JOURNAL NO. 97

Bacani, T. C.	Padilla. A. B.
Bengzon, J. F. S	Muñoz Palma, C.
Bennagen, P. L	Quesada, M. L. M
Bernas, J. G.	Rama, N. G
Rosario Braid, F	Regalado, F. D
De Castro, C. M	De los Reyes, R. F
Colayco, J. C.	Rigos, C. A.
Concepcion, R. R.	Rodrigo, F. A
Davide, H. G.	Romulo, R. J
Foz, V. B.	Samiento, R. V
Garcia, E. G.	Suarez, J. E.
Guingona, S. V.C	Sumulong, L. M
Jamir, A. M. K.	Tadeo, J. S. L
Lerum, E. R	Tan, C.
Maambong, R. E	Treñas, E. B
Monsod, C. S.	Uka, L. L
Natividad, T. C	Villacorta, W. V.
Nieva, M. T. F

Abubakar Y. R.	Gascon, J. L. M. C
Alonto, A. D.	Nolledo, J. N.
Azcuna, A. S	Tingson, G. J.

P.M.

Aquino, F. S.

Ople , B. F.

 Dumas St., Makati Metro Manila, expressing his opinion on the
country’s reported negative economic growth rate saying that “we are
poor because . . . too much of our money and the jobs and industries it
could have created were stolen from us.”

TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY

UNFINISHED BUSINESS: COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 31 ON PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 531 ON GENERAL PROVISIONS

On motion of Mr. Rama, there being no objection, the Body resumed
consideration, on Second Reading, of Proposed Resolution No. S31
(Committee Report No. 31), entitled:

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

Thereupon, the Chair recognized the Chairman and Members of the Committee on General Provisions.

WITHDRAWAL OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECTION 13

Mr. Romulo, upon consultation with the other proponents, Mr.
Rigos, Ms. Aquino and Mrs. Rosario Braid, withdrew the proposed
amendment to Section 13 on the understanding that in the absence of a
provision on population welfare and responsible parenthood, the
government would not be prevented from proceeding with these programs
and that Section 3(d) of the Article on the Family would allow
prospective parents to participate in the planning and implementation of
policies and programs that affect them in order to acquaint themselves
with their choices in this regard and thus arrive at an informed
conscience.

INQUIRIES OF MR. DE LOS REYES

On Mr. de los Reyes’ query whether Section 12 would mean that the
police force would be separated from the Philippine Constabulary, Mr.
Natividad replied in the affirmative, explaining that the Philippine
Constabulary has a dual character in the sense that it is both the
national police and a military force, being a major command of the Armed
Forces. Furthermore, he stated that the police force should be
separated from the military force in order to be consistent with the
provision on the Article on Civil Service prohibiting the military from
occupying any Civil Service position and in the light of the universal
acceptance that a police force is a civilian function which should not
be performed by the military force.

On whether this would mean that there would be two police forces,
Mr. Natividad stated that this could not be possible because the country
cannot afford two national police forces. He pointed out that what is
envisioned in Section 22 is for the State to establish and maintain one
police force which in a way would accomplish the original plan provided
for in Section 12, Article XV of the 1973 Constitution, a plan which was
never implemented during the past regime.

On whether the Philippine Constabulary would be absorbed by the
National Police Force, Mr. Natividad replied in the affirmative, stating
that under the concept, there would be a civilian National Police Force
and the members of the Philippine Constabulary would be given enough
time to choose either to join the civilian police force or to return to
the ground force as part of the major military command of the Armed
Forces.

With respect to provincial guards, Mr. Natividad stated that
traditionally, they are under the office the Governor being the keepers
of provincial jails and they are not part of the police force because
they have no police power. He explained that those included under the
term “Integrated National Police” are the local police forces, referring
to the town and city police forces, the jail personnel and fire
services.

As to how the provision which states that “the national police
shall be administered and controlled by a National Police Commission and
at the same time local executives will be granted a certain amount of
authority over police units in their jurisdiction as provided by law”
could be operationalized, Mr. Natividad stated that based on experience,
it is not advisable to provide, either in the Constitution or by law,
full control of the police by local executives because this might spawn
warlordism and sanctuaries for vices and abuses. He explained that if
the national government does not have a mechanism to supervise these
fragmented police forces composed of 1,500 separate municipal police
forces and 61 city police forces, it would be difficult to present a
modern professional police force. It is for this reason, he stated, that
a certain amount of supervision and control would have to be exercised
by the national government. He stated that if the local executives are
in complete control of the day-to-day business of their respective
police forces, the national government would control only the
administrative aspect like the standardization of salaries. He informed
that, at present, the national government maintains 13 academies and one
Philippine National Police Academy which is a cadet system similar to
that of the Philippine Military Academy and it offers a four-year
bachelor’s degree in Public Safety.

Mr. Natividad affirmed that the usual duties being performed by
the ordinary policemen would be under the supervision of the local
executives but, in exceptional cases, when the situation is beyond the
capacity of the local government, even the operational control could be
taken over by the National Police Commission.

With respect to the payment of the salaries of members of the
local police forces, Mr. Natividad stated that the pay would be
standardized, the payment of which would be provided by law, in the
sense that there would be an appropriation provided by the national
government in addition to the contributions of local government units.

On the contributions of local government units, Mr. Natividad
explained that in the pasta when the police forces were completely
fragmented and they were not under the control of the national
government there was a lot of discrepancy in salaries between policemen
in the rural areas and those in the urban areas. It was for this reason,
he stated, that a law was enacted so that there would be uniformity in
their living wages. He pointed out that while the Committee would not
want these police forces to be under the military, there is the desire
to professionalize them because the police is the first line of defense
against crime. Furthermore, he pointed out that there are 42 colleges in
the country offering a bachelor’s degree in Police Science or in
Criminology which is recognized as one of the 36 professions. He
stressed that it is the Committee’s intent to have the police developed
as a profession ready to implement a civilian police force in the
country.

On whether the police force is at present under the Philippine
Constabulary, Mr. Natividad replied in the affirmative and pointed out
that the civilian police could not blossom into a full profession
because most of the key positions are being occupied by the military. He
stated that, at present, the police forces are of no help in the
investigation of human rights violations because they are under the
Philippine Constabulary and are sometimes victims of human rights
violations themselves.

Relative to the second sentence of Section 22, on whether there is
already an existing law or whether this contemplates a future law, Mr.
Natividad stated that there is already a law which is Executive Order
No. 1012, as amended by Executive Order No. 1027 which, in substance,
provides that the local executives have the control of their police
operations on a day-to-day business and direction over their respective
police forces. He disclosed that the Committee would propose to change
the word “direction” to “control” in order to give more emphasis to the
meaning of “day-to-day business” in police work.

INQUIRIES OF MR. RAMA

On Mr. Rama’s queries, Mr. Natividad affirmed that there are
already laws defining the powers of the police force in relation to the
local governments and the Philippine Constabulary, which laws, he
stated, are not satisfactory to him because they run counter to the
basic tenets of a modern police organization which should be removed
from the military.

On the possible controversy that may arise involving the
jurisdiction or powers of the police between the Commission and the
local authority, Mr. Natividad stated that any controversy could be
settled by legislation.

