VOL. III, October 10, 1986
JOURNAL NO. 104
Friday, October 10, 1986
CALL TO ORDER
At 10:20 a.m., the Honorable Efrain B. Treñas called the session to order.
NATIONAL ANTHEM AND PRAYER
The National Anthem was sung followed by a prayer led by Mr. Edmundo G. Garcia, to wit:
Isang pagbasa mula sa aklat ng Propetang Isaias, kabanata 42, linya 16-17, at kabanata 43, linya 1-3:
“Aakayin ko ang mga bulag,
Sa mga lansangang hindi pa nila natatahak
Yaong kadiliman sa harapan nila’y gagawing liwanag,
At papatagin ko ang baku-bakong landas;
Ang lahat ng ito’y aking gagawin.
Mabibigo at mapapahiya ang lahat ng kumikilala
At nagtitiwala sa mga diyos-diyusan . . .
Israel, ito ang sinasabi sa iyo ni Yahweh:
Huwag kang matatakot, ililigtas kita.
Tinawag kita sa iyong pangalan, ikaw ay akin.
Pag ikaw ay daraan sa karagatan, sasamahan kita;
Hindi ka madadaig ng mga suliranin.
Dumaan ka man sa apoy, di ka maaano,
Hindi ka maibubuwal ng mabibigat na pagsubok
Sapagka’t akong si Yahweh ang iyong Diyos,
Ang Banal ng Israel na magliligtas sa iyo.”
Panginoong Diyos, aming Ama, nawa’y inyong kalugdan ang
pagsisikap namin dito sa Komisyon, itong apat na buwan nang dumaan —
hatid ay matinding paglalahok ng isip at katawan.Gawain namin ay alay sa sambayanang Iyong hirang, natatangi sa
Iyong paningin — ang bayan naming naghihintay at nagtitiwala sa pangako
ng Iyong pagpapalaya.Aming gawain kailanman’y di sasapat sa mga pangangailangan at
inaasam ng aming mga kababayan. Tulungan Ninyo Po kaming ito ay ibigay
at ibahagi sa kanila, nang sa gayo’y mga pagkukulang nami’y kanilang
mapuno, at trabaho nami’y sa kanila ay magkaroon ng katuparan. Pagka’t
ang mga linyang sulat nami’y walang saysay, kung di isasabuhay ng mga
taong-bayan. Tanging sila ang magpapatotoo sa Iyong mithiin.Itong mithiin, Kayo rin Po Ama; sa mga puso namin, ang nagtanim.
Mithiin at pangarap ng isang bukas, kung saan ang mga taong-bayan ay
malaya sa sariling lupa, mga Pilipinong may dangal sa harap ng mga
bansa. Isang bukas kung saan ang mga taong-bayan ay may pasiya sa
sariling kinabukasan, at nakikinabang sa bunga at likha ng kanilang
paggawa. Isang bukas kung saan ang yaman ng bayan ay ibinabahagi sa
lahat — kung saan ang isda at tinapay ay sama-samang ipinagpipiraso at
pinagsasaluhan ng bawa’t isang kapwa sa pamayanan. Isang bukas kung saan
ang mga tahanan ay mapayapa, ang mga tao ay nagdiriwang at ang mga bata
ay nagsasayahan.Malayo pa ang aming lalakbayin upang marating itong mithiin,
alam namin. Di ba’t sa bawa’t dulo ng daan, ay may nagbubukas na
panibagong landas? Patuloy ang paglalakad at pagtitiyagat ang pag-arok
sa mga pangarap.Gawain namin ay hindi nagtatapos sa bulwagang ito. Marami pa ang
mga linya na kailangang isulat, mga pinto na kailangang buksan, mga
pagsisikap na kailangang simulan.At dito, Kayo Po Ama ay laging kapiling namin. Tulad ng gabing
nagbubukang-liwayway at laging binabati ng umaga, di nagmamaliw Iyong
pag-ibig na tapat. Pagkalinga Mo’y sintatag ng bundok, di nagigiba.Sapagka’t Kayo ang tumawag at naghirang sa amin. Kayo ang
nagnais na kami ay pagpalain Pangako Mo’y Iyong tutuparin: mukha ng
kalupaa’y Iyong babaguhin, katarungan at pag-ibig Iyong paiiralin. At
yaong araw ay darating din, kung kailan ang bawa’t isa ay ituturing,
kapatid at kapwa, kaakbay sa diwa at kaisa sa mithiin.Amen.
ROLL CALL
Upon direction of the Chair, the Secretary-General of the Commission called the Roll and the following Members responded:
| Aquino, F.S. | Bernas, J. G. |
| Bacani, T. C. | Rosario Braid, F. |
| Bennagen, P. L. | De Castro, C. M. |
| Colayco, J. C. | Rama, N. G. |
| Concepcion, R. R. | Regalado, F. D. |
| Davide, H. G. | De los Reyes, R. F. |
| Foz, V. B. | Rigos, C. A. |
| Garcia, E. G. | Rodrigo, F. A. |
| Gascon, J. L. M.C. | Romulo, R. J. |
| Guingona, S. V. C. | Suarez, J. E. |
| Jamir, A. M. K. | Sumulong, L. M. |
| Monsod, C. S. | Tadeo, J. S. L. |
| Nieva, M. T. F. | Tingson, G. J. |
| Ople, B. F. | Treñas, E. B. |
| Padilla, A. B. | Uka, L. L |
| Quesada, M. L. M. | Villacorta, W. V. |
With 32 Members present, the Chair declared the presence of a quorum.
The following Members appeared after the Roll Call:
A.M.
| Abubakar, Y. R. | Natividad, T. C. |
| Azcuna, A. S. | Nolledo, J. N. |
| Bengzon, J. F. S. | Sarmiento, R. V. |
| Calderon, J. D. | Tan, C. |
| Maambong, R. E. | Villegas, B. M. |
P.M.
| Alonto, A. D. | Lerum, E. R. |
Mrs. Muñoz Palma and Mr. Rosales were sick.
Mr. Laurel was absent.
READING AND APPROVAL OF THE JOURNAL
On motion of Mr. Rama, 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. Rama, there being no objection, the Body proceeded to the Reference of Business.
REFERRAL TO COMMITTEES OF COMMUNICATIONS
Upon direction of the Chair, the Secretary-General read the titles
of the following Communications which were, in turn, referred by the
Chair to the Committees hereunder indicated:
Communication No. 1087 — Constitutional Commission of 1986
Letter from Mrs. Adelaida Boiser Deuna of 15-D Libis, Santolan
Road, Quezon City, opposing the move to change the name of the
Philippines
TO THE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
Communication No. 1088 — Constitutional Commission of 1986
Letter from Mr. Patricio R. Mamot, Ministry of Political Affairs,
Malacañang, urging the Constitutional Commission to return Spanish as
one of the country’s official languages — along with Filipino and
English
TO THE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES
Communication No. 1089 — Constitutional Commission of 1986
Letter from Mr. Fortunato U. Abat, Administrator, Philippine
Veterans Affairs Office, Arroceros Street, Manila, expressing the deep
gratitude of the veterans and their kin for the approval of a provision
in the Article on General Provisions of the new Constitution which
recognizes the patriotic services of our veterans and declares it an
obligation of the State to extend to them, their widows and orphans,
immediate and adequate assistance for their economic security with
preference in the acquisition of land from the public domain and in the
exploitation of our natural resources
TO THE ARCHIVES
Communication No. 1090 — Constitutional Commission of 1986
Letter from Atty. Eufracio D. Santos, Assistant Commissioner,
Bureau of Internal Revenue, and three other BIR officers, seeking the
conversion of the Bureau of Internal Revenue into a constitutional
“Commission on Revenue” as an ultimate remedy to optimize its
performance and maximize the collection of taxes
TO THE COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS AND AGENCIES
AMENDMENT OF RESOLUTION NO. 547
Mr. Villacorta, on behalf of the 47 signatories of Resolution No.
547 which was unanimously approved in the previous session, moved to
amend it by including therein the COMMISSION ON AUDIT among the agencies
to whom appreciation was extended for invaluable services rendered to
the Constitutional Commission.
Mr. Villacorta stated that the omission was an unintentional
oversight based on the assumption that the COA is part of the
Secretariat.
Mr. Guingona seconded the motion and added that the resident COA
auditor Atty. Jose A. David and his staff have been working for the Body
since June, 1986.
Mr. Villacorta affirmed Mr. Guingona’s manifestation.
Submitted to a vote and there being no objection, the same was approved by the Body.
CONSIDERATION OF THE REPORT OF THE SPONSORSHIP COMMITTEE
Thereafter, on motion of Mr. Rama, there being no objection, the
Body proceeded to the consideration of the report submitted by the
Sponsorship Committee.
The Chair recognized Mr. Guingona and the members of the Committee.
SPONSORSHIP REMARKS OF MR. GUINGONA
Mr. Guingona informed that the Committee started its work in the
middle of August at about the same time that the Style Committee started
its own meetings. He stated that the Committee had been meeting every
Tuesdays and Thursdays and also had two meetings with the Committee on
Style in order to harmonize the Committees’ versions of the
Constitution.
Adverting to Section 8 (17) of Rule II of the Rules, Mr. Guingona
stated that the functions of the Committee are 1) to review all matters
pertaining to the formulation and final draft of the Constitution; and
2) to correct and harmonize the provisions to avoid inaccuracies,
repetitions, inconsistencies, to arrange them in logical order and to
sponsor the final draft of the Constitution but it does not have the
authority to change the sense, substance or purpose of any provision
referred to it.
He explained that the corrections were principally made by the
Committee on Style with the Committee on Sponsorship merely acting in a
supportive role. He stated, however, that three other functions
specified in the Rules were likewise undertaken by the Committee,
namely: 1) the review of repetitions which was made by a subcommittee
with Ms. Aquino as Chairperson and Mr. Villacorta as Vice-Chairperson;
2) the arrangement of the provisions in logical order made by the
Subcommittee on Rubrics with Mr. Tingson as Chairperson and Mr. Maambong
as Vice-Chairperson; and 3) the sponsorship of the whole draft
Constitution. He stated that the whole draft may be approved, on Second
Reading, either during the next day’s session or in the morning of
Sunday, October 12, 1986. He informed that the Committee had also
distributed copies of the sequencing of the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions
for comparison.
SUGGESTION OF MR. OPLE
At this juncture, Mr. Ople recalled that before the adjournment of
the previous day’s session, he suggested to the Committee on
Sponsorship to sequence the articles on the basis of the general plan of
the Constitution consisting of two parts, to wit: 1) the form or the
structure of the State; and 2) the rights of the people relative to the
powers of the State.
Thereupon, adverting to the copy of the sequencing distributed by
the Committee, Mr. Ople suggested raising Article VI, Legislative
Department; Article VII, Executive Department; and Article VIII to the
third ranking of the Committee so that they would follow Article I,
National Territory; and Article II, Declaration of Principles. He added
that this sequencing would now make the first part of the Constitution
define the form and structure of the government while the second part
would define the citizen’s rights vis-a-vis the powers of government.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PRESENCE OF GUESTS
At this juncture, the Chair acknowledged the presence of Grade VII
students from the Colegio de San Agustin and high school students from
Canossa School, Sta. Rosa, Laguna.
REMARKS OF MR. CONCEPCION
Mr. Concepcion manifested his agreement with Mr. Ople’s
suggestion, however, he pointed out that the Article on National
Territory and the Article on Declaration of Principles must be followed
by the Bill of Rights considering the statement in the Declaration of
Principles that sovereignty resides in the people and all authority
emanates from them, hence, it would be better to first give a statement
of the powers withheld from the government followed by the form and
structure of the government itself. He added that after the Bill of
Rights, he agrees with Mr. Ople’s suggestion.
Responding thereto, Mr. Ople manifested his concurrence with Mr.
Concepcion’s observation that the Bill of Rights should not yield
precedence to any other Article in the Constitution. However, he opined
that to have a logical sequencing of the Articles, the Constitution
should begin with the formal structure of the government before
identifying the rights withheld therefrom and that after establishing
the powers of the Legislative, the Executive and the Judiciary, the
limitations of such powers should be enumerated.
REMARKS OF MR. GUINGONA
At this juncture, Mr. Guingona read the sequencing proposed by the
Subcommittee on Rubrics as follows: Preamble; Article I, Declaration of
Principles; Article II, National Territory; Article III, Citizenship;
Article IV, Bill of Rights; Article V Family Rights; Article VI, Social
Justice; Article VII, Education, Science and Technology, Arts, Culture
and Sports; Article VIII, Suffrage; Article IX, Executive; Article X,
Legislative; Article XI, Judiciary; Article XII Local Governments;
Article XIII, Constitutional Commissions; Article XIV, Accountability of
Public Officers, Article XV, National Economy and Patrimony; Article
XVI, General Provisions; Article XVII, Amendments or Revisions; and
Article XVIII, Transitory Provisions.
REMARKS OF MR. OPLE
Mr. Ople pointed out that the outline of the U.S. Constitution of
1787 was closely followed by the 1935 Constitution except for the
failure to provide precedents for the sequence to the Articles on the
Legislative, Executive and Judicial Articles. He pointed out that the
Bill of Rights was notably absent in the original version of the U.S.
1787 Constitution, for which reason the U.S. Constitution has a Bill of
Rights in the form of amendments. He then insisted that the rational
order should be 1) definition of the powers of the government including
its form and structure; and 2) the enumeration of the rights of the
people relative thereto.
SUGGESTION OF MR. DE CASTRO
Mr. de Castro suggested that the Constitution be presented to the
people in the following chronological order: 1) the Preamble which
speaks of the aspirations of the people; 2) Article I, the Article on
the National Territory which defines the limits of the territory within
which the fundamental law shall apply; 3) the Principles and Policies of
the State in relation to the national territory; 4) Citizenship which
determines the people entitled to live within the territory and to whom
the Constitution shall apply; 5) the rights, duties and obligations of
the citizens; 6) the form of government as suggested by Mr. Ople, 7)
Suffrage and rest of the articles.
REMARKS OF MR. ROMULO
In support of Mr. Concepcion’s suggestion, Mr. Romulo advanced the
following reasons: 1) the Bill of Rights should be located in its
traditional place as Pointed out by Mr. Concepcion; 2) its importance;
and 3) the country’s recent history which primarily concerns the
citizens who are entitled to see the same from the beginning.
Additionally, he stated that he, likewise, shares the view of Mr.
de Castro that presentation of the Constitution should start with the
components of the State.
REMARKS OF MR. BERNAS
Supporting Mr. Concepcion’s position, Mr. Bernas agreed that the
articles should be arranged in a rational order which, however may be
done in two ways, 1) chronological operationalization of the articles
which would initially deal with government, considering that the Bill of
Rights becomes operational as a check against the government only after
it has acted; and 2) arranging on the basis of importance of the
subjects of the articles.
