUTIES OR ASSISTANTS SHALL NOT, UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN
THIS CONSTITUTION, HOLD ANY OTHER OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT DURING THEIR
TENURE. THEY SHALL NOT, DURING THEIR TENURE, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
PRACTICE ANY OTHER PROFESSION, PARTICIPATE IN ANY BUSINESS, OR BE
FINANCIALLY INTERESTED IN ANY CONTRACT WITH, OR IN ANY FRANCHISE, OR
SPECIAL PRIVILEGE GRANTED BY THE GOVERNMENT OR ANY SUBDIVISION, AGENCY,
OR INSTRUMENTALITY THEREOF, INCLUDING ANY GOVERNMENT-OWNED OR CONTROLLED
CORPORATIONS OR THEIR SUBSIDIARES, THEY SHALL STRICTLY AVOID CONFLICT
OF INTEREST IN THE CONDUCT OF THEIR OFFICE.

There being no objection, the reformulation of the first paragraph of Section 13 was approved by the Body.

On the second paragraph thereof, Mr. Rodrigo stated that on page
25, line 2, the words “Ministers, Deputy Ministers” were changed to
SECRETARIES, UNDERSECRETARIES.

On Mr. Ople’s query, Mr. Rodrigo affirmed that the letter “g” in
“government” should be capitalized, but not when used in words like
“government-owned or controlled corporations”.

On Mr. Foz’ query, Mr. Azcuna stated that there should not be a hyphen (-) between “Under” and “secretary”.

Additionally, Mr. Romulo pointed out that this is the American practice.

Also, on Mr. Foz’ query, Mr. Rodrigo affirmed that the letter “s”
in “secretary” should be capitalized to distinguish it from other
“secretaries”.

On Mr. Sarmiento’s query, Mr. Azcuna affirmed that the letters “m”
and “c” in “members of the constitutional Commissions” should be
capitalized.

On Mr. Ople’s query, Mr. Rodrigo affirmed the mandate to the
government to change “ministers” to “secretaries” after the ratification
of the Constitution.

On Mr. Monsod’s query whether there is really a need to change
“ministers” to “secretaries”, Mr. Rodrigo stated that the change was in
accordance with how they were denominated before the 1973 Constitution.

Mr. Monsod opined that it is not mandatory to substitute
“ministers” with “secretaries”. He then made a reservation relative to
the change.

Mr. Bengzon stated that other countries in the world which adopted
the parliamentary system of government use “minister” while those with
presidential form of government use “secretary”. He then queried whether
the letter “c” in “chairman” and “h” in “head” should be capitalized,
to which Mr. Azcuna replied in the negative.

Thereafter, Section 13 was submitted to a vote, and there being no objection the same was approved by the Body.

RESERVATION/PROPOSAL OF MR. MAAMBONG

Mr. Maambong stated that Section 14 of the Article on the Accountability of Public Officers reads:

SECTION 16. NO LOAN, GUARANTY OR OTHER FORM OF FINANCIAL
ACCOMMODATION FOR ANY BUSINESS PURPOSE MAY BE GRANTED, DIRECTLY OR
INDIRECTLY, BY ANY GOVERNMENT-OWNED OR CONTROLLED BANK OR FINANCIAL
INSTITUTION TO THE PRESIDENT, VICE-PRESIDENT, THE MEMBERS OF THE
CABINET, THE CONGRESS, THE SUPREME COURT, AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL
COMMISSIONS OR THE OMBUDSMAN, OR TO ANY FIRM OR ENTITY IN WHICH THEY
HAVE CONTROLLING INTEREST, DURING THEIR TENURE.

Mr. Maambong then made a reservation to propose in the next
session the transfer of this section to the Article on the
Constitutional Commissions.

Mr. Rodrigo took note of the reservation.

Mr. Rodrigo stated that there were no changes in Section 14.

SECTION 15

Mr. Azcuna stated that Section 15 was restyled to read as follows:

SECTION 15. TWO MONTHS IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE NEXT PRESIDENTIAL
ELECTIONS, AND UP TO THE END OF HIS TERM, A PRESIDENT OR ACTING
PRESIDENT SHALL NOT MAKE APPOINTMENTS, EXCEPT TEMPORARY APPOINTMENTS TO
EXECUTIVE POSITIONS WHEN CONTINUED VACANCES THEREIN WOULD PREJUDICE
PUBLIC SERVICE OR ENDANGER PUBLIC SAFETY.

Mr. Foz opined that “would” should be substituted with either WILL or SHALL.

Mr. Romulo stated it should be WILL.

Mr. Rodrigo agreed. He then pointed out that the Committee inserted FOR between “provided” and “by law”.

Submitted to a vote, and there being no objection, Section 15 was approved by the Body.

SECTION 16

Mr. Davide proposed to substitute “a” on line 17 with THE, which Mr. Rodrigo accepted.