On whether he would just be giving a guideline in the Constitution
to the separation of powers between the Commission and the local
authority, Mr. Natividad stated that he has to make lengthy explanations
on this matter in order to serve as the guideline to the future
legislature.

RESTATEMENT OF SECTION 22

Mr. Natividad restated Section 22, to wit:

THE STATE SHALL ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN ONE POLICE FORCE WHICH
SHALL BE NATIONAL IN SCOPE AND CIVILIAN IN CHARACTER TO BE ADMINISTERED
AND CONTROLLED BY A NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION. THE AUTHORITY OF LOCAL
EXECUTIVES OVER THE POLICE UNITS IN THEIR JURISDICTION SHALL BE PROVIDED
BY LAW.

MANIFESTATION OF MR. MAAMBONG

Mr. Maambong manifested for the record that Section 22, as
formulated, carries the approval of the Chief of the Philippine
Constabulary, Brig. Gen. Renato de Villa and that the provision was
discussed with the participation of Deputy Minister Hjalmar Quintana,
General Ahorro of the PC-INP and Colonels Aguirre, David and Cruz of the
Armed Forces, Mr. Cicero Ocampo, Chairman of the National Police
Commission, and Commissioners Mateo and Go of the same Commission.

Mr. Maambong, likewise, manifested for the record that the
formulation of Section 22 was based on Resolution Nos. 174 and 243
authored by Messrs. Ople, Natividad, de los Reyes and Maambong;
Resolution No. 142 authored by Mr. Davide; and Resolution No. 133
authored by Mr. Guingona.

INQUIRIES OF MR. GUINGONA

On Mr. Guingona’s queries, Mr. Natividad stated that in case of
minor offenses as defined by law, the mayors would have the exclusive
jurisdiction and they could impose a 30-day suspension without pay but
beyond the imposition of such penalty, the same shall be decided by the
National Police Commission. He stated that Executive Order No. 1012
defines a major offense and a grave offense, which definitions were
adopted by the Committee.

REMARKS OF MR. DE CASTRO

Mr. de Castro stated that the provision would professionalize the
police service so that there would be two units carrying arms. He
pointed out that at present, the Armed Forces and the Police are joined
together such that both units could be used to topple the government by
anybody strong and influential enough with these two units. He stated
that through this provision, the police would be separated from the
Armed Forces and it would be quite difficult for any one man to topple
the government.

Mr. de Castro cited the case of Indonesia when President Sukarno
was toppled by the combined forces of the police and the armed forces
used by Suharto and his men.

INQUIRY OF MR. PADILLA

In reply to Mr. Padilla’s query on whether the phrase “minor
offenses” would mean light felonies while the phrase “grave offenses”
would include grave and less grave felonies as provided in Article 9 of
the Revised Penal Code, Mr. Natividad pointed out that the proposal
refers not to criminal offenses but to the administrative cases
enumerated in Section 16 of Executive Order Nos. 1012.

INQUIRY OF MR. RODRIGO

On Mr. Rodrigo’s query, Mr. Natividad affirmed that the National
Police does not fall under the President as Commander-in-Chief of the
Armed Forces but under the supervision and control of the Office of the
President.

APPROVAL OF SECTION 22

Mr. Natividad restated Section 22, to wit:

THE STATE SHALL ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN ONE POLICE FORCE WHICH
SHALL BE NATIONAL IN SCOPE AND CIVILIAN IN CHARACTER TO BE ADMINISTERED
AND CONTROLLED BY A NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION. THE AUTHORITY OF LOCAL
EXECUTIVES OVER THE POLICE UNITS IN THEIR JURISDICTION SHALL BE PROVIDED
BY LAW.

Submitted to a vote, and with 36 Members voting in favor and none against, Section 22 was approved by the Body.

Mrs. Rosario Braid noted that this was the first proposed section of the Constitution that was not amended.

MANIFESTATION OF MR. MAAMBONG

Thereafter, Mr. Maambong manifested that the proviso to be
included in the Transitory Provision as found on lines 13 to 16 of the
Committee Report, which states that “All armed groups and paramilitary
forces now existing contrary to law shall be dismantled” had been
reformulated by the Committee on Transitory Provisions and would be
included in Section 9 of Proposed Resolution No. 540, Committee Report
No. 38, to read:

ALL ARMED GROUPS AND PARAMILITARY FORCES NOW EXISTING OUTSIDE OF THE REGULAR POLICE AND ARMED FORCES SHALL BE DISMANTLED.

He then moved that the provisions on lines 13 to 16 of Committee
Report No. 31 be considered in Committee Report No. 38 on the Article on
Transitory Provisions.

Mrs. Rosario Braid agreed, stating that even the Constitution of
Egypt provides that no organization or group may establish military or
paramilitary forces.

AMENDMENT OF MR. DAVIDE

Mr. Davide then proposed a new Section to be appropriately
inserted by the Committee on Style in the Article on General Provisions,
to wit:

SECTION — ALL PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES SHALL TAKE AN OATH OR AFFIRMATION TO UPHOLD AND DEFEND THIS CONSTITUTION.

He explained that the provision appeared in the General Provisions
of the 1973 Constitution but had not been included even in the sections
on the Civil Service Commission.

Mr. Maambong affirmed that such provision was not included in the
sections on the Civil Service but similar provisions appear in the
Article on the Executive and on the sections on the Armed Forces of the
Philippines He expressed no objection to its inclusion in the Article on
General Provisions.

In reply to his query, Mr. Davide affirmed that elective public officials are included in the term “public officers.”

Mrs. Rosario Braid, likewise, accepted the proposed amendment, and
there being no objection, Mr. Davide’s amendment was approved by the
Body.

AMENDMENT OF MR. BERNAS

On Mr. Maambong’s inquiry whether Mr. Bernas would insist on his
proposal to transpose the first line of Section 17 of the Article on
General Provisions to the Declaration of Principles, the latter stated
that it is not only the first line but the first two sentences thereof,
which read: “The Armed Forces of the Philippines is the protector of the
people and the State. Its goal is to secure the sovereignty of the
State and the integrity of the national territory.”

Mr. Bernas explained that since all the underlying principles of
the Constitution should be placed in the Declaration of Principles, the
philosophy behind the armed forces should, likewise, be included
therein.

Mr. de Castro expressed no objection to the proposed transposition
provided that the composition of the armed forces would be retained in
the General Provisions.

Thereupon, Mr. Maambong informed that the Subcommittee on
Declaration of Principles had already finished sequencing the provisions
of the Article according to General Principles and State Policies.

On Mr. Maambong’s suggestion to place Mr. Bernas’ amendment under
the General Principles considering that, as suggested by Mr. Padilla,
the maintenance of peace and order and the duty of the government to
protect the people have been placed in the same classification, Mr.
Bernas agreed, stating that it could follow the sentence on civilian
supremacy over the military.

Mr. Bernas also agreed with Mr. de Castro that the provision on
civilian supremacy over the military be made a separate section to be
followed by the proviso which he proposed to transpose, but also in a
separate section to emphasize both principles.