He stated that since the Constitution would be people-oriented,
the Bill of Rights, which speaks of protection for the people, should
take precedence over government.
Expressing agreement with Mr. de Castro’s view, he stated that the
Article should initially deal with the elements of the State, namely,
National Territory and Citizenship, together with the Declaration of
Principles and State Policies which speaks of the sovereignty as
residing in all the citizens of the Philippines. He stressed that since
Citizenship deals with people, it should, together with the Bill of
Rights, take precedence over government.
REMARKS OF MR. PADILLA
Concurring with the views expressed by Messrs. Concepcion, Romulo,
Bernas and de Castro, Mr. Padilla stated that the State exists for the
individual and not the individual for the State. He stressed that after
the Article on the National Territory, it should be followed by the
provisions on the individuals or the people and then the government.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
Upon request of Mr. Tingson, the Chair suspended the session.
It was 10:56 a.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 11:11 a.m., the session was resumed.
Upon resumption of session, Mr. Guingona manifested that three
proposals were presented. He moved that Mr. Tingson be recognized.
MANIFESTATION OF MR. TINGSON
Mr. Tingson stated that the proponents were Messrs. Ople,
Concepcion and Garcia whom he requested to explain their respective
proposals.
REMARKS OF MR. OPLE
Mr. Ople stated that while he yields to no one when it comes to
respect for the Bill of Rights, a logical order of presentation of the
Articles should be considered without necessarily considering the
substantive priorities in the Constitution.
He reiterated the fact that authorities on Constitutions, from the
time of Aristotle to the time of Rousseau and John Stuart Mill, have
held that a constitution precedes the State because it creates or
recreates the State. He stated that it would, therefore, be appropriate
to begin with the Preamble which embodies the aspirations of the nation,
followed by the National Territory which defines the land, then
Citizenship which pertains to the people, followed by the Declaration of
Principles. He stated that the form, structure and powers of the State —
the Government, the Legislative, the Executive and the Judiciary should
immediately precede the Bill of Rights which are the rights of the
people in relation to the powers of the State and their defenses against
any abuse of such powers by the State.
He stressed that should the form of government be not given
precedence, the role of the Constitution in creating or recreating the
State might be obscured.
REQUEST OF MR. GUINGONA
At this juncture, Mr. Guingona requested Mr. Maambong to explain the sequencing which the Subcommittee on Rubrics had prepared.
EXPLANATION OF MR. TINGSON
Mr. Tingson spoke on behalf of the Committee, stating that there
is unanimity that the Preamble should be presented first, to be followed
by Article I on National Territory, Article II on the Declaration of
Principles and State Policies; Article III on Citizenship; Article IV on
the Bill of Rights; Article V on the Legislative; Article VI on the
Executive; and Article VII on the Judiciary.
He stated that the sequence is in accordance with the option presented by Messrs. Ople, de Castro and Bernas.
Mr. Ople stated, however, that the form of government and the
powers of the State, which discuss the Legislative, Executive and the
Judiciary, should immediately precede the Bill of Rights.
Mr. Tingson noted that Mr. Concepcion’s proposal is to have the Bill of Rights immediately before the form of government
REMARKS OF MR. MAAMBONG
Mr. Maambong stated that as early as August 27, 1986, the
Subcommittee on Rubrics had submitted its Memorandum Report containing
its recommendation on the arrangement of the Articles of the
Constitution which he admitted to have been made without an in depth
study but rather on the basis of the arrangement of the 1935 and the
1973 Constitutions. He opined that the presentation should be on the
basis of the elements of the State, namely, territory, government and
people, to be followed by the other items of the Articles which do not
fall under any of the three elements of the State.
He stated that due to the foregoing circumstances, the Committee would be open to suggestions on the matter.
REMARKS OF MR. CONCEPCION
Mr. Concepcion observed that there is unanimity in initially
presenting the Preamble and the Article on National Territory in that
order. He stated that since Article II on the Declaration of Principles
and State Policies is a statement of the objectives of the people and
the government in general, it is proper that it follows the Bill of
Rights. He expressed doubt however, whether the Article on Citizenship
should follow the Bill of Rights. Mr. Concepcion agreed with the
statement of Mr. de Castro that the next question to decide is who shall
exercise the powers. He noted that the very first section of the
Declaration of Principles which states:
The Philippines is a republican state Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them
mentions “people” before “citizens” and that the Bill of Rights covers not merely citizens but all people — citizens or aliens.
In the second sentence thereof, Mr. Concepcion remarked that the
government is given general authority to govern but “sovereignty”, which
is higher, resides in the people such that the rights of the people
must be set forth in general.
The Bill of Rights, he argued, protects individual rights and that
many provisions therein are stated in the negative, the negative being
stronger than the positive. He noted that the phrase “all government
authority emanates from them” shows that the source of the powers of
government is the people, hence, before defining the structure of
government and the method by which such powers shall be exercised, it
has already set limitations on and withheld powers from government. The
grant of power, he stressed, does not precede the withholding of power
but that the withholding is made before the authority is granted — to
make it more emphatic and effective and to convey the idea that
government cannot transcend it.
Finally, he stated that the Bill of Rights refers to all people
although not all can effectively enforce these rights. He maintained
that in the sequencing, the Citizenship Article should come after the
Bill of Rights, followed by Suffrage and, thereafter, by the government
structures.
REMARKS OF MR. REGALADO
Mr. Regalado, in support of the proposal of Mr. Concepcion, stated
that it would be necessary to preface the provisions on the three
government departments with the limitation on the powers which they can
exercise. He observed that the Bill of Rights, referred to sometimes as
the “Constitution of Liberty”, explains in advance why only so much
powers are granted to the three departments especially so if it is
preceded by the Declaration of Principles and State Policies. He noted
that it would be more explanatory if sequenced in such manner.
EXPLANATION OF MR. GARCIA
Mr. Garcia spoke in support of the revised version of the
Committee’s synchronization proposal. He noted that modern constitutions
capture profound social changes which take place and that in the 1986
Constitution, he would propose to divide it into two parts — the first
to underscore the people’s rights and the second to provide for the
structure of government.
The Declaration of Principles, he stated, contains and cedes all
the different rights-political, economic and social which would be the
first in the package of people’s rights. He explained that the first
part, therefore, should represent the totality of the rights of the
people. He stated that after this package shall come the structures.
This, he opined, would reflect the Philippine experience which has
been characterized as unprecedented and where the power of the people
was able to accomplish a new order in the political landscape.
He stated that the rights of the people should come first before
the structure of the State inasmuch as this structure only exists to
implement, supplement and support the people. Mr. Concepcion, he noted,
explained the whole rationale of the Constitution, which is, that
sovereignty resides in the people.
SUGGESTION OF MR. RODRIGO
To expedite the matter, Mr. Rodrigo suggested that the Body vote
on the three proposals and the one which gets one-half of the quorum
plus 1 should be adopted. Should none of the proposals receive this
vote, he suggested eliminating the proposal which receives the lowest
vote and proceeding to vote on the remaining two proposals. For each
reference; he is referring to the proposals as the Ople proposal,
Concepcion proposal and Garcia proposal.
Upon Mr. Ople’s suggestion, the Committee Chairman restated the various Plans, to wit:
Plan I — to place the structure of government ahead of the
Bill of Rights
Plan II — to place the Bill of Rights ahead of the structure of
government
Plan III — to place the Bill of Rights, Social Justice and
Education ahead of the structure of government
The Chair suggested a nominal voting. However Mr. Rama stated that
this would take time and suggested that the Members should instead be
given ballots on which they could check their preferences.
Thereafter, Mr. Guingona read Plan I.
Preamble
Article I — National Territory
Article II — Declaration of Principles
Article III — Citizenship
Article IV — Legislative
Article V — Executive
Article VI — Judiciary
Article VII — Bill of Rights
Article VIII — Family Rights
Article IX — Social Justice
Article X — Education, Science and Technology, Arts, Culture and
Sports
Article XI — Suffrage
Article XII — Local Governments
Article XIII — Constitutional Commissions
Article XIV — Accountability of Public Officers
Article XV — National Economy
Article XVI — General Provisions
Article XVII — Amendments or Revisions
Article XVIII — Transitory Provisions
INQUIRY OF MR. FOZ
In reply to Mr. Foz’ inquiry on the location of Commission on
Human Rights, Mr. Guingona stated that it would be placed under General
Provisions. He adverted to Mr. Foz’ explanation that it is not
considered one of the Constitutional Commissions.
Mr. Foz then suggested that it be placed as an adjunct to the Bill
of Rights since the proposed Commission has for its function the
protection of civil and political rights.
In reply, Mr. Guingona stated that the suggestion would be considered.
On the manner of voting, Mr. Bernas proposed a simple raising of hands.
Thereupon, Mr. Garcia read Plan III.
Preamble
Article I — National Territory
Article II — Citizenship
Article III — Suffrage
Article IV — Declaration of Principles
Article V — Bill of Rights
Article VI — Social Justice
Article VII — Education, Science and Technology, Arts, Culture and
Sports
Article VIII — Family Rights
Article IX — Executive
Article X — Legislative
Article XI — Judiciary
Article XII — Local Governments
Article XIII — Constitutional Commissions
Article XIV — Accountability of Public Officers
Article XV — National Economy and Patrimony
Article XVI — General Provisions
Article XVII — Amendments or Revisions
Article XVIII — Transitory Provisions
Thereafter, Mr. Tingson read Plan II.
Preamble
Article I — National Territory
Article II — General Provisions
Article III — Bill of Rights
Article IV — Citizenship
Article V — Suffrage
Article VI — Legislative
Article VII — Executive
Article VIII — Judiciary
Article IX — Impeachment
Article X — Commission on Elections
Article XI — Commission on Audit
Article XII — Civil Service Commission
Article XIII — Education, Science, Technology, Arts, Culture and
Sports
Article XIV — Family-Rights
Article XV — Social Justice
Article XVI — Natural Resources and Economy
Article XVII — General Provisions
Article XVIII — Amendments or Revisions
Article XIX — Transitory Provisions
Article XX — Special Provisions
CORRECTIONS OF MR. OPLE
On Plan I, Mr. Ople corrected that Local Governments should follow
the Bill of Rights such that the sequence would be Legislative,
Executive, Judiciary, Bill of Rights then Local Governments.
REMARKS OF MRS. QUESADA
Mrs. Quesada recalled that when Members sought to include social
and cultural rights in the Bill of Rights, there was a clarification
made that such rights belong to Social Justice inasmuch as they are not
self-executory.
She noted that students would learn of these fundamental rights
which are, for the first time, enshrined in the Constitution. She stated
that the sequencing in the Garcia proposal would facilitate the
teaching of the Constitution in all levels of the educational system.
REMARKS OF MR. MONSOD
Mr. Monsod spoke in favor of the Concepcion proposal, noting that
the Garcia proposal would place people’s organizations, sports, arts and
culture ahead of Executive, Legislative and Judiciary.
SUGGESTIONS OF MR. ABUBAKAR AND MR. DE CASTRO
Mr. Abubakar proposed mimeographing the three proposals and
allowing the Members to study them and determine the most appropriate
sequencing.
Mr. de Castro proposed, on the other hand, the creation of a
Committee which shall determine, on behalf of the Body, what sequencing
should be adopted. He stated that the Committee can be composed of the
three proponents, another Member and a Chairman. He observed that it
would be fruitless to discuss the various plans inasmuch as Members have
reservations on the sequencing in each plan. He suggested that whatever
decision is reached by the Committee shall be adopted by the Body.
Mr. Bernas, in reaction to the proposal of Mr. de Castro, pointed
out that it seems to be a motion of no-confidence in the Sponsorship
Committee.
Mr. de Castro denied that it is a motion of no confidence, stating
that he in fact proposed that the Chairman of the Sponsorship Committee
be the Chairman of the Committee to be created.
Mr. Rodrigo, to simplify the voting procedure, proposed that it be
limited to the principal issue. He noted that inasmuch as not all the
Articles are involved, the issue to be settled is whether to locate the
structure of government before or after the Bill of Rights. The Ople
Plan, he stated, is to put the government structure before the Bill of
Rights; the Concepcion Plan is to put it after the Bill of Rights while
the Garcia Plan would place it after the different rights.
WITHDRAWAL OF MR. OPLE’S PROPOSAL
At this juncture, Mr. Ople withdrew his plan in favor of the Concepcion Plan.
SUGGESTION OF MR. MAAMBONG
Mr. Maambong suggested that a sequence be made out of all the
plans offered which would then be the basis of voting. He pointed out
that it would be difficult to adopt Plan I or Plan II since the
sequencing of the articles does not agree, He observed that based on the
plans, there appears to be three packages — territory, people and
government on the basis of which the Body could determine, first of all,
the Declaration of Principles and that in tackling the “people”, the
Body should consider the Articles on Citizenship, Bill of Rights,
Suffrage, Family Rights; on the “government”, The body should consider
the Articles on the Executive, Legislative and Judiciary. He stated that
he would include therein the Constitutional Commissions in view of the
explanation of Mr. Concepcion that the Constitutional Commissions are
independent branches of government.
Thereupon, Mr. Rama proposed that the Body vote on the two remaining plans, by a simple raising of hands.
Mr. Nolledo sought to amend Plan II to place Local Governments
after Judiciary inasmuch as it constitutes the national structure of
government while Constitutional Commissions, although independent
offices of the government, are only incidental to the national
government.
Mr. Nolledo stated that he would support Plan II if the Article on
Local Governments is placed after Judiciary to which Mr. Concepcion
replied that said Article could be grouped together with the Articles
pertaining to government, but he would leave it to the Committee on
Sponsorship to place it either after the Article on the Judiciary or
after the Article on Constitutional Commissions. He opined, however,
that it should be placed after the Constitutional commissions because
the latter are government agencies of a national character while local
governments are subordinate in many respects to the general plan of
government.
Mr. Nolledo maintained that local governments are the
“infrastructures” of government that function continuously unlike the
Constitutional Commissions, such as the COMELEC.
On Mr. Maambong’s suggestion to place the Article on Local
Governments after the Article on the Executive, considering that the
former concerns supervision of local governments by the Executive, Mr.
Nolledo explained that it also involves the administrative or
legislative department, with a judicial system in the autonomous
regions. He suggested that the sequence follow the 1973 Constitution
where it is placed after the Judiciary.
Mr. Concepcion accepted Mr. Nolledo’s suggestion.
MANIFESTATIONS OF MESSRS. PADILLA AND RODRIGO
Mr. Padilla explained that with the withdrawal of Plan I (Ople),
the only issue is whether the Bill of Rights and the departments of
government would follow Plan II (Concepcion) or the new Articles on
Social Justice, etc., as proposed in Plan III (Garcia).
Mr. Rodrigo affirmed that the only question was where to place the
three departments of government, and thereafter the location of other
Articles.
APPROVAL OF PLAN II
Thereupon, Mr. Rama moved that the Body vote on whether to adopt
Plan II as proposed by Mr. Concepcion or Plan II as proposed by Mr.