Mr; Azcuna stated that on the same line 17 “shall appoint” was deleted.

Mr. Rodrigo stated that on line 23 the Committee had inserted FOR between “provided” and “by law”.

Mr. Sarmiento proposed to insert a comma (,) between “commissions” and “or boards” on line 27.

Mr. Rodrigo accepted the proposal.

On line 16, Mr. Azcuna stated that the Committee inserted a comma (,) after “compulsory”.

Mr. Rodrigo stated that on the second paragraph of Section 16 the
only amendment was the insertion of a comma (,) after “compulsory”.

Submitted-to a vote, and there being no objection, Section 16 was approved by the Body.

SECTION 17

Mr. Rodrigo stated that the section was reworded to read:

SECTION 17. THE PRESIDENT SHALL HAVE CONTROL OF ALL THE EXECUTIVE
DEPARTMENTS, BUREAUS AND OFFICES AND SHALL TAKE CARE THAT ALL LAWS ARE
FAITHFULLY EXECUTED.

He stated that the phrase “general supervision over all government
as may be provided by law” was deleted for the reason that it is the
same provision in the Article on Local Governments.

Mr. Rama proposed to insert SUPREME COURT after “as members of the” on Section 13, page 24, line 30.

Mr. Ople pointed out that the proposal is beyond mere restyling.

Mr. Azcuna pointed out that it would be difficult to appoint
relatives because they have to pass through the Judicial and Bar
Council.

Mr. Rodrigo did not accept the proposal.

SECTION 17

On page 26, lines 7 and 8, Mr. Sarmiento proposed to substitute “take care” with ENSURE.

Mr. Rodrigo accepted the proposal.

Submitted to a vote, and there being no objection, Section 17 was approved by the Body.

SECTION 18

On Section 18, page 26, Mr. Rodrigo stated that there were minor
amendments namely, the substitution of “of” with FROM on line 17; and
the insertion of THE before Congress on lines 24 and 26.

Mr. Azcuna opined that there should be a comma (,) after
“invasion” on line 12, to which Mr. Rodrigo agreed, adding that habeas
corpus should be underlined and that there should be a comma (,) after
“shall” on the second sentence on page 27.

In reply to Mr. Monsod’s query whether a comma (,) is needed after
“hours” on page 27, line 2, Mr. Rodrigo answered in the affirmative.

On the comma (,) after “shall”, page 27, line 1, Mr. Azcuna stated
that it is not necessary but Mr. Monsod stated otherwise because of the
comma (,) after the “suspension” on line 2, to which Mssrs. Rodrigo and
Azcuna agreed.

On the same page 27, lines 19 and 21, Mr. Rodrigo stated the phrase “who has been” was substituted with PERSON THUS ARRESTED.

In reply to Mr. Sarmiento’s query whether a comma (,) would be
necessary after “martial law” on line 6 and a comma (,) after “writ” on
line 7, Mr. Azcuna answered in the negative stating that “or” would be
used repeatedly.

Thereupon, there being no objection, the Body approved the same.

SECTION 20

On Section 20, Mr. Rodrigo stated that the figure “30” within
brackets was deleted and the letter “g” in “government” on line 10 was
capitalized.

On line 12, he stated that a comma (,) was placed after “foreign debt”.

Submitted to a vote, and there being no objection, the Body approved Section 20.

SECTION 21

Mr. Rodrigo stated that there was no change.

However, Mr. Sarmiento invited attention to “members” on line 16
stating that the letter “m” should be capitalized, to which Mr. Rodrigo
agreed.

SECTION 22

Mr. Azcuna stated that on Section 22, THE was inserted between
“to” and “Congress” and the commas (,) after “days” on line 18 and after
“expenditures” on line 20 were deleted.

In reply to Mr. Maambong’s query, Mr. Azcuna affirmed that a
similar provision in the first paragraph of Section 26 of the Article on
the Legislative had been deleted.

Submitted to a vote, and there being no objection, the Body approved Section 22.

REMARKS OF MR. BENGZON

At this juncture, Mr. Bengzon expressed gratitude to the Members for their patience and for continuing the work after dinner.

CORRECTION OF MR. FOZ

Again, adverting to Section 18, page 27, line 8, second paragraph,
Mr. Foz proposed to substitute “on the same” with THEREON, which Mr.
Azcuna accepted.

Thereafter, the entire Article on the Executive was submitted to a
vote and, there being no objection, the same was approved by the Body.

Mr. Azcuna stated that the approval is subject to the reservation
made by Mr. Monsod on the substitution of “ministers” with “secretaries”
and “deputy ministers” with “undersecretaries”.

ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION

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

It was 8:59 p.m.

I hereby certify to the correctness of the foregoing.

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

ATTESTED:

(SGD.) AMBROSIO B. PADILLA
Vice-President

Approved on October 10, 1986.