Mrs, Rosario Braid, likewise, agreed to such transposition to
complement the other provisions on the military in the Declaration of
Principles.

On behalf of the Committee on Declaration of Principles, Mr.
Tingson acknowledged the proposed transposition to the sections on
General Principles.

At this juncture, Mr, Maambong stated that there would be no need
to vote on Mr. Bernas’ proposal since it is the function of the
Committees on Style and on Sponsorship to make the proper transposition.

MOTION TO TERMINATE THE PERIOD OF AMENDMENTS

Thereafter, there being no other amendments, Mr. Rama moved that
the Body close the period of amendments subject to the reservation made
by Mr. Uka.

The Chair suggested that the Body consider said reservation in
order that it could finish with the amendments without any reservation,
to which Mr. Maambong agreed.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

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

It was 10:55 a.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 11:09 a.m., the session was resumed.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF SECTION 18(d)

Upon resumption of session, Mr. Bernas moved for the
reconsideration of the approval of the deletion of Section 18(d) which
reads: “The provisions of the existing laws on retirement of military
officers shall be adhered to.”

He explained that he would like to propose an amendment in
response to the reactions of military officers who feel that the present
practice on retirement is demoralizing. He added that he voted for the
deletion of the same subsection.

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

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. BERNAS

Thereupon, Mr. Bernas proposed his amendment as follows: ALL
MILITARY OFFICERS SHALL BE RETIRED AT THE AGE OF FIFTY SIX OR UPON
COMPLETION OF THIRTY YEARS OF MILITARY SERVICE WHICHEVER IS EARLIER.

Mr. Bernas explained that although the provision is detailed, it
is not the first time that a similar provision was proposed to the Body
because it had approved the provision on the 70-year age limit for
compulsory retirement of the members of the Judiciary. He stressed that
the Constitution must be precise as far as retirement is concerned,
otherwise, retirement would always depend on Congress or the President.
He pointed out that if the proposal would be approved, then neither the
President nor Congress could give extensions of duty to military
officers.

In reply to Mr. Davide’s query whether “officers” would include
the Chief of Staff, Mr. Bernas stated that it would, but ending the tour
of duty of the Chief of Staff would not necessarily mean retirement
from the military.

On whether the proposal would also mean that the Chief of Staff
should be retired once he reaches the retirement age during or within
his tour of duty of three years, Mr. Bernas replied in the negative.

Mr. Davide then queried whether the tour of duty of a Chief of
Staff could be extended even if he has already reached the retirement
age in times of war or national emergency, to which Mr. de Castro
replied that the tour of duty of the Chief of Staff is 3 years and an
officer designated as Chief of Staff one day prior to reaching the age
of fifty-six would have to end his tour of duty except in case of a
national emergency.

MR. DAVIDE’S AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT

Thereupon, Mr. Davide proposed to amend the proposal by inserting EXCEPT THE CHIEF OF STAFF between “officers” and “shall.”

Mr. Bernas opined that the proposal is not necessary in view of
the paragraph approved by the Body in the previous session wherein it
was understood that the Chief of Staff must be allowed to finish his
tour of duty even if he goes beyond 30 years of service or upon reaching
the age of fifty-six. He further explained that age fifty-six is based
on the age required for entrance in the Philippine Military Academy
which is 22 years old, the training of four years, and the additional 30
years military service.

INQUIRY OF MR. MAAMBONG

In reply to Mr. Maambong’s query whether there is a difference as
far as benefits are concerned if a military officer retires upon
completion of thirty years of service from his retirement upon reaching
the age of fifty-six, Mr. Bernas stated that he is not in a position to
answer the query because the matter of benefits is covered by statutory
laws.

INQUIRY OF MR. SUAREZ

On Mr. Suarez’ query whether cadetship at the PMA is included in
the years of military service, Mr. Bernas replied that for purposes of
computing 30 years of service, cadetship is excluded.

Mr. Suarez then stated that a person who enters the PMA at the age
of 18 would graduate at the age of 22 and would be retired at the age
of 52. He recalled that General Douglas MacArthur was appointed as
Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces in the Pacific in his sixties. He
inquired whether talented Filipino military officers should be
precluded from continuing their service to the country just because they
have reached the retirement age, to which Mr. de Castro replied that
the main reason why officers should be retired after 30 years of service
or upon reaching the age of fifty-six is because the country has to
maintain a strong armed forces and there are always enough officers who
graduate from the PMA every year. He also stated that when MacArthur was
designated Supreme Commander during World War II and the Korean War, he
was already retired and was merely recalled to active duty.

Mr. Suarez maintained that there must be flexibility, hence, the
matter of retirement must be left to Congress to decide, to which Mr. de
Castro explained that the existing laws on retirement also provide for
exceptional cases.

INQUIRIES OF MR. GUINGONA

In reply to Mr. Guingona’s query whether the President could
recall retired officers, Mr. de Castro replied that there is an existing
law which allows the President to recall retired officers.

Mr. Guingona opined that perhaps the proposal should be
reformulated so that it would not be circumvented because an officer may
be retired today and immediately recalled to active duty a week later,
to which Mr. Bernas stated that recall would only apply to the Chief of
Staff and there may be no need to avail of it because the President
could always extend his tour of duty. He also pointed out that once a
Chief of Staff has been retired, he is replaced by a successor who must
serve for three years. Mr. Guingona said recall could also apply to
other officers.

On the query as to when the law which provides for retirement of
military officers was enacted, Mr. de Castro stated that Mr. Marcos
issued a Presidential Decree on the matter, which number or date of
effectivity he could not recall.

Mr. Guingona stated that advances in medical science and other
circumstances warrant some changes in the present rule on retirement. He
then manifested his support of Mr. Suarez’ proposal to leave the matter
of retirement to Congress. He suggested that military officers be
retired under existing laws without stating the specific age so that
they could retire under the laws prevailing on the date of their
retirement.

Mr. Bernas maintained that the proposal does not solve the
demoralizing effect of extensions, to which Mr. Maambong pointed out
that it would be better to simply state that retirement of military
officers under existing laws should not be subject to any extension
because this would not bind Congress from changing the rule on
retirement if the circumstances so warrant.

Thereupon, Mr. Bernas expressed his concurrence with the general
idea that whatever retirement law may be passed by Congress, that
retirement law should not allow extension. He added that the
Constitution must also contain a provision prohibiting Congress from
enacting any law which would allow extension of military officers duty.

MR. DAVIDE’S AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT

At this juncture, Mr. Davide proposed an amendment which reads as
follows: NO LAW ON RETIREMENT OF MILITARY OFFICERS SHALL ALLOW EXTENSION
OF THEIR SERVICE.

Mr. Bernas accepted the amendment.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

At this juncture, the Chair suspended the session.

It was 11:31 a.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 11:34 a.m., the session was resumed.

Upon resumption of session, Mr. Rama stated that the fundamental
reason why military officers should be retired earlier is to prevent
them from becoming well-entrenched and thereby accumulating much power.
In other countries where there is no system of early retirement of
military officers, after long years of incumbency, they become strongmen
who stage coups against constituted or civilian government.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. DAVIDE JOINTLY WITH MESSRS. BERNAS, RAMA, GUINGONA AND THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

Thereafter, Mr. Davide presented the compromise amendment as
follows: NO LAW ON RETIREMENT OF MILITARY OFFICERS SHALL ALLOW EXTENSION
OF THEIR SERVICE.