Garcia.
Submitted to a vote, and with 26 Members voting in favor of Plan
II, and 9 Members in favor of Plan III, the Body approved Plan II as
proposed by Mr. Concepcion.
Mr. Guingona stated that the sequence of Articles as proposed in Plan II, is as follows:
a) Preamble
b) Article I — National Territory
c) Article II — Declaration of Principles and State Policies
d) Article III — Bill of Rights
e) Article IV — Citizenship
f) Article V — Suffrage
g) Article VI — Executive
h) Article VII — Legislative
i) Article VIII — Judiciary
i) Article IX — Local Governments
k) Article X — Constitutional Commissions
l) Article XI — Accountability of Public Officers
and the rest to be arranged by the Committee on Sponsorship.
Mr. Concepcion explained that the Bill of Rights had to be placed
before the Article on Citizenship because the former applies to all
people while the latter applies only to citizens of the Philippines who
can effectively exercise certain rights in relation to the powers of
government.
MOTION OF MR. RODRIGO
Considering that the printer was already asking for the sequencing
of Articles, Mr. Rodrigo moved that the Body give the Committee on
Sponsorship a vote of confidence to make the proper sequencing with
respect to the rest of the Articles.
COMMENTS OF MR. FOZ
On Mr. Foz’ comment that the Article on Citizenship should be
placed before the Bill of Rights, the Chair explained that the Body had
approved Plan II which placed the Bill of Rights ahead of the Article on
Citizenship.
MANIFESTATION OF MR. GUINGONA
Mr. Guingona stated that the Committee would like to ask the
Body’s decision on the proper situs of the Sections on the Commission on
Human Rights.
INQUIRY OF MR. GASCON
On Mr. Gascon’s query on the reason for placing the Article on the
Executive ahead of the Article on the Legislative, Mr. Maambong
explained that although the Constitution of the United States has the
Article on the Legislative ahead of the Article on the Executive, even
if it has a presidential form of government, the Committee accepted Mr.
Sumulong’s suggestion to place the Article on the Executive first
because of the presidential form of government.
Mr. Gascon pointed out that as stated in the Declaration of
Principles, sovereignty resides in the people. He stated that the
Legislative Department is the repository of the sovereignty of the
people because it is composed of elected representatives.
REMARKS OF MR. OPLE
Mr. Ople stated that he and other Members voted in favor of Plan
II on the understanding that the Article on the Legislative would be
placed before the Article on the Executive, as affirmed by Mr.
Concepcion, and as found in the 1935 Constitution.
In reply, Mr. Guingona stated that he would agree to whatever Mr.
Concepcion would propose, in reply to which, the latter explained that
he actually proposed the Article on the Legislative to be placed before
the Article on the Executive.
RULING OF THE CHAIR
The Chair stated that the Body actually voted to place the Article
on the Legislative ahead of the Article on the Executive. The Chair
stated that it was only amended when some objections were raised,
maintaining, however, that as originally approved, the Article on the
Legislative would be placed before the Article on the Executive.
MOTION OF MR. FOZ
Thereafter, Mr. Guingona reiterated that the Committee would like
to seek the Body’s decision on the proper situs of the provisions on the
Commission on Human Rights.
In view thereof, Mr. Foz moved that said provisions be placed in the Bill of Rights.
Mr. Regalado objected on the ground that the Bill of Rights
catalogues the rights of the people vis-a-vis the powers of government,
while the Commission on Human Rights would be enforcing rights different
therefrom. He then proposed to amend Mr. Foz’ motion by placing said
provisions on the Commission on Human Rights under the Article on the
Account ability of Public Officers.
Mr. Foz agreed to Mr. Regalado’s proposal.
MANIFESTATION OF MR. RAMA
At this juncture, Mr. Rama asked that the Body first dispose of
Mr. Rodrigo’s pending motion to give the Committee on Sponsorship a vote
of confidence to arrange the other Articles that would follow the
Articles under Plan II.
In reply, the Chair explained that it was the Committee which
asked the Body’s decision on the proper place of the provisions on the
Commission on Human Rights. Mr. Ople affirmed the Chair’s observation
and moved that the Body first vote on Mr. Foz’s proposal as amended by
Mr. Regalado to place the provisions on the Commission of Human Rights
under the Article on Accountability- of Public Officers.
REMARKS OF MR. DE CASTRO
Mr. de Castro, however, supported Mr. Rama’s motion to first vote
on Mr. Rodrigo’s motion to give the Committee a vote of confidence as
regards the arrangement of other Articles, and requested that Mr.
Concepcion, who was the proponent of Plan II, help the Committee in
sequencing the rest of the Articles.
APPROVAL OF MR. FOZ’ PROPOSAL
Thereupon, Mr. Ople reiterated his motion to approve Mr. Foz’
proposal, as amended by Mr. Regalado, to place the provisions on the
Commission on Human Rights under the Article on Accountability of Public
Officers.
There being no objection, Mr. Foz’ proposal was approved by the Body.
SEQUENCING OF ARTICLES AS APPROVED BY THE BODY
Thereafter, Mr. Guingona restated the proper sequencing of the
Articles, as clarified by Mr. Concepcion and approved by the Body, as
follows:
a) Preamble
b) Article I — National Territory
c) Article II — Declaration of Principles and State Policies
e) Article IV — Citizenship,
f) Article V — Suffrage
g) Article VI — Legislative Department
h) Article VII — Executive Department
i) Article VIII — Judiciary
j) Article IX — Local Governments
k) Article X — Constitutional Commissions
l) Article XI — Accountability of Public Officers (which includes the provisions on the Commission on Human Rights)
and the rest to be finalized by the Committee with the advice of Mr. Concepcion.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF MR. BENGZON
At this juncture, Mr. Bengzon announced that there would be a
caucus of Member’s of the Commission during lunch time at South Caucus
Rooms A and B.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
On motion of Mr. Rama, the Chair suspended the session until two-thirty in the afternoon.
It was 12:11 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 3:07 p.m., the session was resumed with the Honorable Alberto M.K. Jamir presiding.
MANIFESTATION OF MR. GUINGONA
Upon resumption of session, Mr. Guingona manifested that during
the caucus, the Committee on Sponsorship had distributed to the Members
the final draft of the Articles except for a few minor corrections to be
presented by Mr. Maambong.
At this juncture, Mr. Padilla proposed to resequence some of the
Articles in the following orders namely, the Article on the Judiciary,
the Article on Constitutional Commissions, Article on Local Government,
and the Article on Accountability of Public Officers.
Mr. Maambong stated that after consultation with Mr. Concepcion
and with the permission of Messrs. Ople and Nolledo, he would accede to
Mr. Padillas request.
Thereupon, Mr. Maambong read the new sequencing as follows:
Article I — National Territory
Article II — Declaration of Principles and State Policies
Article III — Bill of Rights
Article IV — Citizenship
Article V — Suffrage
Article VI — The Legislative
Article VII — The Executive
Article VIII — The Judiciary
Article IX — Constitutional Commission
Article X — Local Government
Article XI — Accountability of Public Officers
Article XII — National Economy and Patrimony
Article XIII — Social Justice
Article XIV — Education, Science and Technology, Arts,
Culture and Sports
Article XV — Family Rights
Article XVI — General Provisions
Article XVII — Amendments or Revisions
Article XVIII — Transitory Provisions
PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. FOZ
Mr. Foz proposed to add AND HUMAN RIGHTS in the title
“Accountability of Public Officers”. He explained that the establishment
of the Commission on Human Rights was incorporated in the Article on
Accountability of Public Officers and his proposal and his proposal
would merely highlight such establishment.
Mr. Monsod objected to the proposal because during the discussion
on the said Article, it was understood that the Commission on Human
Rights would also have jurisdiction over human rights violations
committed by people other than public officers, hence, the Commission on
Human Rights should be incorporated in another article.
Mr. Guingona did not accept Mr. Foz’ proposal.
Mr. Foz insisted on his proposal.
Mr. Maambong insisted that the Commission on Human Rights should
be placed in the General Provisions in accordance with his original
proposal.
Mr. Padilla suggested that the provisions on human rights be
designated as a new article to be placed before the Article on Family
Rights.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
At this juncture, the Chair suspended the session.
It was 3:17 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 3:21 p.m., the session was resumed.
Upon resumption, Mr. Foz stated that after consultations with
Messrs. Monsod and Azcuna and Ms. Aquino, it was agreed that the
provisions on human rights be made part of the Article on Social Justice
to be designated now as the Article on Social Justice AND HUMAN RIGHTS.
Mr. Guingona accepted the proposal.
Submitted to a vote and there being no objection, the same was approved by the Body.
Thereupon, Mr. Guingona read the sequencing as amended, to wit:
Preamble
Article I — National Territory
Article II — Declaration of Principles and State
Policies
Article III — Bill of Rights
Article IV — Citizenship
Article V — Suffrage
Article VI — The Legislative
Article VII — The Executive
Article VIII —The Judiciary
Article IX — Constitutional Commissions
Article X — Local Government
Article XI — Accountability of Public Officers
Article XII — National Economy and Patrimony
Article XIII — Social Justice and Human Rights
Article XIV — Education, Science and Technology,
Arts, Culture and Sports
Article XV — Family Rights
Article XVI — General Provisions
Article XVII — Amendments or Revisions; and
Article XVIII — Transitory Provisions
AMENDMENT OF MR. MAAMBONG
Mr. Maambong proposed to insert THE before “Constitutional Commissions”.
Mr. Guingona accepted the proposal.
APPROVAL OF THE SEQUENCING
Submitted to a vote, and with 32 Members voting in favor and none against, the Body approved the sequencing, as amended.
RESUMPTION OF CONSIDERATION OF THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON STYLE
Upon call of Mr. Rama, the Body resumed consideration of the Committee Report submitted by the Committee on Style.
The Chair recognized Mr. Rodrigo and the members of the Committee.
Mr. Rodrigo explained that the Body has two documents: 1) the
document entitled “1986 Constitution” which contains the provisions as
approved by the Body; and 2) the 1986 DRAFT CONSTITUTION AS APPRECIATED
BY THE COMMITTEE ON STYLE and containing the changes which were
underlined.
INQUIRY OF MR. SARMIENTO
Mr. Sarmiento stated that during the previous session, he made a
reservation relative to Article IV, Section 19(3), page 9 in relation to
Section 19(3) concerning the rehabilitation of victims of torture and
compensation. He then queried as to the intent of the latter provision.
Mr. Bernas explained that the change made in the previous session
consists of the insertion of X rehabilitation” to cover the
rehabilitation not only of the victims but also of their families in
accordance with the original intention of the author. He then proposed
to reword the provision to read THE LAW SHALL PROVIDE FOR PENAL AND
CIVIL SANCTIONS FOR VIOLATIONS OF THIS SECTION AS WELL AS COMPENSATION
TO AND REHABILITATION OF VICTIMS OF TORTURE OF SIMILAR PRACTICES.
Submitted to a vote, and there being no objection, the same was approved by the Body.
WITHDRAWAL OF RESERVATION
Mr. Monsod manifested withdrawal of his reservation relative to the substitution of “Minister” with SECRETARY.
APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS
Thereafter, on motion of Mr. Rodrigo, there being no objection, the Body approved the following amendments one after the other:
1. Section 1, page 10, line 6, place a comma (,) after “enforceable”;
2. Section 3(1), page 1, line 4, place a comma (,) after “five”;
3. Section 3(2), same page, line 11, place a comma (,) after “application”;
4. Section 3(3), same page, line 20, delete the figure (3) after
“three” and on line 21 capitalize the “m” in “members”; and on line 22
capitalize the “p” in “provided”.
AMENDMENT OF MR. CONCEPCION
As proposed by Mr. Concepcion and accepted by Mr. Rodrigo, on page
2 of the Approved Amendments, the Body approved the substitution of
“of” with ON on Section 3(3), line 19.
APPROVAL OF FURTHER AMENDMENTS
Thereafter, as proposed by Mr. Rodrigo, there being no objection,
the Body approved the following amendments on the Approved Amendments:
1. Section 10, page 2, line 3, insert OR after “lower courts”, and on line 4, capitalize the “m” in “members”;
2. Section 11, page 2, lines 9 and 12, capitalize the “m” in “member”.
On Section 13, Mr. Rodrigo stated that the Body approved the
deletion of the last sentence but that the second to the last sentence
which reads: DURING THEIR CONTINUANCE IN OFFICE, THEIR SALARY SHALL NOT
BE DECREASED, was likewise deleted due to printing inadvertence for
which reason, the same should be restored.
Thereupon, there being no objection, the same was approved by the Body.
INQUIRY OF MR. SUAREZ
Mr. Suarez invited attention to the fact that the clause “Until
the Congress shall provide otherwise, the Chief Justice shall receive an
annual salary of P ________ and each Associate Justices P ________” has
been deleted.
Replying thereto, Mr. Rodrigo stated that the clause was already
deleted in Section 13 and that the second to the last sentence was
likewise deleted due to inadvertence.
MANIFESTATIONS OF MR. RODRIGO
Mr. Rodrigo manifested that Section 4, subsections 1 to 3 have no changes or corrections.
On motion of Mr. Rodrigo, there being no objection, the Body
approved the substitution of “with respect to” to FOR THE LOWER COURTS
on Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 12.
On motion of Mr. Rodrigo, there being no objection, the Body
approved the following corrections on Section 6: 1) on Section 6(12), to
capitalize the letter “c” of “council”; 2) on line 27, to capitalize
the letter “j” in “justice”; 3) on line 24, to capitalize the letter “m”
in “members”; 4) on subparagraph 3, he stated that “of the Counsel” is
transposed after “ex-officio” and before “and”; and 5) on subsection 4,
to capitalize the letter “m” in “members”.
Mr. Rodrigo manifested that there was no change on Section 7,
except on line 16, to place a comma (,) after “quo warranto”; and on
line 20, Mr. Azcuna stated that “decree” was substituted with ORDER.
On motion of Mr. Rodrigo, there being no objection, the same amendments were approved by the Body.
At this juncture, Mr. Rodrigo explained that the paragraphs in the
subsections were denominated with small letters because the numerals
were already used to denominate the subsections.
FURTHER APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS
On motion of Mr. Rodrigo, there being no Objection, the Body approved the following amendments, one after the other:
1) On Section 7(1) (d), the clause is reformulated to read:
All criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.
In reply to Mr. Sarmiento’s query, Mr. Azcuna stated that “or
higher” is underscored because it has been amended, but the underscoring
would disappear in the final printing.
2) On Subsection 3, line 12, delete the words “last longer than” and in lieu thereof, substitute the word EXCEED.
3) On Subsection 5, line 22, place a comma (,) after “same grade” and delete the letter “s” in “procedures”.
4) On Section 8, substitute the words “and/or” with OR in
accordance with the general rule announced earlier that in all cases
where “and/or” was used, OR would be used instead.