In reply to Mr. Bernas’ query whether the approval of the
provision and the ratification of the Constitution would mean that the
exception in the existing retirement law is automatically repealed, Mr.
Davide replied in the affirmative. He added that no extension would even
be allowed either by the President or by Congress. He also stated that
it would be up to Congress to determine what should really be the
retirement age and the ideal length of service of military officials.

INQUIRY OF MR. BACANI

In reply to Mr. Bacani’s query whether General Ramos would be
affected by the reformulated provision, Mr. Davide stated that he would
be affected if he falls under this proposal, but being the Chief of
Staff, the President may grant him an extension only in times of war or
national emergency.

On whether General Ramos’ tour of duty would not be provided for
in the General Provisions should there be no war or national emergency,
Mr. Davide adverted to the explanation of Mr. de Castro stating that he
should be allowed to finish his tour of duty of three years.

MODIFICATION OF MR. PADILLA

Mr. Padilla expressed disagreement with the reformulation of the
provision starting with “No law .. .” because it would make the
provision negative and prohibitive even if the purpose is to avoid
demoralization among the officers of the Armed Forces, He suggested that
the provision read as follows:

CONGRESS SHALL APPROVE A LAW ON RETIREMENT OF PUBLIC OFFICERS WHICH SHALL NOT PERMIT EXTENSION OF SERVICE.

In reply, Mr. Davide stated that Mr. Padilla’s suggestion could be accommodated by rewording the provision as follows:

LAWS ON RETIREMENT OF MILITARY OFFICERS SHALL NOT ALLOW EXTENSION OF THEIR SERVICE.

INQUIRY OF MR. BACANI

In reply to Mr. Bacani’s query whether ANY extension would be acceptable, Mr. Davide answered in the affirmative.

REMARKS OF MR. PADILLA

Mr. Padilla stated that the law on retirement should not bind the
Body because it was issued by the deposed dictator during martial law.
He maintained that Congress should be allowed the judgment and the
opportunity to provide for a retirement law for military officers,
keeping in mind the nonextension of their service to avoid
demoralization.

Responding thereto, Mr. de Castro recalled that Congress, indeed,
enacted a retirement law but provided an exception, granting authority
to the President to extend the service and President Marcos also issued a
decree with the same exception. He stressed that the Constitution
should clearly provide that no extension of service should be allowed.

INQUIRY OF MR. JAMIR

In reply to Mr. Jamir’s query whether under the reformulated
provision, Congress would thereafter be prohibited from passing any law
fixing the retirement age at 60, Mr. Davide answered in the negative
stating that the provision is very flexible. He stressed, however, that
no extension would be allowed.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. REGALADO

Mr. Regalado proposed to modify the provision by substituting
“officers” after “military” with PERSONNEL to include all those in the
military service.

Mr. de Castro stated, however, that “military personnel” includes
the enlisted men who have no complaints about their status. He stated
that their enlistment is by virtue of a three-year contract which is
renewable at the instance of the AFP. He also stated that the enlisted
personnel have their own retirement law which provides for retirement
programs from which they could choose, otherwise, they could just opt
for reenlistment.

He confirmed that it would serve as an exception to the rule,
since enlisted personnel are exclusively governed by their own
retirement law.

On whether all should be uniformly subjected to the same
retirement law, Mr. de Castro stressed that military personnel are not
subject to extension since their enlistment expires after every three
years, renewable by reenlistment. He confirmed that it is the policy of
the Armed Forces not to allow the reenlistment of personnel who have
reached the retirement age.

Mr. Regalado pointed out that there should be no distinction
between the retirement law for the enlisted personnel and that for the
commissioned and noncommissioned officers.

On the status of civilian clerks, Mr. Regalado stated that they
are civilian employees who are not covered by the Articles of War, for
which reason Mr. de Castro did not accept the proposed modification.

Mr. Davide, likewise, did not accept Mr. Regalado’s proposal.

INQUIRY OF MR. DE LOS REYES

In reply to Mr. de los Reyes’ query whether the President would
commit culpable violation of the Constitution as a ground for
impeachment if he grants extension despite the existence of such
provision, Mr. Davide replied in the affirmative.

APPROVAL OF MR. DAVIDE’S AMENDMENT AS MODIFIED BY MR. PADILLA

Upon direction of the Chair, Mr. Davide restated his proposed amendment as modified by Mr. Padilla, to wit:

LAWS ON RETIREMENT OF MILITARY OFFICERS SHALL NOT ALLOW EXTENSION OF THEIR SERVICE.

Submitted to a vote, and with 36 Members voting in favor and none
against, the Body approved Mr. Davide’s amendment as modified by Mr.
Padilla.

WITHDRAWAL OF MR. UKA’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

At this juncture, Mr. Uka stated that he pondered on his motion
for reconsideration to lift the approval on the 70:30 equity ratio on
advertising.

Adverting to President Corazon Aquino’s speech before the New York
Economics Club, he stated that he found himself in a fix, and
considering that the exception only applies to advertising, he stated
that he decided to concede.

Thereupon, he withdrew his motion for reconsideration.

REMARKS OF MRS. ROSARIO BRAID

Mr. Rosario Braid expressed the Committee’s gratitude for Mr.
Uka’s withdrawal of his motion for reconsideration. She stated for the
record that advertising is not capital-intensive because only P50,000 is
required to start an advertising agency, doing away with dependence on
foreign technology or expertise.

She stated that local capability should be encouraged to make it
more responsive to the goals of cultural identity and value formation,
which would discourage the overloading of colonial advertisements
carrying foreign symbols and lifestyles.

Adverting to the 1973 Constitution, she stated that advertising is
classified as mass media with 100 percent Filipino equity. She stated
that construction thereof deserves great respect, pursuant to the ruling
in Bengzon vs. Secretary of Justice.

She stated that under Article 68 of the Omnibus Investments Code,
as amended, foreign investments are not allowed in enterprises already
exploited by Filipinos, the advertising industry, being one of them.

Finally, she stated that advertising whets appetite for consumer goods and that the exception is most appropriate.

REMARKS OF MR. PADILLA

Mr. Padilla observed that the fact that advertising is not
capital-intensive is an argument for not retaining the second paragraph
of Section 11. He questioned the constitutionalization of the provision
since there are other private endeavors that involve more essentially
and substantially the interest of the general welfare which were not
included in this Constitution.

The Chair, however, stated that Section 11 had already been
approved and that Mr. Uka was accommodated because of his reservation on
the issue.

TERMINATION OF THE PERIOD OF AMENDMENTS

On motion of Mr. Rama, there being no objection, the Body
terminated the period of amendments on the Article on General
Provisions.

MANIFESTATION OF MR. BENGZON

Mr. Bengzon manifested, on behalf of the Steering Committee, that
the Body proceed to the period of sponsorship, interpellations and
debate on the Article on Transitory Provisions in the afternoon session.