At this juncture, Mr. Azcuna manifested that Sections 9 to 12 have no changes and that Section 13 has already been approved.
5) On Section 14(2), capitalize the letters “r” and “c” in “rules of court”.
In reply to Mr. Rodrigo’s query whether the letters “p” and “j” of
“presiding judge” on Subsection 3 should be capitalized, Mr. Azcuna
answered in the negative.
6) On Section 14(3), add the following sentence;
THE CERTIFICATION SHALL STATE WHY A DECISION OR RESOLUTION HAS NOT BEEN RENDERED OR ISSUED WITHIN SAID PERIOD.
7) On Section 14(4), at the instance of Mr. Maambong, place a comma (,) after “determination”.
8) On Section 15, capitalize the letter “j” in the word “judiciary” on lines 1 and 2.
9) On Section 16, capitalize the letter “j” in the word “judiciary”.
MOTION OF MR. RAMA
At this juncture, Mr. Rama moved that the entire Article on the Judiciary be voted upon.
CORRECTIONS BY MR. SARMIENTO
Mr. Sarmiento invited attention to the fact that the letter “j” in
“judiciary” in the previous sections were not capitalized, in reply to
which, Mr. Rodrigo stated that all the “j’s” of “judiciary” should be
capitalized.
CORRECTION OF MR. FOZ
On line 6, Section 2 of the same Article, Mr. Foz proposed to add
OF ITS MEMBERS after “tenure” to be more specific, which the Committee
accepted.
Thereupon, on motion of Mr. Rodrigo and there being no objection, the same was approved by the Body.
APPROVAL OF THE ARTICLE ON THE JUDICIARY
On motion of Mr. Rama, there being no objection, the Body approved the Article on the Judiciary.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF MR. BENGZON
At this juncture, Mr. Bengzon asked the Members who had
volunteered to assist the Steering Committee and the Secretariat in
proofreading the Constitution to register with Mr. Nazareno.
He also announced that the Committee Chairmen and volunteers
should be at the second floor of the Press Information Agency Building
in Visayas Avenue, Quezon City at ten o’clock on Monday.
ARTICLE ON THE LEGISLATIVE
Mr. Rodrigo manifested that the Article on the Legislative would be considered next.
In reply to Mr. Azcuna’s query, Mr. Rodrigo stated that the word
“Department” appearing on every head-title pertaining to the branches of
government should be deleted.
On Section 1, Mr. Rodrigo stated that THE was inserted before “Congress”.
On the head-title, Mr. Regalado pointed out that THE LEGISLATURE
sounds better than “The Legislative” which is a dangling adjective. Mr.
Bernas concurred in the observation.
Mr. Davide objected, stating that initiative and referendum were
embodied therein, which is the reserve power of the people. He suggested
the title to be THE LEGISLATIVE POWER or THE LEGISLATIVE.
Mr. Regalado argued, however, that “Legislative” is an adjective.
He suggested retaining the original title which added “Department” to
the titles pertaining to the branches of government.
Mr. Davide insisted on retaining the original titles which read
THE LEGISLATIVE POWER or THE EXECUTIVE POWER although with respect to
the Judiciary, the same may be entitled THE JUDICIARY.
Mr. Guingona stated that before the Committee on Style took over,
the titles merely stated “The Legislative”, “The Executive” and “The
Judiciary” which were already approved. He stated that should there be
any change, the proponent should first seek reconsideration.
Mr. Regalado stated that he was precisely seeking reconsideration
because he was not around when it was approved. He stressed that it
would be blatantly wrong to use an adjective for a title and that it is
within the power of the Body to correct a mistake.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
At this juncture, the Chair suspended the session.
It was 4:00 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 4:06 p.m., the session was resumed.
APPROVAL OF THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
On motion of Mr. Regalado and there being no objection, the Body
approved his motion for reconsideration and considered his proposed
titles on the three Articles to read: THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT, THE
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT and THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, respectively.
Mr. Padilla stated that with the use of “Department”, there would be no need for the article “the” on every title thereof.
Mr. Regalado stated that except for the titles, his motion would
not affect the sequencing already approved. He explained that he used
the article “the” in line with the amendment on the title of the Article
on the Constitutional Commissions.
Thereupon, there being no objection, the same was approved by the Body.
ARTICLE ON THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
On Section 1, Mr. Rodrigo informed that the .word THE was placed
before the word “Congress” on line 2. Mr. Azcuna, on line 1 thereof,
stated that “Legislative” should begin with the smaller letter “L”.
On motion of Mr. Rodrigo, there being no objection, the Body approved the following amendments, one after the other:
1) On Section 1,
a) line 1, the word “Legislative” should begin with a small letter “l”;
b) line 2, place the word THE before “Congress”.
Mr. Rodrigo noted that Sections 2, 3 and 4 had no changes.
2) Section 5(1) has been amended to read:
The House of Representatives shall be composed of not more than
two hundred and fifty members, unless otherwise fixed by law, who shall
be elected from legislative districts apportioned among the provinces,
cities, and the Metropolitan Manila area in accordance with the number
of their respective inhabitants, and on the basis of a uniform and
progressive ratio, and those who, as provided by law, shall be elected
through a party-list system of registered national, regional, and
sectoral parties or organizations.
Subparagraph (2) thereof would read:
The party-list representatives shall constitute twenty per centum
of the total number of representatives including those under the party
list. For three consecutive terms after the ratification of this
Constitution, one-half of the seats allocated to party list
representatives shall be filled, as provided by law, by selection or
election from the labor, peasant, urban poor, indigenous cultural
communities, women, youth, and such other sectors as may be provided by
law, except the religious sector.
Subparagraph (3) thereof would provide:
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.
Subparagraph (4) thereof would state:
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.
The Section, he informed, was approved by the Body two days earlier.
On the word “reapportionment”, Mr. Ople informed that there are
two ways of spelling it — one with a hyphen and the other, a more modern
way, without a hyphen. Mr. Azcuna stated that the modern usage is
without a hyphen as in the word “by laws”.
Mr. Rodrigo stated that Sections 7, 8 and 9 have no changes.
3) On Section 10, delete the phrase “however, it”; and rearrange
the last sentence which reads “It may be called to a special session at
any time by the President” to THE PRESIDENT MAY CALL A SPECIAL SESSION
AT ANY TIME.
On the same section, line 27, Mr. Azcuna informed that a comma (,) should follow the word “Sundays”.
4) On Section 11,
a) Subsection (1) has no changes;
b) Paragraph (2), lines 4 and 5, delete “each and in lieu thereof,
substitute the article IT, such that, as amended, it would read:
“Each House shall choose such Other officers as IT may deem necessary.
c) Subparagraph (2) has no changes; he
d) Subparagraph (3), line 13, rearrange the clause “but if the
penalty is suspension this shall not exceed sixty days” to A PENALTY OF
SUSPENSION WHEN IMPOSED SHALL NOT EXCEED SIXTY DAYS.
At this juncture, Mr. Bacani proposed and the Committee accepted a comma (,) after “suspension”.
e) Subparagraph (4), as amended, would read: “Each House shall also keep a record of its proceedings.”
f) Subparagraph (5), line 22, correct a typographical error to state “adjourn FOR more than . . .”
5) On Section 12, “members” should begin with a capital letter.
Mr. Rodrigo stated that Section 13 has changes.
6) On Section 14, lines 1 and 2, add the word ALL, such that it
would read: “while the Congress is in session, at the call of its
Chairman or a majority of ALL its Members”.
Mr. Rodrigo stated that Section 15 has no changes.
7) On Section 16, insert the word THE after “of” such that it
would read: “The records and books of accounts of THE Congress”, in
keeping with the uniform rule to add THE before “Congress”.
Mr. Rodrigo stated that Sections 17 and 18 have no changes.
8) On Section 19, capitalize the word “government”; and on line 9,
place the words OR ITS SUBSIDIARY after “corporation”, also in keeping
with a rule followed in other sections.
9) On Section 20, change the phrase “he is an author” to THEY ARE AUTHORS to harmonize it with the plural subject.
Mr. Rodrigo stated that Sections 23, 24 and 25 have no changes.
10) On Section 22, change “their” to ITS inasmuch as “or” was used in the sentence, to wit:
“The Senate or the House Representatives or any of ITS respective Committees”.
Mr. Rodrigo stated that Sections 23, and 24 have no changes.
11) Section 26, as reformulated by Mr. Azcuna, would read:
Subparagraph (1): THE CONGRESS MAY NOT INCREASE THE APPROPRIATIONS
RECOMMENDED BY THE PRESIDENT FOR THE OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT AS
SPECIFIED IN THE BUDGET. THE FORM, COMMENT AND MANNER OF PREPARATION OF
THE BUDGET SHALL BE PRESCRIBED BY LAW.
Mr. Azcuna informed that a portion of the original provision was transferred to the Article on the Executive Department.
a) Subparagraph (2), drop the “s” from the words “provisions” and “appropriations”.
b) Subsection (5), line 22, delete the word “and” before “the Speaker”.
c) Subparagraphs (6) and (7) have no changes.
Mr. Rodrigo stated that Section 27 and its subparagraphs (1) and (2) have no changes.
12) On Section 28,
(a) Subparagraph (1), insert the word THE before “Congress”.
(b) Subparagraph (2) thereof has no changes.
13) On Section 29,
(a) Subparagraphs (1) and (2) have no changes.
(b) Subparagraph (3), line 3, add the word IMPROVEMENTS, such that it would read:
“Charitable institutions, churches, and personages or convents
appurtenant thereto, mosques, nonprofit cemeteries and all lands,
buildings and IMPROVEMENTS. . . “
14) On Section 30,
(a) drop the “s” from “appropriations”.
(b) line 16, Mr. Sarmiento proposed and the Committee accepted the removal of the comma (,) after “revenue”.
(c) Subparagraph (2), place a comma (,) after “minister”. Mr.
Maambong inquired whether there is a need for the word “ever”, to which
the Committee responded by deleting the said word. Therefore, as
amended, line 11 thereof would read:
“No public money or property shall be appropriated . . .”
Upon inquiry of Mr. Bacani, on subparagraph (3), Mr. Rodrigo
observed that there should be no comma (,) after “government” so that it
would modify “orphanage” and “leprosarium” and that there should be no
comma (,) after “orphanage”.
Mr. Maambong observed that in subparagraph (2), the word “used”, “use” and “use of” appear.
Mr. Azcuna proposed deleting “used” on line 12.
Mr. Romulo suggested using EXPENDED in lieu of “used” in the first sentence.
Mr. Nolledo maintained that the word “used” would be appropriate
inasmuch as it does not only refer to money but also to property. He
added that it was used in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions and that
EXPENDED would apply to money.
Mr. Foz proposed deleting the phrase “for the use of, benefit or support of” on line 15.
Mr. Regalado proposed that the word “use” be retained on lines 13
and 15 and that on line 12, the phrase “or used” can be deleted as it is
deemed absorbed in “appropriate” or “applied”.
Mr. Foz proposed THAT instead of the phrase “the use of, benefit,
or support” on line 15, so that it would simply read, in part: ” . . .
for THAT of . . .
Mr. Davide proposed that no change be made as it was the language
of the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions and that jurisprudence thereon had
been sufficiently and adequately established. He stated that any change
might disturb said jurisprudence.
Mr. Nolledo suggested, on line 13, to delete “use” so that it
would read: “appropriated, applied, paid, or used, directly or
indirectly, for the benefit or support of any sect, church,
denomination”. He stated that there was something wrong in the provision
which the Members of the 1971 Constitutional Convention did not notice.
Mr. Rama stated that a compromise can be reached and that instead
of using “expended” as suggested by Mr. Romulo, the-Body can use
“employed” which can refer to money or property. As amended, the Section
would state:
No public money or property shall ever be appropriated, applied, paid or EMPLOYED, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit
and that “use” on line 13 can be retained.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
The Chair suspended the session.
It was 4:31 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 4:34 p.m., the session was resumed.
Mr. Rodrigo then stated that “use” on line 13 would be deleted
and, in its place, would be substituted with EMPLOYED and on line 15,
the words “for the use of, benefit or support” would also be the use of,
benefit or support” would also be deleted.
As amended, it would read:
No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid
or EMPLOYED directly or indirectly for the use, benefit, or support of
any sect, church, denomination, sectarian institution, or system of
religion or of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious
teacher, . . .
Mr. Uka agreed with the revision made by Mr. Rodrigo which, he
stated, was done stylishly. He noted that the word “use” appeared in the
1973 Constitution for emphasis although the section became monotonous.
Mr. Azcuna informed that a comma (,) should be placed after “religion” on line 14.
APPROVAL OF THE ARTICLE ON THE LEGISLATIVE DEPARTMENT
On motion of Mr. Rama, there being no objection, the Body approved the Article on the Legislative Department.
THE ARTICLE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
On motion of Mr. Rodrigo, there being no objection, the Body approved the following amendments, one after the other:
1) On Section 1 of the General Provisions, insert a comma (,) after the word “municipalities”.
Mr. Rodrigo stated that Sections 2 and 3 have no changes.
2) On Section 4, line 18, insert a comma (,) after the word “municipality”.
3) Section 5, as reformulated by Mr. Azcuna, would read:
CITIES THAT ARE HIGHLY URBANIZED, AS DETERMINED BY LAW, AND
COMPONENT CITIES WHOSE CHARTERS PROHIBIT THEIR VOTERS FROM VOTING FOR
PROVINCIAL ELECTIVE OFFICIALS, SHALL BE INDEPENDENT OF THE PROVINCE. THE
VOTERS OF COMPONENT CITIES WITHIN A PROVINCE. WHOSE CHARTERS CONTAIN NO
SUCH PROHIBITION, SHALL NOT BE DEPRIVED OF THEIR RIGHT TO VOTE FOR
ELECTIVE PROVINCIAL OFFICIALS.
Mr. Rodrigo stated that Section 6 has no changes.
4) On Section 7, insert a comma (,) after “officials”.
5) On Section 8, change the word “assigned” to PRESCRIBED.
Mr. Rodrigo stated that Sections 9, 10 and 11 have no changes.
6) On Section 12, insert a comma (,) after “fees” and the article THE after “Congress”.
Mr. Rodrigo stated that Section 13 has no changes.
7) On Section 14, delete the word “their” between “including” and
“sharing” on line 4, and insert the words THE SAME before “with” on line
5, so that Section 14 would read:
LOCAL GOVERNMENT SHALL BE ENTITLED TO AN EQUITABLE SHARE IN THE
PROCEEDS OF THE UTILIZATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE NATIONAL WEALTH
WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE AREAS, IN THE MANNER PROVIDED BY LAW, INCLUDING
SHARING THE SAME WITH THE INHABITANTS BY WAY OF DIRECT BENEFITS.
8) On Section 15 which refers to the Autonomous Regions, insert a
comma (,) after “cities” on line 8 and after “structures” on line 10.
9) On Section 16, insert a comma (,) after “family” on line 23 and after “cities” on line 4.
10) On Section 17, delete the words “of the Philippines” after “President”, so that it would read:
THE PRESIDENT SHALL EXERCISE GENERAL SUPERVISION OVER AUTONOMOUS REGIONS TO ENSURE THAT LAWS ARE FAITHFULLY EXECUTED.
11) On Section 18, insert a comma (,) after “family” on line 16 and after “social” on line 18.
12) On Section 19, insert a comma (,) after “supervised” on line 3.
13) On Section 20, insert a comma (,) after “functions”.
14) On Section 21, insert a comma (,) after “Houses” on line 12.
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS OF MR. SARMIENTO
On Section 11, page 44, line 13, Mr. Sarmiento proposed to delete
the “and” after “officials” and the “and” after “ministries”, so that
the phrase would read “local government officials, heads of ministries,
other government offices and representatives”.
Mr. Rodrigo accepted the proposed amendment.
Mr. Monsod, however, opined that the “and” after “ministries”
should be retained because the word “heads” refers to both “ministries”
and “government offices”, to which Mr. Rodrigo agreed.
Mr. Sarmiento further proposed to change “ministries” to DEPARTMENTS.
In reply, Mr. Ople believed that “heads of ministries” does not
refer to the Members of the Cabinet because they do not sit in the
Regional Development Councils but probably refers to heads of regional
offices of such ministries, which Mr. Monsod affirmed.
In this connection, Mr. Azcuna proposed that the words “within the
regions” on line 15 be transposed to line 14 after “government
offices”.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
At this juncture, on request of Mr. Rodrigo, the Chair suspended the session.
It was 4:44 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 4:48 p.m., the session was resumed.
REFORMULATION OF SECTION 11
Upon resumption of session, Mr. Azcuna proposed a reformulation of Section 11, to wit:
THE PRESIDENT SHALL PROVIDE FOR REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT COUNCILS OR
OTHER SIMILAR BODIES COMPOSED OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS, REGIONAL
HEADS OF DEPARTMENTS AND OTHER GOVERNMENT OFFICES AND REPRESENTATIVES
FROM NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS WITHIN THE REGIONS FOR PURPOSES OF
ADMINISTRATIVE DECENTRALIZATION TO STRENGTHEN THE AUTONOMY OF THE UNITS
THEREIN AND TO ACCELERATE THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT
OF THE UNITS IN THE REGION.
There being no objection, the reformulation of Section 11 was approved by the Body.
FURTHER AMENDMENTS ON SECTION 15
On Section 15, page 45, line 8, Mr. Azcuna proposed to delete the
word “and” between the comma (,) and the word “municipalities”.
There being no objection, the amendment was approved by the Body.
Likewise, on the same page, line 6, as suggested by Mr. Alonto,
Mr. Azcuna proposed to change the word “for” before “Muslim Mindanao”
and before “the Cordilleras” to IN, so that the sentence would read
“There shall be created autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and in the
Cordilleras . . . “
There being no objection, the amendment was approved by the Body.
APPROVAL OF THE ARTICLE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
On motion of Mr. Rodrigo, there being no objection, the Body
approved the Article on Local Governments as modified by the Committee
on Style.
THE ARTICLE ON CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS AND AGENCIES
On motion of Mr. Rodrigo, there being no objection, the Body approved the following amendments, one after the other:
1) Section 1 would read:
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS, WHICH SHALL BE INDEPENDENT, SHALL
BE THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, AND THE
COMMISSION ON AUDIT.
2) On Section 2, Mr. Monsod opined that it should be aligned with
the similar provision on salaries under Section 13 of the Article on the
Judiciary, so that Section 2 would read:
THE SALARY OF THE CHAIRMAN AND THE COMMISSIONERS SHALL BE FIXED BY LAW AND SHALL NOT BE DECREASED DURING THEIR TENURE.
3) Section 3 would read:
NO MEMBER OF A CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION SHALL, DURING HIS TENURE,
HOLD ANY OTHER OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT. NEITHER SHALL HE ENGAGE IN THE
PRACTICE OF ANY PROFESSION OR IN THE ACTIVE MANAGEMENT OR CONTROL OF ANY
BUSINESS WHICH IN ANY WAY MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE FUNCTIONS OF HIS
OFFICE, NOR SHALL HE BE FINANCIALLY INTERESTED, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY,
IN ANY CONTRACT WITH, OR IN A FRANCHISE OR PRIVILEGE GRANTED BY THE
GOVERNMENT, ANY OF ITS SUBDIVISIONS, AGENCIES, OR INSTRUMENTALITIES,
INCLUDING GOVERNMENTS-OWNED OR CONTROLLED CORPORATIONS OR THEIR
SUBSIDIARIES.
Mr. Rodrigo stated that there was no change on Section 4.
4) On Section 5, underline the word “certiorari” to indicate that it should be italicized.
5) On Section 6, line 15, insert a comma (,) after “increase”.
Mr. Rodrigo stated that there was no change on Section 7.
6) On Section 8, line 18, add “s” to “Commission”.
MR. FOZ’ AMENDMENT TO SECTION 4
At this juncture, Mr. Foz expressed agreement with the reformulation of Section 1.
On Section 4, page 48, line 19, he proposed to delete the words
“for the Commissions” and to change the article “the” at the beginning
of the second sentence to THEIR, So that Section 4 would read:
THE COMMISSIONS SHALL ENJOY FISCAL AUTONOMY. THEIR APPROVED ANNUAL
APPROPRIATIONS SHALL BE AUTOMATICALLY AND REGULARLY RELEASED.
There being no objection, the reformulation of Section 4 was approved by the Body.
FURTHER AMENDMENT TO SECTION 1
On Section 1, page 48, line 2, Mr. Rama proposed to change the
words “shall be” after the comma (,) to ARE, so that the section would
read:
THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS, WHICH SHALL BE INDEPENDENT, ARE
THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, AND THE
COMMISSION ON AUDIT.
There being no objection, the amendment was approved by the Body.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
At this juncture, the Chair suspended the session.
It was 4:59 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 5:20 p.m., the session was resumed.
APPROVAL OF FURTHER AMENDMENTS
Mr. Rodrigo stated that there were no changes on Sections 5 and 7.
On motion of Mr. Rodrigo, there being no objection, the Body approved the following Committee amendments:
1. On Section 6, line 15, place a comma (,) after “increase”; and
2. On Section 8, add S to “Commission”.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
At this juncture, the Chair suspended the session.
It was 5:21 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 5:22 p.m., the session was resumed.
Upon resumption of session, Mr. Rodrigo stated that the Body had
finished consideration of letter A of the Constitutional Commissions.
PROVISIONS ON THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
On motion of Mr. Rodrigo, there being no objection, the Body approved the following amendments on Section 1:
1. Section 1(1), line 2, place a comma (,) after “instrumentalities”; and
2. Section 1(2), line 7, place a comma (,) after “practicable”.
Mr. Foz stated that on Section 1(2), line 7, the Committee
substituted the word “positions” in the original draft with OFFICES
which may not reflect the true meaning as intended and understood during
the previous sessions. He opined that POSITIONS should be reinstated
because “offices” which is a cluster of positions may convey a different
meaning. Mr. Rodrigo pointed out that POSITIONS did not appear in the
original draft and what the Committee did was to substitute “those” with
OFFICES, hence, the motion should not be to reinstate POSITIONS but to
substitute “offices” with THOSE POSITIONS Mr. Foz accepted the
amendment.
Submitted to a vote, and there being no Objection, the amendment was approved by the Body.
On Section 1(4), line 13, page 50, Mr. Rodrigos proposed the
substitution of the phrase “and other” with OR which, there being no
objection, was approved by the Body.
TRANSPOSITION OF SECTION 8 TO SECTION 1
Mr. Foz proposed to transpose Section 8 of the Article on Civil
Service Commission as Section 1(5) and to renumber Section 1(5) as
Section 1(6). He explained that the purpose is to emphasize the right of
government employees to self-organization. Mr. Ople expressed his
support for the proposal which, he stated, would strengthen the whole
Article. Mr. Rodrigo, however, stated that the proposal belongs more to
the jurisdiction of the Sponsorship Committee, in response to which Mr.
Guingona stated that he agrees with the proposal.
At this juncture, Mr. de Castro suggested that the Committees on
Style and Sponsorship sponsor the draft Constitution together in order
to expedite the proceedings.
Mr. Guingona explained that it was the agreement during the
morning session that the Body would first consider the corrections of
the Committee on Style to be followed by the sponsorship of the
Committee on Sponsorship. However, Mr. de Castro stated that there were
still 60 pages to consider and that work could be expedited if the
Committees on Sponsorship and Style do their work at the same time.
Thereafter, Mr. Foz’ proposal was submitted to a vote and, there being no objection, the same was approved by the Body.
On Section 2, Mr. Rodrigo stated that there were no corrections on Section 2(1).
On Section 2(2), he stated that the sentence on line 7 was
reworded so that it would read: APPOINTMENT TO ANY VACANCY SHALL BE ONLY
FOR THE UNEXPIRED TERM OF THE PREDECESSOR.
Submitted to a vote, and there being no objection, the same was approved by the Body.
Mr. Rodrigo stated that on Section 3, the Committee placed a comma (,) after “Commission”.
He added that there were no changes on Section 4.
At this juncture, Mr. Maambong pointed out that Section 3(2) of
the General Provisions is supposed to be transposed to Section 4 and it
would read:
SECTION 4. NO ELECTIVE OFFICIAL SHALL BE ELIGIBLE FOR APPOINTMENT
OR DESIGNATION IN ANY CAPACITY TO ANY PUBLIC OFFICE OR POSITION DURING
HIS TENURE.
UNLESS REQUIRED BY LAW OR BY THE PRIMARY FUNCTIONS OF HIS
POSITIONS, NO APPOINTIVE OFFICIAL SHALL HOLD ANY OTHER OFFICE OR
EMPLOYMENT IN THE GOVERNMENT OR ANY SUBDIVISION, AGENCY OR
INSTRUMENTALITY THEREOF, INCLUDING GOVERNMENT OWNED OR CONTROLLED
CORPORATIONS OR THEIR SUBSIDIARIES.
Mr. Rodrigo stated that there should be a comma (,) after “agency”.
Mr. Suarez pointed out that the footnote states that the
transpositions should be to Section 7 and not to Section 4, in reply to
which Mr. Maambong explained that the first paragraph of Section 3 of
the General Provisions is supposed to be transposed to Section 4 of the
Article on the Civil Service Commission and Section 3(1) thereof to be
intercalated in Section 7 of the latter article.
On Mr. Suarez’ query whether Section 3 of the General Provisions would disappear, Mr. Maambong replied in the affirmative.
Thereafter, the transposition was submitted to a vote and there being no objection, the same was approved by the Body.
On Section 5, the Body approved to add the word THEIR before
“subsidiaries”, which Mr. Ople pointed out should be changed to ITS,
since the subject matter is singular in form Messrs. Rodrigo and Azcuna
agreed.
On Section 6, Mr. Maambong observed that he and Mr. Azcuna agreed
that it has no place in the Article but should pertain to page 102,
Section 12 to the General Provisions relative to the provisions of the
Armed Forces. He stated that the consequence would be a renumbering of
the succeeding subparagraphs.
INQUIRY OF MR. DE CASTRO
In reply to Mr. de Castro’s query, Mr. Maambong stated that he had
consulted him about the transposition but that he had asked for time to
study it.
Mr. de Castro stated, however, that he has not expressed his concurrence to the transposition.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
Upon request of Mr. Rodrigo, the Chair suspended the session.
It was 5:40 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 5:42 p.m., the session was resumed.
MANIFESTATION OF MR. MAAMBONG
Mr. Maambong stated that Mr. de Castro had agreed to the
transposition. Consequently, he stated that it would be denominated as
Section 12(4) of the General-Provisions and that the succeeding sections
should be renumbered accordingly.
Mr. Maambong stated, however, that no renumbering on the Article
on the Civil Service Commission should be made as it might lead to
confusion. He stated that as suggested by Mr. Azcuna, “Armed Forces”
should be in small letters and in place of Section 6, the provision be
transferred to Section 14 of the General Provisions. He also stated that
a general provision from Section 14 of the General Provisions which
properly pertains to the Article on the Civil Service Commission would
be placed in Section 6 of the latter Article, to wit:
ALL PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES SHALL TAKE AN OATH OR AFFIRMATION TO UPHOLD AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION.
PROPOSAL OF MR. FOZ
Mr. Foz proposed that Section 3(2) of the General Provisions be
transferred to the Article on the Civil Service to be denominated as
Section 4. He stated that since Section 3(2) of the General Provisions
speaks of the oath of office of all public officers and employees, it
should be placed on top of the other provisions which are prohibitions,
to which Mr. Maambong agreed.
Thereupon, there-being no objection, the Body approved the transpositions and the denominations therein.
APPROVAL OF SECTION 7
On motion of Mr. Rodrigo and there being no objection, the Body approved Section 7, as amended, to read as follows:
NO ELECTIVE OR APPOINTIVE PUBLIC OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE SHALL RECEIVE
ADDITIONAL, DOUBLE OR INDIRECT COMPENSATION, EXCEPT PENSIONS OR
GRATUITIES, UNLESS SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY LAW, NOR ACCEPT WITHOUT
THE CONSENT OF THE CONGRESS, ANY PRESENT, EMOLUMENT, OFFICE, OR TITLE OF
ANY KIND FROM ANY FOREIGN GOVERNMENT OR ANY OF ITS AGENCIES.
Mr. Maambong stated that with the approval of Section 7, Section 3 of the General Provisions would no longer exist.
Mr. Foz proposed to renumber Section 9 to the new Section 5.
Mr. Maambong confirmed that the transposition should be made and
stated that it was already made in the sequencing report which the
Committee would be distributing on the following day.
OBSERVATION OF MR. DE CASTRO
On the transposition of Section 3 of the General Provisions to
Section 7 on the Civil Service, Mr. de Castro observed that Section 7
does not include the exceptions on pensions or gratuities, in reply to
which Mr. Azcuna stated that the section was reformulated to include
them.
Upon request of Mr. de Castro, Mr. Azcuna read the Section as reformulated, to wit:
NO ELECTIVE OR APPOINTIVE PUBLIC OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE SHALL RECEIVE
ADDITIONAL DOUBLE, OR INDIRECT COMPENSATION, EXCEPT PENSIONS OR
GRATUITIES, UNLESS SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY LAW, NOR ACCEPT WITHOUT
THE CONSENT OF THE CONGRESS, ANY PRESENT, EMOLUMENT, OFFICE, OR TITLE OF
ANY KIND FROM ANY FOREIGN GOVERNMENT OR ANY OF ITS AGENCIES.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
At this juncture, upon request of Mr. Azcuna, the Chair suspended the session.