In connection thereto, Mr. Suarez stated that mimeographed copies
of his sponsorship remarks had been distributed to the Members. He
appealed that the Members read it during the suspension of the session
in order to abbreviate the proceedings.

In reply to the Chair’s query on any suggestion as to the
proceedings, Mr. Suarez stated that Mr. Monsod suggested that each
section be subjected to interpellation and amendment, finalizing each
before proceeding to another.

The Chair stated that the suggestion is reasonable and directed the Members to be guided accordingly.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

At this juncture, the Chair suspended the session until two-thirty in the afternoon.

It was 12:01 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 3:06 p.m., the session was resumed with the Honorable Serafin V.C. Guingona presiding.

CONSIDERATION OF COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 38 ON PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 540 ON THE ARTICLE ON TRANSITORY PROVISIONS

On motion of Mr. Rama, there being no objection, the Body
proceeded to the consideration of Proposed Resolution No. 540 (Committee
Report No. 38) on the Article on Transitory Provisions, entitled:

Resolution to incorporate in the new Constitution an Article on Transitory Provisions.

Mr. Rama manifested that as agreed upon during the morning
session, the Rules had been modified to allow interpellations and
amendments section by section. He informed that the procedure was
proposed by the Chairman of the Committee on Transitory Provisions and
was approved by the Body.

Thereupon, the Chair recognized the Chairman and Members of the Committee on Transitory Provisions.

REMARKS OF MR. SUAREZ

Mr. Suarez, as Chairman of the Committee on Transitory Provisions,
stated that three papers have been distributed, namely: the sponsorship
speech in Support of the Article on Transitory Provisions; the addendum
which was prepared by the Committee for consideration after it had
prepared the 12 sections of the Article; and the abstract of the various
resolutions presented before the Committee.

Mr. Suarez explained that the Committee proposes a brief Article
on Transitory Provisions which consists of 12 sections, 4 sections less
than in the 1973 Constitution. The Transitory Provisions, he stated, are
intended principally to cover the transition from the old to the new
government to pave the way for an orderly change and by their very
nature and characteristics have temporary or transient application. He
added that the provisions are of a passing nature designed at times to
qualify permanent provisions or to limit their operations to a specific
period.

He informed that the Committee offers a mixed package of
constitutional provisions and that in the drafting process, a number of
suggestions from the Members of the Commission and private citizens were
considered, although not all could be accommodated while some could be
left to Congress. The Committee Members, he stated, felt that the
Article should consist of provisions necessary to ease the transition
from the provisional Freedom Constitution which replaced the 1973
Constitution into the 1986 Constitution. The Article, he observed, is a
mixture of standard transitory provisions and provisions borne of
necessity. He noted that the political ferment which brought about the
Constitutional Commission also brought about a situation requiring the
imposition of provisional measures. He stated that the transitory
provisions linked up with these provisional measures would facilitate
the stabilization of political structure.

Thereafter, Mr. Suarez, in the light of the distribution of copies
of the sponsorship speech, dispensed with its reading and requested
that it be inserted into the records of the Commission.

Additionally, Mr. Suarez informed that when the Committee
submitted the addendum it overlooked a section governing the requirement
to set up a scaling of salaries of top officials such as the President,
the Vice-President, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Associate
Justices of the Supreme Court and Members of the three Constitutional
Commissions. With this reservation, Mr. Suarez requested that the Body
proceed to the period of interpellations.

Thereupon, the Chair instructed the Secretary-General to include
in the records the portions of the sponsorship speech which was not read
by Mr. Suarez.

SPONSORSHIP SPEECH OF MR. SUAREZ

The following is the text of the sponsorship speech:

The Committee on Amendments and Transitory Provisions proposes a
relatively brief article on the addendum which was prepared by the
Committee for consideration after it had prepared the 12 Transitory
Provisions. It originally consists of twelve (12) sections, four (4)
sections less than the 1973 Constitutions.

The transitory provisions in a Constitution are intended
principally to cover the transition from the old to the new government
in order to pave the way for an orderly change. By their very nature and
characteristics, Transitory Provisions have temporary or transient
application. They are of a passing nature, designed at times to qualify
permanent provisions or to limit their operation to a specific period.
They do not possess permanent or enduring quality. The Committee on
Amendments and Transitory Provisions, by necessity, has become the
receptacle of a number of provisions, totally unrelated to each other.
We thus offer a mixed bag of Constitutional provisions. In drafting the
article, a number of suggestions both from the members of the Commission
and from private citizens were considered by the Committee. They were
mostly sound and reasonable proposals. Unfortunately, not all of them
can be accommodated under the Article on Transitory Provisions. Indeed,
some of them can properly be taken care of by Congress in due time.

The members of the Committee felt that the Article on Transitory
Provisions should consist only of provisions that are necessary to ease
the transition from the Provisional Freedom Constitution which replaced
the repudiated 1973 Constitution, into the new Constitution that this
Commission is drafting.

The proposed article is a mixture of standard transitory
provisions and provisions borne of necessity. The social and political
ferment which brought about this Commission also brought about a
situation that required the imposition of provisional measures.

The transitory provisions link up with these provisional measures and facilitate the stabilization of the political structure.

ARTICLE ____

TRANSITORY PROVISIONS

Section 1. The first election of members of the Senate and the
House of Representatives shall be held no sooner than sixty days nor
later than one hundred twenty days after the ratification of this
Constitution.

One of the first acts of the new government was the abolition of
the legislative structure. President Aquino’s Freedom Constitution
(Proclamation No. 3) promulgated on 24 March 1986 superseded Article
VIII (The Batasang Pambansa), effectively dissolving the Batasang
Pambansa. Meanwhile, pending the establishment of a new legislature
convened and elected under a new Constitution, the legislative power
continues to be exercised by the President (Section 1, Article II,
Proclamation No. 3).

The election and convening of the new legislature under the new
Constitution is thus seen as the final act that restores full
constitutional government. The need to accomplish this act without
further delay cannot be overemphasized.

In this section, the Committee schedules the date of the first
election of members of the Senate and the House of Representatives
between sixty. (60) to one hundred twenty (120) days after the
ratification of the new Constitution.

The Committee feels that the range of sixty to one hundred twenty
days is both convenient and reasonable not only in terms of preparation
but also in terms of the early termination of presidential exercise of
legislative power.

The range presumes that the date of the plebiscite for
ratification is sometime in December 1986. A December plebiscite gives
an allowance of one month to the Commission and sufficient time for
COMELEC to prepare for said plebiscite. The preparations, according to
the COMELEC Chairman, may involve the general registration of voters and
the preparation and printing of ballots voters’ affidavit and voters
list.

A December ratification would also mean that the date of the first
election would be sometime between February and April 1987, before the
rains start pouring.

Section 2. The incumbent President shall continue to exercise legislative power until the convening of Congress.

There are two main reasons for this provision:

One, it avoids a hiatus created between the time of the
ratification of the Constitution and the actual election and convening
of the legislature; and two, it explicitly provides for a termination
date for the President’s exercise of legislative power.