It was 5:53 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 5:57 p.m., the session was resumed.
REWORDING OF SECTION 7
Mr. Azcuna stated that Section 7 on page 52 has been reworded as follows:
NO ELECTIVE OR APPOINTIVE PUBLIC OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE SHALL RECEIVE
ADDITIONAL DOUBLE, OR INDIRECT COMPENSATION, UNLESS SPECIFICALLY
AUTHORIZED BY LAW, NOR ACCEPT WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE CONGRESS, ANY
PRESENT, EMOLUMENT, OFFICE, OR TITLE OF ANY KIND FROM ANY FOREIGN
GOVERNMENT OR ANY OF ITS AGENCIES. PENSIONS OR GRATUITIES SHALL NOT BE
CONSIDERED AS ADDITIONAL, DOUBLE, OR INDIRECT COMPENSATION.
Mr. Romulo stated that “any” after “foreign government or its
agencies” would no longer be necessary, to which Mr. Azcuna agreed.
Thereupon, there being no objection, the Body approved the same.
MANIFESTATION OF MR. RODRIGO
Mr. Rodrigo stated that due to the transpositions, the former Section 9 would be Section 8.
He stated that the following corrections were made:
1. on line 4, WITH ORIGINAL CHARTERS was added; and
2. “concern” after “positions” was substituted with THEIR.
MANIFESTATION OF MR. MAAMBONG
At this juncture, Mr. Maambong reiterated his suggestion not to
disturb the numbering in order not to be confused, to which Mr. Rodrigo
agreed.
INQUIRY OF MR. AZCUNA
In reply to Mr. Azcuna’s query whether the provision on loan on
page 67 would be transposed to the Article on the Civil Service
Commission, Mr. Maambong stated that he intended to do so but that it
was not acceptable to Mr. Azcuna since it would entail a lot of people.
Mr. Azcuna clarified that he was objecting to its transfer to the
Article on the Executive Department but not to the Article on the Civil
Service.
Reacting thereto, Mr. Monsod commented that the provision is
indeed misplaced in the Article on the Civil Service because there are
many noncivil service officers mentioned in the provision.
CORRECTION OF MR. FOZ
Mr. Foz invited attention to the fact that there should be no comma (,) after “corporations” to which Mr. Rodrigo agreed.
PROVISIONS ON THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS
On motion of Mr. Rodrigo, the Body approved, on Section 1(c), to
delete the words “an independent” and substitute it with A because in
the general common provisions, all the Constitutional Commissions are
classified as independent. He, likewise, stated that the parentheses
enclosing the numerals after “six” and “ten years” were deleted.
On motion of Mr. Rodrigo, the Body approved, on subparagraph 2, to
delete the numerals in parentheses and the phrase “portion of the” on
line 16.
Mr. Rodrigo stated that no change has been made on the first sentence of Section 2.
On motion of Mr. Rodrigo, the body approved, on subparagraph 1,
the rearrangement of the words such that it would read: THE CONDUCT OF
ELECTIONS, PLEBISCITES, INITIATIVES, REFERENDA, AND RECALLS.
On motion of Mr. Azcuna, the Body approved on the latter portion of Section 2, to reword the same to read as follows:
TO EXERCISE EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION OVER ALL CONTESTS
RELATING TO THE ELECTIONS, RETURNS, AND QUALIFICATIONS OF ALL ELECTIVE
REGIONAL, PROVINCIAL, AND CITY OFFICIALS, AND APPELLATE JURISDICTION
OVER ALL CONTESTS INVOLVING ELECTIVE MUNICIPAL OFFICIALS DECIDED BY
TRIAL COURTS OF GENERAL JURISDICTION, OR INVOLVING ELECTIVE BARANGAY
OFFICIALS DECIDED BY TRIAL COURTS OF LIMITED JURISDICTION;
PROPOSAL OF MR. FOZ
Mr. Foz proposed to add to the subparagraph another paragraph by
transferring Section 11 to serve as the second paragraph because of its
intimacy to the provision.
SUGGESTION OF MR. RODRIGO
Mr. Rodrigo suggested consideration of the phraseology since it is
the function of the Sponsorship Committee to deal with transpositions,
to which Mr. Foz acceded.
Mr. de Castro insisted, however, to finalize everything, in reply
to which Mr. Rodrigo stated that Mr. Guingona’s Committee would be
reporting for three sessions.
Mr. de Castro argued that the Body has only Saturday and Sunday to finish its work.
MANIFESTATION OF MR. BENGZON
Apropos the statement of Mr. de Castro, Mr. Bengzon stated that it
was for this reason that he pleaded with the Members to stay as late as
possible so the Commission can finish its work. He informed that the
Sponsorship Committee will still present its report and that the Body
would still discuss and debate on the ordinance to be appended to the
Constitution, as well as attend to the second and third readings on
certain articles. He noted that although the Committees on Style and
Sponsorship were given October 9-11, the Committee on Style was only
able to present its report the previous day. He reiterated that the Body
would have to work overtime to catch up with the schedule.
Mr. Rodrigo informed that the Style Committee can finish its
report by nighttime although the transposition suggested should not be
considered. He stated that the Committee on Sponsorship would also have
to take a turn on the matter.
Mr. Maambong advised that the problem raised by Mr. Foz had been
solved as, in the sequencing, Section 7 shall be followed by Section 11.
Mr. Rodrigo observed that the matter can be taken up the next day when the Committee on Sponsorship presents its reports.
CONTINUATION OF AMENDMENTS
Mr. Rodrigo stated that subparagraph (3) has no changes.
(1) On subparagraph (4), the word HONEST was added, “and” was
deleted and the phrase AND CREDIBLE before the word “elections” was
inserted.
There being no objection to the amendments, the same were approved by the Body.
(2) On subparagraph (5), Mr. Azcuna informed that instead of
“COMELEC”, “COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS” was used. Section 5 would then
read:
Register, after sufficient publication, political parties,
organizations, or coalitions, which in addition to other requirements,
must present their platform or program of government and accredit
citizens’ arms of the Commission on Elections. Religious denominations
and sects shall not be registered. Those which seek to achieve their
goals through violence or unlawful means, or refuse to uphold and adhere
to this Constitution, or which are supported by any foreign government
shall likewise be refused registration.
Financial contributions from foreign governments and their
agencies to political parties, organizations, coalitions, or candidates
related to elections constitute an act of interference in national
affairs, and, when accepted shall be an additional ground for the
cancellation of their registration with the Commission, in addition to
other penalties that may be prescribed by law.
Mr. de Castro proposed to put “(a)” before the first paragraph to
denote that it is subparagraph (a) and “(b)” before the second paragraph
to denote that it is subparagraph (b). The Committee accepted the
amendment.
On lines 16-19 of subparagraph (5), Mr. Ople noted an awkward
construction which leaves room for the interpretation that it is the
political parties that will accredit the citizens’ arm of the COMELEC.
He then suggested placing a comma (,) after “government”. Mr. Ople also
called attention to the format used by the committee with respect to the
entire Article in that it placed a colon (:) after the opening
statement, to wit:
SECTION 2. The Commission on Elections shall exercise the following powers and functions:
and thereafter used a semicolon (;) to break up the paragraphs
until Section 5 in which a sentence ended with a period (.) and another
with a semicolon (;) which is repeated in the other sections. The
alternative, he advised, is to do away with the semicolon (;) altogether
and use a period.
In reply, Mr. Azcuna stated that the Committee had to do so in the
long enumerations which contained sentences within subparagraphs.
Mr. Rodrigo then stated that after “jurisdiction” on page 54, line
7, a period (.) shall be placed instead of a semicolon (;). Mr. Azcuna
informed that the same shall be done in all enumerations.
On the same page 54, line 27, Mr. Foz proposed to delete “and” and
pluralize “act” to “acts” such that it would read, in part:
“constitutes acts of” as it speaks of financial contributions and that
each contribution is an act.
Mr. Azcuna, on page 55, subparagraph (8), line 18, suggested
placing a period (.) after “decision” and capitalize the “a” in “and”
and add a comma (,) thereafter.
Mr. Monsod pointed out that the subject matter is financial
contributions which are not acts. The giving of such contributions, he
argued, would constitute the act and that it would be better to say
“financial contributions” without using the phrase “an act of”.
On the same page 55, line 1, in reply to Mr. Suarez’ proposal to
put a comma (,) after the word “accepted”, Mr. Azcuna proposed to delete
the comma (,) after “national affairs”.
There being no objection to the foregoing amendments, the same were approved by the Body.
(3) On Subsection 6, “on” was changed to UPON, the phrase “of the
voters in” and “from the registry of voters” were deleted, so it would
read, in part: “UPON a verified complaint, or on its own initiative,
file petitions in court for inclusion or exclusion of voters;
investigate and. . .”
Mr. Nolledo suggested “FILE, upon a verified complaint, or on its
own initiative, petitions in court for inclusion or exclusion, . . . ”
for symmetry. The Committee accepted the amendment and there being no
objection, the same was approved by the Body.
(4) On Subsection (7), lines 13 and 14, Mrs. Rosario Braid
proposed to insert FILING OF before the line which begins with “nuisance
candidacies” inasmuch as nuisance candidacy is not an act.
Mr. Azcuna observed that the verb is not only “prevent” but also
“penalize” and that what is being penalized is not merely the filing but
the whole act of being a candidate or the activities related thereto.
Mrs. Rosario Braid pointed out that deleting “acts” would make it
relevant and that a period (.) can be placed after “candidacies” as
“acts” define all the categories. In reply thereto, Mr. Azcuna pointed
out that “frauds, offenses, malpractices” are nouns and not acts, to
which Mrs. Rosario Braid rejoined that the provision says “or other
similar acts”.
Mr. Monsod pointed out that nuisance candidacy is an act and what
is being referred to are engaging in fraud, criminal offenses, or
nuisance candidacy. The enumeration, he noted, is correct.
Mr. Nolledo observed that Subsection (7) is defective. Thereupon, he proposed a rewording, to wit:
PREVENT AND PENALIZE ELECTION FRAUDS, OFFENSES, MALPRACTICES,
NUISANCE CANDIDACIES OR OTHER SIMILAR ACTS AS WELL AS RECOMMEND TO THE
CONGRESS EFFECTIVE MEASURES TO MINIMIZE ELECTION SPENDING INCLUDING
LIMITATIONS OF PLACES WHERE PROPAGANDA MATERIALS SHALL BE POSTED.
Mr. Rodrigo, reacting thereto, pointed out that the rewording
might change the substance of the provision, to which Mr. Nolledo
reasoned that it would not but would merely emphasize the prevention and
imposition of penalties on election frauds and that the second part is
merely to recommend to Congress other effective measures.
Mr. Azcuna noted that it should be “recommend to Congress
effective measures to prevent and penalize all forms of election frauds,
offenses, malpractices, nuisance candidacies”. He added that it would
not be the COMELEC which shall penalize or prevent but that it would
recommend to Congress effective measures to prevent and penalize the
acts enumerated.
Mr. Suarez, on line 11, suggested that a comma (,) be placed after the word “spending”.
Mr. Foz noted that to avoid difficulty, in connection with the
amendment of Mrs. Rosario Braid, the phrase “all other similar acts” can
be deleted, and AND can be placed after “malpractices” so that it would
read:
“to prevent and penalize all forms of election frauds, offenses, malpractices, AND nuisance candidacies”
Mr. de Castro opined that the Committee is right in using the phrase “or other similar acts”
Mr. Azcuna proposed to use a qualifying term instead of “acts” which would perhaps be “or other similar evils”.
Mr. Romulo noted that the phrase can be deleted as Congress itself can expand it.
Mrs. Rosario Braid suggested placing ”nuisance candidates” after
the word “penalize” so as to avoid the last phrase. As reformulated, it
would read: “And penalize nuisance candidacies, all forms of election
frauds or other similar acts”.
Mr. Rodrigo informed that “all other similar acts” was deleted and that the provision now reads:
Recommend to the Congress effective measures to minimize election
spending including limitations of places where propaganda materials
shall be posted, and to prevent and penalize all forms of election
frauds, offenses, malpractices, and nuisance candidacies.
Thereupon, there being no objection to Subsection 7, the same was approved by the Body.
(5) On Subsection (8), Ms. Aquino proposed a transposition of the
clause “or the imposition of any other” on lines 16 to 17, such that the
sentence would read:
Recommend to the President the removal of any officer or employee
it has deputized, or the imposition of any other disciplinary action for
violation or disregard of, or disobedience to its directive, order,
decision; and
There being no objection to the amendment, the same was approved by the Body.
(6) On Subsection (9), line 20, Mr. de los Reyes proposed to
delete the words “and manner” as well as “each” so that it would read:
“Submit to the President and the Congress a comprehensive report
on the conduct of elections, plebiscites, initiatives, referenda or
recalls.”
to align it with Section 2(1).
On the inquiries of Mr. Ople and Mrs. Rosario Braid whether it
should be “recall”, Mr. Rodrigo proposed retaining the word “each”, so
that it would read “each election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum,
or recall”.
There being no objection to the amendments, the same were approved by the Body.
(7) Ms. Aquino proposed to recast Section 3 by transposing the last clause, such that the sentence would read:
Except for those registered under the partylist . . . valid
On line 23, page 53, Mrs. Rosario Braid pointed out that “recalls”
should be accordingly changed for Consistency. Mr. Rodrigo then
proposed “Enforced and administer all laws and regulations relative to
the conduct of EVERY election”.
Mr. Romulo proposed to use “an” so that it would read “an election, plebiscite, initiative, referendum and recall”.
The Committee accepted and there being no objection, the same was approved by the Body.
Thereafter, the Body also approved Section 3.
REFORMULATION OF SECTION 4
Mr. Rodrigo presented the reformulation of Section 4, which reads:
A FREE AND OPEN PARTY SYSTEM SHALL BE ALLOWED TO EVOLVE, SUBJECT ONLY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ARTICLE.
Mr. Foz made reservation to make some transpositions at the proper time.
There being no objection, Section 4 as reformulated was approved by the Body, subject to Mr. Foz’ reservation.
FURTHER AMENDMENT ON SECTION 3
On Section 3, page 55, line 22, Mr. Padilla proposed to change the
word “No” with THE, and on line 23, to insert NOT between “shall” and
“be valid”, so that the phrase would read “the votes cast in favor of a
political party, organization, or coalition shall not be valid . . .”
Ms. Aquino accepted Mr. Padilla’s amendment.
AMENDMENT OF MR. OPLE
On Section 4, Mr. Ople opined that the phrase “according to the
free choice of the people” as found in the original provision should not
be deleted to set forth the intent of this Section, so that it should
read as follows:
A FREE AND OPEN PARTY SYSTEM SHALL BE ALLOWED TO EVOLVE ACCORDING
TO THE FREE CHOICE OF THE PEOPLE, SUBJECT ONLY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS
ARTICLE.
Mr. Azcuna affirmed that “a” in “article” should be capitalized.
There being no objection, the Body approved Section 4, as amended by Mr. Ople.
AMENDMENT OF MRS. ROSARIO BRAID
On Section 3, Mrs. Rosario Braid proposed to change the words “not be valid” to BE INVALID, so that Section 3 would read:
EXCEPT FOR THOSE REGISTERED UNDER THE PARTY LIST SYSTEM AS
PROVIDED IN THIS CONSTITUTION, THE VOTES CAST IN FAVOR OF A POLITICAL
PARTY, ORGANIZATION, OR COALITION SHALL BE INVALID.
Mr. Azcuna accepted the amendment, stating that the votes should
be cast in favor of an individual and not for a party, organization, or
coalition.
AMENDMENT OF MR. FOZ
On the same Section 3, Mr. Foz observed that the word “those” is
far from its antecedent, for which reason he proposed to revert to the
original provision which reads:
NO VOTES CAST IN FAVOR OF A POLITICAL PARTY, ORGANIZATION, OR
COALITION SHALL BE VALID, EXCEPT FOR THOSE REGISTERED UNDER THE PARTY
LIST SYSTEM AS PROVIDED IN THIS CONSTITUTION.
Mr. Rodrigo accepted the amendment, and there being no objection, the same was approved by the Body.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. MONSOD
In reply to Mrs. Nieva’s query, Mr. Rodrigo stated that bona fide
candidates for public office shall be free from any form of harassment
by any body or any source.
Mr. Monsod then proposed to change the word “free” to PROTECTED so
that it becomes an obligation of the government to protect candidates
for public office.
Mr. Ople opined that the original formulation be retained in order
that it would not only be an obligation of government, but of all
parties involved including the members of communities to respect such
freedom from harassment and discrimination. He added that with the
original provision, even the NAMFREL can help in maintaining such
freedom from harassment.
Mr. Monsod, however, explained that his proposal would mean free
from harassment by the government, or if other persons harass them, then
the candidates may seek government protection, in reply to which Mrs.
Rosario Braid pointed out that the original provision already intends
that there should be freedom from harassment by any source.
Additionally, Mr. Ople underscored that such freedom from harassment may be preventive while protection may just be a cure.
Mr. Foz, however, pointed out that the original formulation was adopted from the 1973 Constitution.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
The Chair suspended the session.
It was 6:48 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 6:49 p.m., the session was resumed.
WITHDRAWAL OF MR. MONSOD’S PROPOSED AMENDMENT
Upon resumption of session, Mr. Nolledo affirmed Mr. Ople’s
observation that freedom from harassment and discrimination is broader
than protection therefrom.
In view thereof, Mr. Monsod withdrew his proposed amendment.
AMENDMENT OF MR. SARMIENTO
On the same Section 5, as proposed by Mr. Sarmiento and accepted
by the Sponsor, the Body approved the underlining of “Bona fide” so that
it could be italicized.
AMENDMENT OF MR. MONSOD
On Section 6, Mr. Monsod proposed to change “party” to PARTIES, “organization” to ORGANIZATIONS, and “coalition” to COALITIONS.
He observed that the original formulation seems to refer only to
political parties, organizations, or coalitions registered under the
party list system, whereas other political parties not registered under
the party list system are also not entitled to membership in the Board
of Inspectors, which Mr. Azcuna affirmed.
Mr. Azcuna read Section 6, as amended, to wit:
POLITICAL PARTIES, OR ORGANIZATIONS, OR COALITIONS REGISTERED
UNDER THE PARTY LIST SYSTEM SHALL NOT BE REPRESENTED IN THE VOTERS’
REGISTRATION BOARDS, BOARDS OF ELECTION INSPECTORS, BOARDS OF CANVASSERS
OR OTHER SIMILAR BODIES. HOWEVER, THEY SHALL BE ENTITLED TO APPOINT
POLL WATCHERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
There being no objection, Section 6, as amended, was approved by the Body.
FURTHER APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS
On motion of Mr. Rodrigo, there being no objection, the Body approved the following amendments, one after the other:
1) On Section 7, delete the “s” in “procedures”
2) On Section 8,
(a) page 56, lines 23 and 24, insert a comma (,) and the words OR ITS SUBSIDIARY;
(b) page 57, line 4, insert the words AND CREDIBLE after “peaceful”‘
Mr. Rodrigo manifested that there were no changes on Sections 9, 10 and 11 except for the insertion of commas (,).
3) On Section 12, line 17, rearrange the line to read PLEBISCITES, INITIATIVES, REFERENDA, AND RECALLS . . . .
PROVISIONS ON THE COMMISSION ON AUDIT
Mr. Rodrigo manifested that there was no change in Section 1 of
the provisions on the Commission on Audit, except for the insertion of
commas (,)
AMENDMENT OF MR. MONSOD
On Section 2, Mr. Monsod pointed out that in the sections on the
Commission on Civil Service, a distinction was made between
government-owned or controlled corporations and those organized under
the Corporation Law.
In view thereof, he proposed to insert the words
WITH ORIGINAL CHARTERS after the word “corporations”, in order
that they may be subject to both preaudit and postaudit, while other
corporations would only be subject to postaudit.
MANIFESTATION OF MR. DE CASTRO
At this juncture, Mr. de Castro observed that the proposal of Mr.
Monsod would, in effect, be a motion for reconsideration which will
require the suspension of the Rules, because the insertion of the words
“with original charters” is an amendment to the original Committee
Report.
In reply, Mr. Monsod explained that without such words which he
proposed to insert, there would be no distinction between
government-owned or controlled corporations with original charters and
those organized under the Corporation Law.
Mr. de Castro stated that he was not objecting to the proposal but
such amendment could be introduced upon motion for reconsideration
which would require the suspension of the Rules.
Mr. Monsod believed that it would not require the suspension of
the Rules and a motion for reconsideration because it merely aligns
Section 2 with Section 9 of the provisions on the Commission on Civil
Service.
SUSPENSION OF SESSION
At this juncture, on motion of Mr. Rodrigo, the Chair suspended the session.
It was 7:01 p.m.
RESUMPTION OF SESSION
At 7:05 p.m., the session was resumed.
APPROVAL OF SECTION 2 AS AMENDED BY MR. MONSOD
Upon resumption of session, Mr. Azcuna accepted Mr. Monsod’s
proposal to insert the words WITH ORIGINAL CHARTERS after the word
“corporations”.
Mr. Ople, likewise, supported Mr. Monsod’s amendment, since it was
not a substantive change but a realignment with the provision on the
Commission on Civil Service.
There being no objection, Mr. Monsod’s amendment was approved by the Body.
APPROVAL OF SECTION 3
On Section 3, Mr. Azcuna proposed to delete the word “such” before “non-governmental entities”, so that Section 3 would read:
THE COMMISSION SHALL SUBMIT TO THE PRESIDENT AND THE CONGRESS,
WITHIN THE TIME FIXED BY LAW, AN ANNUAL REPORT COVERING THE FINANCIAL
CONDITION AND OPERATION OF THE GOVERNMENT, ITS SUBDIVISIONS, AGENCIES,
AND INSTRUMENTALITIES, INCLUDING GOVERNMENT-OWNED OR CONTROLLED
CORPORATIONS, AND NON-GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES SUBJECT TO ITS AUDIT, AND
RECOMMEND MEASURES NECESSARY TO IMPROVE THEIR EFFICIENCY AND
EFFECTIVENESS. IT SHALL SUBMIT SUCH OTHER REPORTS AS MAY BE REQUIRED BY
LAW.
There being no objection, Section 3, as amended, was approved by the Body.
INDIVIDUAL AMENDMENTS
On motion of Mr. Rodrigo, there being no objection, the Body approved the following individual amendments:
1) On page 59, line 6, Mr. Monsod proposed to place a comma (,) after “pre-audit”.
2) On page 90, line 4, Mr. de los Reyes proposed to delete “provided, however, that” and to place a period (.) after “equity”.
3) Mr. Foz proposed to interchange Sections 3 and 4 so that
Section 3 would become Section 4 while Section 4 would become Section 3
in order to emphasize the intent against the passage of any law that
would exempt any entity of the government from the audit jurisdiction of
the COA.
Mr. Ople supported the proposal.
Mr. Maambong manifested that the Subcommittee on Rubrics had already resequenced as proposed by Mr. Foz.
4) Mr. Ople proposed to reword, on Section 3, line 7, the phrase
“measures necessary to improve their efficiency and effectiveness” to
MEASURES TO DISPROVE THEIR EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY.
5) Mr. de los Reyes, on behalf of Mr. Monsod, proposed on Section
2, page 90, line 4, to insert HOWEVER, between “Provided” and “that”.
6) On Section 1, line 1, Mr. Azcuna proposed to delete “independent”.
APPROVAL OF THE ENTIRE ARTICLE ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS
Thereafter, the whole Article on the Constitutional Commissions
was submitted to a vote, and there being no objection, the same was
approved by the Body.
THE ARTICLE ON HUMAN RIGHTS
On motion of Mr. Rodrigo, there being no objection, the Body approved the following amendments:
1) On Section 1, Mr. Rodrigo stated that “m” in “members” and “b”
in “bar” were capitalized. At this juncture, Mr. Foz opined that the “m”
in “members” should not be capitalized, to which Mr. Azcuna agreed.
2) On page 60, line 6, Mr. Foz opined that the “m” in “members” should be capitalized, to which Mr. Rodrigo agreed.
Mr. Foz pointed out that the whole Article on Human Rights does not contain any provision on the salary of the Members thereof.
Replying thereto, Mr. Rodrigo stated that it is the Congress that would provide for their salaries.
On whether they are not covered by the provision in the Transitory
Provisions for Members of the Constitutional Commissions, Mr. Rodrigo
replied in the affirmative.
3) Mr. Bengzon, on behalf of Mr. Davide, proposed, on Section 1, page 60, line 5, to insert OF OFFICE between “The” and “term”.
4) On Section 2, page 60, line 20, Mr. Rodrigo stated that the phrase “in the Philippines” was deleted.
Thereupon, Mr. Ople queried whether the Committee on Sponsorship
is amenable to the transposition of lines 10 to 12 of page 60 which
reads “Until this Commission is constituted, the existing Presidential
Committee on Human Rights shall continue to exercise its present
functions and powers” to the Transitory Provisions.
Replying thereto, Mr. Guingona stated that the Committee had
already manifested that all proposals for transpositions would be
considered during the following days’ session. However, he added that if
Mr. Ople would insist on his proposal, then the Body could immediately
vote on it.
Mr. Ople suggested that the Body vote on it in principle and it is
up to the Sponsorship Committee to make the arrangements with the
Committee on Transitory Provisions.
Messrs. Rodrigo and Guingona agreed.
Mr. de Castro pointed out that Section 1 contains so many
paragraphs without any identification marks, to which Mr. Rodrigo
replied that there are some paragraphs which need not be numbered like
when they are not for enumeration purposes.
5) On Section 2, page 61, line 18, Mr. Foz proposed to substitute “ministry” with DEPARTMENT with a small letter “d”.
6) On page 61, line 9, insert THE before “Congress”.
7) On page 61, line 12, the “g” in “government” should be capitalized.
Thereupon, Mr. Azcuna queried whether “visitorial” on line 4
should be substituted with VISITATORIAL because the former refers to the
power to summon records while the latter refers to the right to visit
jails, prisons and detention facilities.
Mr. Sarmiento stated that the meaning Mr. Natividad had in mind as
author of the provision is the right to visit jails, prisons or
detention facilities.
8) Mr. Azcuna proposed, on Section 2(4), page 61, line 4, to substitute “visitorial” with VISITATORIAL.
9) On Section 3, page 61, line 24, Mr. Azcuna proposed to insert THE before “Congress”.
Mr. de Castro stated that, as pointed out by Mr. Foz, the Article
on Human Rights does not contain a provision providing for the salary of
the Members of the Commission on Human Rights, in reply to which Mr.
Rodrigo reiterated that their salary would be provided for by Congress.
Mr. de Castro contended that it does not also state that their
salary would be provided by Congress, to which Mr. Bengzon replied that
the Article contains a provision which states that “Until the Commission
is constituted, the existing Presidential Committee on Human Rights
shall continue to exercise its present functions and powers.” He pointed
out that the present employees of the PCHR receive salaries so that
even if there is no provision providing for their salaries, they fall
under the general concept that Congress should provide for their
salaries.
10) On Section 2(6), page 61, line 10, Mrs. Nieva proposed to insert TO PROVIDE between “and” and “for”.
APPROVAL OF THE ENTIRE ARTICLE ON HUMAN RIGHTS
Thereafter, the whole Article on Human Rights was submitted to a
vote, and there being no objection, the same was approved by the Body.
THE ARTICLE ON THE ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
On motion of Mr. Rodrigo, there being no Objection, the Body approved the following amendments:
1) On Section 1, Mr. Rodrigo stated that on page 62, line 4, a comma (,) was placed after “justice”.
2) On Section 2, Mr. Rodrigo stated that THE was inserted before “Members” on line 6, page 62.
3) On Section 2, page 62, lines 10 and 11, Mr. de los Reyes
proposed to reword the same to read: TREASON, BRIBERY, GRAFT AND
CORRUPTION OR BETRAYAL OF PUBLIC TRUST AND OTHER HIGH CRIMES.
In reply to Mr. Monsod’s query whether “c” in “Constitution” on
page 62, line 20, should be capitalized, Mr. Azcuna replied in the
affirmative.
At this juncture, Mr. Nolledo suggested that, “or betrayal of
public trust” should come after “and other high crimes” since betrayal
of public trust need not involve any crime and the present configuration
of the enumeration does not truly reflect the sentiments of the Body.
Mr. de los Reyes accepted the amendment.
4) On Section 3,
(a) Section 3(1) has no changes.
(b) On Section 3(2):
1) On page 62, line 17, substitute “of its Members” with OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES;
2) On the same page, line 18, substitute “of the House” with THEREOF;
3) On the same page, line 22, capitalize the “m” in “members”;
4) On page 63, line 2, place a period (.) after “thereof” and delete the phrase “from the Committee”.
5) On Section 3(3), insert FAVORABLE after “a” on page 63, line 4, and place a comma (,) after “Committee’ on line 5.
Mr. Rodrigo stated that there were no changes on Section 3(5)
6) On Section 3(6), page 63, line 14, insert AND DECIDE between “try” and “all”.
7) On Section 3(7), page 63, line 21, delete the word “the” between “than” and “removal”.
Mr. Rodrigo stated that Section 3(8) has no changes.
Mr. Rodrigo likewise stated that Section 4 has no changes.
8) On Section 5, page 64, the Committee deleted the word
“presently” between “The” and “existing” on line 4, and inserted the
phrase THE OFFICE OF THE before “Special Prosecutor”.
Mr. Rodrigo stated that Sections 6 and 7 have no changes.