Note that this provision is necessary considering the abolition of
the Batasang Pambansa by Proclamation No. 3 last 25 March 1986 and the
consequent exercise by the President of the legislative power by virtue
of the same proclamation.

Upon the establishment of the legislative structure and the
convening of the first Congress, there is obviously no more need for the
exercise of the legislative power by the President since the Congress
is already in place.

The termination of the President’s legislative prerogative also
puts back the presidency into co-equal status with that of the
legislative and judicial departments of government. The tripartite
system of government would become fully operational.

Section 3. All existing laws, decrees, executive orders,
proclamations, letter of instructions and other executive issuances not
inconsistent with this Constitution shall remain operative until
amended, modified or repealed by Congress.

This provision is really an ordinary transitory provision and,
strictly speaking, not really necessary in the sense that the transition
from the 1973 Constitution and the Freedom Constitution to the new
Constitution does not involve a change of sovereignty.

The period, however, between martial law up until late February of
this year was most abnormal. The 1973 Constitution (Sec. 3, Subsection
2, Article XVII) made all proclamations, orders, decrees, instructions
and acts promulgated, issued, or done by former President Marcos as
“part of the law of the land” and “shall remain valid, legal, binding,
and effective even after lifting of martial law or the ratification of
this Constitution unless modified, repealed or superseded by subsequent
proclamations, orders, decrees, instructions, or other acts of the
incumbent President, or unless expressly and explicitly modified or
repealed by the regular National Assembly.” Almost fourteen (14) years
of presidential legislation have created a body of laws that has
permeated all sectors of our society. These laws have affected
government organization and even our own private lives. They number in
the thousands — some published, a great number unpublished. By actual
reckoning, these are the figures we obtained: 2,036 Presidential
Decrees, 2,419 Proclamations, 1,091 Executive Orders, 1,525 Letters of
Instructions, 157 Letters of Implementation, 504 Administrative Orders,
and 1,297 Memo Circulars.

The inclusion of decrees, executive orders, proclamations, letter
of instructions and other executive issuances with statutory laws thus
made this provision a little problematic. In the Committee, it was a
series of discussions and repeated debates on the matter before it was
finally agreed that the provision as it now stands would be the most
practical and judicious under the circumstances.

There were two schools of thought on the matter. One school sought
to declare all existing laws, decrees, executive orders, proclamations,
letters of instruction and other executive issuances as valid, legal,
binding and effective unless inconsistent with the new Constitution or
unless amended or repealed by Congress. The other school of thought
wanted to declare all of them invalid unless re-enacted by Congress. In
both schools of thought, the intention is to segregate the Presidential
decrees and other executive issuances from the statutory laws and,
further, to segregate the good and valid P.D.s from those that are not.
In both instances, the stupendous job of reviewing each and every P.D.
and repealing or affirming them is perceived, considering that there are
about 2,036 Presidential Decrees.

A number of these P.D.s appear to be modifications or amendments
of previous laws (Acts of the Philippine Legislature, Commonwealth Acts
or Republic Acts). A number of them govern the operation of government
and its agencies and still a number of them affect individuals and
individual rights. They have vested rights, as well as created
obligations.

While it was accepted that rights once vested cannot be impaired
by subsequent legislation, the possibility of confusion and endless
court litigations that will result from an outright blanket invalidation
of all existing laws, is nevertheless perceived.

It was also pointed out that the incumbent President herself, out
of necessity, has been issuing her own set of Proclamations which have
the effect of law. Our cursory investigation yielded the fact that
President Aquino had, since February 25, 1986 issued the following: 9
Proclamations, 43 Executive Orders, 6 Memo Circulars and 10 Memo Orders.
The Committee, however, feels that it doesn’t seem prudent nor does it
seem judicious to distinguish between two sets of Presidential
proclamations.

While it may be admitted that some enactments of the former
President are unacceptable, it was considered by the Committee that it
is an act of prudence to declare all decrees, executive orders,
proclamations, letters of instruction and other executive issuances not
inconsistent with the Constitution as operative until amended, modified,
or repealed by Congress.

Note that the provision incorporates the general safety valve
clause “not inconsistent with this Constitution”, from which it may
reasonably be implied that those that are inconsistent with it are
deemed inoperative. My committee felt that there should be no disruption
in the smooth and orderly functioning of the administration. The
stability of governing operations during the period of transition from
the Freedom Constitution to our permanent Constitution should be
insured.

Also, this section, taken together with the proposed Section 2,
would indicate that pending the election and convening of the first
Congress, the President, who is authorized to exercise legislative power
during the period, may amend or repeal existing laws, including
presidential enactments. It was revealed to the Committee members that a
thorough review of all President Marcos’ enactments is currently being
undertaken by the commission headed by Minister Luis Villafuerte.

Section 4. All courts existing at the time of the ratification of
this Constitution shall continue to exercise their jurisdiction, until
otherwise provided by law in accordance with the Constitution, and all
cases pending in said courts shall be heard, tried, and determined under
the laws then in force. The provisions of the existing Rules of Court
not inconsistent with this Constitution shall remain operative unless
amended, modified or repealed by the Supreme Court or Congress.

This provision recognizes the principle that the judiciary is an
independent and co-equal department of government and should, therefore,
be respected as such. It also guarantees the rights of all parties in
pending litigations that their claims shall be resolved according to the
laws existing at the time when the acts involved took place. And
lastly, this provision ensures the continuity of the administration of
justice, by allowing courts to function according to existing rules,
until compelling reasons cause the competent authorities to modify them.

Section 5. The Supreme Court must, within six months after the
ratification of this Constitution, adopt a systematic plan to expedite
the decision or resolution of the entire backlog of cases or matters
filed with the Supreme Court or the lower courts prior to the
effectivity of this Constitution.

This provision was indorsed by the Committee on the Judiciary for inclusion in the Article on Transitory Provisions.

The provision takes notice of the clogged dockets of our courts
and thus gives a constitutional mandate for the Supreme Court to adopt a
plan to expedite the disposition of the entire backlog of cases which
have been filed with the courts prior to the effectivity of the new
Constitution.

Preliminary data from the Office of the Court Administrator reveal
that there were 358,961 cases pending in all lower courts as of the end
of 1985. During that year, the lower courts started with 370,918 cases
to which were added 357,552 cases filed. At the end of the year, the
courts disposed a little above one half of the total 728,470 cases. In
the case of the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Claudio Teehankee, in a
letter addressed to the Judiciary Committee, acknowledged that there
were about 1,976 cases submitted for decision as of the year 1980, still
undecided. It would, according to his estimate, take about 3 1/2 years
for a division composed of five (5) justices to decide the same.

A study made by the College of Public Administration of the
University of the Philippines also revealed that it takes the courts an
average of two and a half (2 1/2) years to dispose of a single case.

The study indicates that delay in the disposition of cases
contributes to the clogging of court dockets. It further indicates that
there is rampant denial of justice by virtue of the delay in the
disposition of cases.

From the above, it may be said that the greater end of the
provision is not only the clearing of court dockets but more
importantly, the dispensation of swift justice for all.

Section 6. The incumbent members of the judiciary shall continue
in office until they reach the age of seventy years or removed for
cause.

This section provides for the security of tenure of the members of
the judiciary. It is corollary to Section 4, as security of tenure is a
vital element of judicial independence.

The civil service principle that guarantees against arbitrary
impairment of the right to continue in the position held also applies to
the members of the Judiciary. The members of the judiciary may only be
removed “for cause.”

The phrase “for cause” has acquired a well-defined meaning in
Philippine jurisprudence. As enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case
of De los Santos vs. Mallare, 87 Phil. 293 (1950), it means, “for
reasons which the law and sound public policy recognize as sufficient
for removal, that is, legal cause, and not merely causes which the
appointing power in the exercise of discretion may deem sufficient. It
is implied that officers may not be removed at the mere will of those
vested with the power of removal, or without cause. Moreover, the cause
must relate to and effect the administration of the office, and must be
restricted to something of a substantial nature directly affecting the
rights and interests of the public.”

Section 7. The incumbent President and Vice-President shall hold
office for a term of six years starting at noon of February 25, 1986
until noon of February 25, 1992.

This provision recognizes the existence of a de jure government
under the leadership of the incumbent President and Vice-President as
ruled upon by the Supreme Court in three cases questioning the
legitimacy of the present government.

The provision fixes the term of the incumbent President and
Vice-President for a period of six (6) years starting at noon of
February 25, 1986, when President Corazon Aquino and Vice-President
Salvador Laurel took their oaths at the Club Filipino and ending at noon
of February 25, 1992.

There are two main reasons for fixing the term in such manner.
First, the snap elections of February 7, 1986 in which the incumbent
President and Vice-President ran for their respective positions would
result in a six-year term of whoever may be elected. The result of said
elections as declared by the defunct Batasang Pambansa was repudiated by
the people in. assertion of its sovereignty and installed the incumbent
President and Vice-President. Second, and corollary to the first, the
incumbent President and Vice-President took their oaths of office as
such on February 25, 1986.

From the circumstances attending the installation of the incumbent
President and Vice-President, it may be conclusively presumed that the
people intended to grant them a six-year term. Now, since the incumbents
took their oath of office on February 25, 1986, the same should be the
point from which to reckon the six-year period.

The intention of the provision is thus to give them a term of exactly six (6) years.

In consideration of the need to synchronize future elections,
however, the Committee approved this provision on the understanding that
elections shall be synchronized in such a way that the terms of the
first nationally elected officials shall ultimately coincide with the
date of termination of office of the incumbent President and
Vice-President. With that end in view that the term might,
theoretically, be extended by some months after February 25, 1992, the
corresponding appropriate amendment to this section may then have to be
introduced.

It should be stated, however, that some members of the committee,
who made some reservations about Section 7, feel rather strongly that
President Aquino and Vice-President Laurel should obtain a fresh mandate
from the people in order to clear once and for all whatever doubts may
have been cast on their assumption of office. Referring the matter to
the people in a separate referendum is suggested. There are even clamors
in some sectors for the calling of a presidential election immediately
after the ratification of the new Constitution. The Committee, however,
decided to recommend the approval of Section 7 for the following cogent
and practical reasons, among others: That the true winners in the
February 7, 1986 elections were Aquino and Laurel; that the massive
frauds and cheating brought about the February EDSA revolution which led
to the departure of Marcos and the proclamation of Aquino and Laurel
thru the exercise by the people of their Sovereign will; that the
proclamation was accepted by the people and due recognition of the
Aquino government had been accorded by the community of nations; and
that the matter had been laid to rest with the decision of our Supreme
Court in 3 cases (G.R.L. Nos. 73748, 73972, and 73990) that the people
“have accepted the government of President Corazon C. Aquino which is in
effective control of the entire country so that it is not merely a de
facto government but is in fact and law a de jure government.”

Section 8. Any writ of sequestration, freeze, search and seizure
order issued or which may be issued in relation to the recovery of
ill-gotten wealth shall continue to be operative within six months after
the convening of the first Congress; provided that Congress, in the
national interest, as certified by the President, may extend said
period.

This provision is the result of almost a dozen meetings and public
hearings that hoped to settle a most problematic issue involving the
Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG).

The main issue revolves around the manner by which the
Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG) exercise its broad
powers and authority in its pursuit of ill-gotten properties amassed by
MF. and Mrs. Marcos, their families, relatives, subordinates and friends
cronies.

There are three main points involved in this issue. One, is the
recovery of ill-gotten properties amassed by the leaders and supporters
of the previous regime, a declared element of the national policy “to
implement reforms mandated by the people” as enunciated in Article II,
Section 1 (D) of Proclamation No. 3. Another point is the due process
requirements in the issuance of writs of sequestration and freeze and/or
hold orders, the observance of which is a basic element that makes
effective the guarantees of civil, political and human rights of the
people. And lastly, a possible future Constitutional infirmity in the
issuance of writs of sequestration, freeze/hold orders by the PCGG under
the new Constitution. This is because the new Bill of Rights, Section 3
thereof, no longer allows non-judicial officers to issue search
warrants or warrants of arrest, including necessarily, writs of
sequestration or freeze orders of assets or accounts.

After a thorough consideration of these main points, the Committee
arrived at this provision which reflects a compromise between what was
observed by the Committee as conflicting considerations. Section 8 would
thus constitute an exception to Section 3, Article III on the Bill of
Rights. The enormous tasks involved in the recovery of the nation’s
wealth plundered by Marcos and his family and close associates justify,
in the minds of the Committee members, the grant of this extra-ordinary
power to the PCGG.

This provision terminates the powers of the PCGG to issue writs of
sequestration, freeze, search and seizure orders six months from the
time the first Congress convenes. However, upon certification of the
President, that it is in the national interest to extend the period
within which said powers may be exercised, the Congress may extend said
period. The extension presupposes a prior determination by the Congress
that it is indeed in the national interest to extend the exercise of
said power by the PCGG. The certification by the President thus
functions as some sort of a recommendation to Congress. Needless to add,
Congress does not possess the power to limit or terminate the
extraordinary right granted to the PCGG before the expiration of the six
months’ constitutional period.

Upon the termination of said period, the power of the PCGG to
issue writs of sequestration, freeze, search and seizure order would
automatically cease, and the PCCG will then have to go to the regular
courts to apply for the issuance of any writ or order.

Section 9. All armed groups and paramilitary forces now existing
outside of the regular police and armed forces shall be dismantled.

This section is an amended version of the resolution passed on to
the Committee by the Committee on General Provisions which reads thus,
“All armed groups and paramilitary forces now existing contrary to law
shall be dismantled.”

The “armed groups and paramilitary forces” being referred to in
this provision are the Civilian Home Defense Forces (CHDF) and private
armies which have been defined as “armies maintained by politicians
either directly or indirectly in cooperation with the Armed Forces of
the Philippines (AFP)”.The term excludes guards and watchmen of
legitimate private and government security agencies licensed under the
Private Security Law.

The provision does not prohibit the people from voluntarily
organizing themselves for the defense of their homes and families
against armed attacks in the absence of the police or the armed forces.