9) On Section 8, page 62, the Committee deleted the “s” in
“appointments” and substituted “with” with OF on line 22; and
substituted “next preceding” with IMMEDIATELY on line 25.
At this juncture, Mr. Rodrigo explained that the numbers on the
second paragraph of Section 8 were deleted because the designations
thereof are yet to be determined.
Mr. Rodrigo stated that Section 9 has no changes.
10) On Section 10, page 65, line 11, the Committee inserted
RESPECTIVELY after “members”; on lines 11 and 12, the “c” in
“constitutional commissions” were capitalized and “respectively” after
”Commissions” was deleted; and on line 11, the “c” in “chairman” and
the “m” in “members” should be capitalized.
11) On Section 11, page 65, place a comma (,) after “Deputies” on line 4; and a comma (,) after “thereof” on line 18.
In reply to Mr. Bennagen’s query why Section 12 contained “duties”
aside from powers and functions whereas the Commission on Human Rights
did not have the same, Mr. Rodrigo explained that the provision was
approved by the Body and the only amendment the Committee made was the
insertion of a comma (,) after “functions”.
On whether for uniformity and consistency “duties” could also be
added to the other Constitutional Commissions like Human Rights and
Elections, Mr. Ople stated that he introduced the insertion of the word
in the Commission on Audit. He opined that the Committee may either
choose to insert the word in all the Constitutional Commissions or not.
Mr. Bennagen explained that he was merely stating his observations.
12) On Section 12(1), page 65, the Committee merely placed commas
(,) after “own” on line 23; after “agency” on line 25; and after
“improper” on line 26.
13) On Section 12(2), page 66, the Committee deleted “of him”
between “required” and “by” on line 5; and likewise deleted the phrase
“including any violation of civil, political or human rights” after
“duties” on line 7.
14) On Section 12(3), page 66, line 11, substitute the words “see to the” with ENSURE; and “of the directive” with THEREWITH.
15) On Section 12(4), insert commas (,) on line 16 and add TO before “report”.
16) On Section 12(5), substitute “to” with IN on line 19.
Mr. Rodrigo stated that no changes had been effected on Section 12, subparagraphs 6, 7, and 8.
CORRECTION BY MR. BENNAGEN
On subsection 7, Mr. Bennagen invited attention that an agreement
has been made that it should be rearranged because of some problems in
syntax. He read the proposed rearrangement as follows: TO DETERMINE THE
ROOT CAUSES OF INEFFICIENCY, RED TAPE, MISMANAGEMENT, FRAUD AND
CORRUPTION IN GOVERNMENT AND TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THEIR
ELIMINATION, AND OBSERVANCE OF HIGH STANDARDS OF ETHICS AND EFFICIENCY,
which Messrs. Rodrigo and Azcuna accepted.
INQUIRIES OF MR. OPLE
In reply to Mr. Ople’s query whether it would be acceptable to
delete “root” before “causes”, Messrs. Azcuna and Bennagen stated that
the original included the word.
On whether “root causes” sounds journalistic rather than
constitutional, Mr. Bennagen stated that the reformulation was
coauthored jointly by him and Messrs. de Castro and Natividad. He stated
that to remove “root” might cause Mr. de Castro to complain because it
would, in effect, reopen consideration of the section.
In reply, Mr. Ople stated that it would not change the concept and that a good editor would settle for “causes”.
REMARKS AND INQUIRY OF MR. MONSOD
Mr. Monsod opined that the correction could be accommodated since the same correction was made during the sponsorship.
In reply to his query about the blanks on line 5 of page 65, Mr.
Azcuna stated that it would contain the following: “Article on the
Judiciary”, and “Disqualifications and Prohibitions of the Supreme Court
Justices”.
Mr. Monsod stated, however, that the intent pertains to the provisions on the Judiciary, to which Mr. Azcuna acceded.
Mr. de los Reyes stated that the provision corresponds to the
common provision on the disqualification of members of the
Constitutional Commissions.
On whether the blanks could be filled up, Mr. Azcuna stated that
it could be done during the report of the Subcommittee on Rubrics.
FURTHER CORRECTIONS BY MR. AZCUNA
On the reformulation of Mr. Bennagen, Mr. Azcuna stated that the
word “to” in all of the enumerations should be deleted and that the
first letter “i” in “investigate” should be capitalized together with
the letter “d” in “direct”.
SUGGESTION OF MR. DE LOS REYES
On No. (4), lines 12 to 17, Mr. de los Reyes suggested to start
the provision with DIRECT THE OFFICER CONCERNED for uniformity since
DIRECT was always used to start the provision; and to transpose “In any
appropriate case” after “appropriate action” on line 17.
He affirmed that “to report” on line 16 should be deleted.
On line 18, Mr. Azcuna stated that “To” should be deleted and that the letter “r” should be capitalized.
On line 21, Mr. Azcuna stated that “To” should also be deleted and that the letter “p” should be capitalized.
On line 23, Mr. Rodrigo stated that “To” should be deleted and the letter “d” should be capitalized.
On the phrase “to make recommendations”, Mr. Azcuna stated that
“to” should be substituted with “and”, and that “d” should be
capitalized.
On page 67, line 1, Mr. Azcuna stated that “To” should be removed and that “p” should be capitalized.
INQUIRY OF MR. DE CASTRO
Adverting to page 65, line 3, Mr. de Castro inquired whether the
Article refers to the Judiciary, to which Mr. Azcuna answered in the
negative, stating that it refers to the Constitutional Commissions.
Replying thereto, Mr. de Castro stated that if it refers to the
Constitutional Commissions, then the Article should be Article IX and
not Article XII.
Mr. Rodrigo explained that Article XII was already deleted, to which Mr. de Castro acceded.
MANIFESTATION OF MR. OPLE
Mr. Ople manifested that with respect to line 25, page 66,
subparagraph (7), he was able to get the concurrence of Messrs. de
Castro and Bennagen to delete “root”.
REQUEST OF MR. BENGZON
Upon the request of Mr. Bengzon, Mr. Azcuna read line 12,
subparagraph (4) on page 66 as follows: DIRECT THE OFFICER CONCERNED IN
ANY APPROPRIATE CASE, AND SUBJECT TO SUCH LIMITATIONS AS MAY BE PROVIDED
BY LAW, TO FURNISH IT WITH COPES OF DOCUMENTS RELATING TO CONTRACTS OR
TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO BY HIS OFFICE INVOLVING THE DISBURSEMENT OR
USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR PROPERTIES, AND REPORT ANY IRREGULARITY TO THE
COMMISSION ON AUDIT FOR APPROPRIATE ACTION.
FURTHER APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS
On motion of Mr. Rodrigo, there being no objection, the Body approved the following amendments:
1) On page 60, line 26, delete “to” and capitalize “g” in “government”.
2) On Section 13,
(a) substitute “Tanodbayan” with THE OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES OF
THE OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN; insert THE “Civil Service Law”; placing a
comma (,) thereafter, and capitalize the “d” in “deputies”.
(b) place a comma (,) after “Ombudsman” on line 5 and a comma (,) after “transferees” on line 12.
3) On Section 14,
(a) line 9, insert AND REGULARLY RELEASED after “automatically” in
order to align it with all the provisions on fiscal autonomy.
(b) delete “or Tanodbayan” from the phrase “the Office of the
Ombudsman or Tanod-bayan”; and substitute “approval” with APPROVED.
In reply to Mrs. Rosario Braid’s query on whether APPROVED would
be necessary before “appropriation”, Mr. Monsod stated that the same
format was used in the Article on the Judiciary, Constitutional
Commissions and Commission on Human Rights.
4) On Section 15,
(a) insert FROM THEM OR FROM THEIR NOMINEES OR TRANSFEREES between “employees” and “shall”.
(b) delete “coprincipals, accomplices or accessories or to prosecute offenses in connection therewith”.
(c) place commas (,) therein; capitalize “m” in “members”; insert THE before “Congress”; and substitute “or” with AND.
(d) line 20, substitute “he has” with THEY HAVE; and “his” before “tenure” with THEIR.
In reply to Mr. de los Reyes’ inquiry on the meaning of
“nominees”, Mr. Azcuna stated that they are those who are placed as
owners of the properties. He affirmed that they refer to dummies who may
be the transferees.
Mr. Ople stated that they are not exactly dummies.
Mr. Nolledo volunteered the information that they also refer to “trustees” who hold bearers’ certificates.
5) On Section 16, substitute “or” after “Commissions” with a comma (,).
6) On Section 17.
(a) substitute “to” with OF; “make” with SUBMIT; “networth” to be
made into one word instead of two words; and add THE to “Members of the
Cabinet”.
At this juncture, adverting to the word “networth”, Mr. Monsod
pointed out that in financial statements, it consisted of two words.
Thereupon, Mr. Rodrigo restored “networth” to NET WORTH.
(b) line 3, place a comma (,) after “liabilities”.
(c) insert THE before “members of the Cabinet”; delete “members of” and “members of the Constitutional Commissions”.
In reply to Mr. Azcuna’s query whether “Armed Forces” should be
capitalized, Mr. Ople stated that to be consistent, it should not be
capitalized as the Committee had always used it with lower cases.
Mr. Ople stated that he was the principal author of the section and that Mr. de Castro introduced “general or flag rank”.
On whether it is not redundant, Mr. de Castro answered in the
negative, stating that Air Force and Army high officers are called
generals while in the case of Naval brigadier generals, they are called
“commodores”. He stressed that flag officers refer to the Navy high
officers.
7) On Section 18, before “Constitution”, substitute “its” with THIS and the “a” before “public” with ANY.
MOTION OF MR. BENGZON
At this juncture, Mr. Bengzon moved that the entire Article on the Accountability of Public Officers be voted upon.
REARRANGEMENT OF MRS. NIEVA
Mrs. Nieva proposed to rearrange the section as follows: The right
of the State to recover from public officials or employees, or for
their nominees or transferees of properties unlawfully acquired by them
shall not be barred by prescription, laches or estoppel.
Mr. Nolledo suggested “by them”, to which Mr. Azcuna objected.
Mr. Monsod, likewise, objected stating that it would refer not
only to public officials or employees but also to nominees and
transferees.
Responding thereto, Mrs. Nieva stated that she thought that it
would refer to nominees or transferees, in reply to which Mr. Monsod
stated that it is not and that the properties are unlawfully acquired
only by public officials.
Mr. Nolledo stated that “unlawfully acquired” applies to public
officials or employees and that “nominees or transferees” shall be bound
by the right of the State to recover the said properties which were
unlawfully acquired by public officials or employees.
Mr. Monsod suggested to stick to the original, which Mr. Nolledo supported.
APPROVAL OF THE ENTIRE ARTICLE ON ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS
At this juncture, Mr. Bengzon reiterated his motion to vote on the entire Article on the Accountability of Public Officers.
Thereupon, submitted to a vote, and there being no objection, the
Body approved the Article on the Accountability of Public Officers.
MANIFESTATION OF MR. FOZ
On the qualifications of the Members of the Commission on Audit,
Mr. Foz stated that among the other qualifications provided for by
Section 1, they must be members of the Philippine Bar who have engaged
in the practice of law for at least ten years.
He stated that in order to avoid misunderstanding which would
result in the exclusion of members of the Bar who are presently employed
in the Commission on Audit (COA), clarification should be made that the
provision on qualifications does not necessarily refer or involve
actual practice of law outside of the COA. He stated that the provision
should be interpreted to mean that as long as the lawyers who are
employed in the COA are using their legal knowledge or legal talent in
their respective work, they would, therefore, be qualified for
appointment as Commissioners or even as a Chairman of the Commission.
He stated that the matter has been discussed by the Committee on
Constitutional Commissions and Agencies and that an interpretation
thereof on the floor would be necessary.
INQUIRY OF MR. OPLE
Mr. Ople inquired whether a lawyer working in the COA would in
effect be considered equivalent to the requirement of law practice as
set forth in the Article on the Commission on Audit.
Mr. Foz stated that the work of COA, although primarily auditing,
would necessarily involve legal work and that lawyers employed by the
COA would already have the necessary qualifications in accordance with
the provision on qualifications under the COA provisions. He affirmed,
upon inquiry of Mr. Ople, that the construction given to the provision
is that it is equivalent to the practice of law.
REMARKS OF MR. BENGZON
Mr. Bengzon affirmed Mr. de Castro’s observation that the Body has
not yet approved on Third Reading the Articles on Family Rights and
General Provisions and that the Article on Amendments or Revisions only
contains four sections, Apropos the suggestion of Mr. de Castro, he
stated that the Body can go through the Articles and then adjourn.
Upon inquiry of Mrs. Rosario Braid whether the Body shall take up
the Article on General Provisions, Mr. Bengzon stated that it would not.
He affirmed that the Article has not yet passed Second Reading and that
it could be taken up tomorrow.
Mr. Azcuna informed that the Body shall consider the Article on Amendments or Revisions.
ARTICLE ON AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS
On motion of Mr. Rodrigo, there being no objection, the Body approved the following amendments:
1) On Section 1, add the phrase PROPOSED BY, such that it would
read: “. . . any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be
PROPOSED BY”, followed by a colon (:) and then sub paragraph (1) and (3)
2) On Section 2, change ‘per cent” to PER CENTUM, such that the sentence would read:
Legislative districts must be represented by at least three PER CENTUM of the registered voters therein.”
Mr. Ople suggested adding “Amendments OR REVISIONS OF this
Constitution” to reflect the intent. In reply, Mr. Azcuna pointed out
that it is not allowed to revise the Constitution by initiative.
Mr. Ople stated that he is not aware that the matter was taken up
on the floor although he was the principal author of the section.
3) On Section 3, reword the phrase “submit the question calling
such a convention to the electorate” to SUBMIT TO THE ELECTORATE THE
QUESTION OF CALLING SUCH A CONVENTION.
4) On Section 4,
a) delete subparagraphs (a) and (b); and change “not earlier than sixty days and not later” to SIXTY DAYS NOR LATER on line 4.
b) place a comma (,) after “of” on line 20.
c) add SECTION 2 HEREOF on the line “Amendment under . . . “;
change the words “and not” to NOR, and change “of” to BY in the line
“certification of the Commission on Elections such that it reads
“Certification BY the Commission on Elections”.
(d) On page 92, insert ANY before “Amendment” such that it would read “ANY amendment under . . .”
APPROVAL OF THE ARTICLE ON AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS
Thereafter, on motion of Mr. Bengzon, the Body approved the entire Article on Amendments or Revisions.
ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION
On motion of Mr. Bengzon, there being no objection, the Chair
declared the session adjourned until nine o’clock in the morning of the
following day.
It was 8:15 p.m.
I hereby certify to the correctness of the foregoing.
(SGD.) FLERIDA RUTH P. ROMERO
Secretary-General
ATTESTED:
(SGD.) AMBROSIO B. PADILLA
President
Approved on October 11, 1986