Section 10. Civil service employees who may be separated from the
service as a result of the reorganization pursuant to the Provisions of
Article III of Proclamation No. 3 issued on March 25, 1986 and the
reorganization following the ratification of this Constitution shall
enjoy priority for employment in the government or be entitled to a
separation pay in addition to retirement and other benefits accruing to
him under the laws then in force at the time of his separation.

This provision seeks to protect civil servants who were affected
by the reorganization brought about by Proclamation No. 3 and those
civil servants who will be affected by the reorganization that will be
undertaken after the ratification of the new Constitution.

The employees covered under this provision are those who are civil
service eligibles who have not been convicted of any violation of the
Civil Service Law. The provision further excludes casuals and
contractuals in the government service. The provision thus benefits only
permanent employees in the government service. Two reasons may be
advanced for limiting the benefits to this group of employees. First,
under civil service rules, it is only the permanent employees who enjoy
security of, tenure and second, it would overburden the government to
grant separation pays for each and every separated employee whether they
are permanent, temporary, casuals or contractuals. As proposed, the
civil service employees affected “shall enjoy priority for employment in
the government” or “be entitled to a separation pay in addition to
retirement and other benefits accruing him under the laws in force at
the at the time of his separation.”.

Section 11. All records, equipment, buildings, facilities and
other properties of the Office of the Prime Minister and the defunct
Batasang Pambansa and Interim Batasang Pambansa are hereby transferred
to Congress.

The Office of the Prime Minister under the parliamentary system
forms part of the legislative body. Logically, therefore, records,
equipment, buildings, facilities and other properties of the Office of
the Prime Minister, together with those of the Batasang Pambansa and the
Interim Batasang Pambansa (1978 to 1984) should be transferred to the
incoming Congress under the new Constitution. Special note should be
taken of the fact that the provision does not mention the personnel of
the abolished bodies.

Section 12. This Constitution shall take effect immediately upon
its ratification in a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite called
for the purpose and shall supersede all previous Constitutions.

This provision contemplates the submission to the people in a
plebiscite of the draft of the entire Constitution. Upon ratification,
the new Constitution. Upon ratification, the new Constitution will be
deemed to have superseded the 1935 Constitution , the 1973 Constitution
and the Freedom Constitution of 1986 (Proclamation No. 3). There are
moves to “package” the draft Constitution into controversial and
non-controversial articles, thus accommodating the possibility of
partial ratification and a partial rejection. The Committee, however.
felt that it is best that the traditional method of ratification be
adopted.

At this juncture, Mr. Rama reminded the Body that all
interpellations should concentrate on Section 1 and thereafter the Body
would proceed immediately to the amendments.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. NOLLEDO

Mr. Nolledo prefaced his interpellation by stating that he was
made to understand that he could ask questions not only on Section 1 but
also on the other Sections.

The Chair stated that as had been explained by Mr. Rama, the Body
shall consider the Article section by section and that it would limit
its debate, interpellations and amendments to Section 1, for the time
being.

Thereupon, Mr. Nolledo requested that he be allowed to ask
questions on other sections, in reply to which Mr. Suarez reiterated the
procedure agreed upon in the morning session.

In view thereof, Mr. Nolledo reserved the right to interpellate
and introduce amendments, after commending the Committee for its
well-worded and appropriately prepared report.

On Section 1, Mr. Nolledo observed that the first election of the
members of the Senate and the House of Representatives shall be held no
sooner than 60 days nor later than 120 days after ratification of the
1986 Constitution although there is no provision on the time of election
of local officials.

In reply thereto, Mr. Suarez stated that the Committee refrained
from making a recommendation regarding the holding of local elections,
but Article XVIII, Section 1 provides that local elections shall be
called by the President and that national elections shall be held on the
second Monday of May, 1987.

On whether it would be possible to proceed with the election of
the Members of Congress, as had been fixed in the Committee Report, and
then leave it to Congress to determine when local elections shall be
held and perhaps come up with a revised Election Code, Mr. Suarez noted
that while this may be correct, the Committee is only concerned with
determining the period when national elections shall be held. He stated
that if the Committee’s suggestion is harmonized with the suggestion of
the Committee on the Legislative, the 60/120 days period would cover the
second Monday of May, 1987, assuming that the plebiscite is held on
January 19, 1987.

Mr. Nolledo observed that the Members of the Commission on
Elections appeared before the Suarez Committee and recommended separate
elections for local and national officials, to which Mr. Suarez replied
that the COMELEC Commissioners suggested it as the government would
spend about P670 million in simultaneous elections as against P190
million in separate elections.

On the official position of the Committee with regard to the two
alternatives: 1) leaving it to the President to fix the elections; and
2) leaving it to Congress to determine when local elections shall be
held, considering that the League of Governors and City Mayors wanted to
defer and allow Congress to determine the date of elections, Mr. Suarez
replied that were it not for Proclamation No. 3, the Committee would
agree with Mr. Nolledo’s suggestion to allow Congress to fix the date
for local elections; however the only limitation to the President’s
calling for national elections is the proviso that it should not be held
earlier than the date of the plebiscite. He averred that from a
constitutional and legal standpoint, the matter is in the hands of the
President.

On inquiry, Mr. Suarez affirmed that the Constitutional Commission
has the plenary power to qualify the provisions of Proclamation No. 3.

INQUIRY OF MR. OPLE

On the query whether he was aware of the various declarations made
by President Aquino in the United States that she looked forward to the
first local and national elections in 1987 and to a plebiscite on the
Constitution before-the end of 1986, Mr. Nolledo affirmed that he was
aware of the declarations and observed that her pronouncements seemed to
rely on the Members of the Commission to fix the date of the local and
national elections.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. RODRIGO

On the inquiry of Mr. Rodrigo as to what specific event would
determine the exact date of the ratification of the Constitution, Mr.
Suarez informed that during the Committee’s meeting with the COMELEC,
several suggestions were made: 1) a schedule for the general
registration which would fall on the last two days of November and the
first 2 days of December or a four-day registration; and 2) a schedule
for the plebiscite after the general registration which would require
time because of the printing, preparation, shipments and deliveries of
ballots. Mr. Suarez also stated that no significant date is being
considered, although the Committee is recommending January 19 as the day
for the plebiscite.

As to whether there would be a need for an official statement from
the COMELEC that the Constitution has been ratified on a specific date,
Mr. Suarez replied that if the precedents set by Mr. Marcos were to be
followed, it would require a proclamation stating that the proposed
amendments had been ratified by the people in a plebiscite held on a
particular date. He explained that the operative act shall be the
proclamation by the President, as certified by the COMELEC.

POINT OF INFORMATION OF MR. MAAMBONG

Mr. Maambong informed that based on precedents, the canvassing
body in a plebiscite is the COMELEC. He noted that once the COMELEC
tabulates the returns, the result of the plebiscite is given to the
President who then normally issues the proclamation and the date of the
proclamation would be the operative act in determining the date of
ratification.

INTERPELLATION OF MR. RODRIGO

(Continuation)

As to whether this should be spelled out in the Constitutional
provisions, Mr. Maambong observed that it might not be needed as
precedents could be followed.

On who would determine the date of the first election of the
Members of Congress, Mr. Suarez stated that it would be the President
and not the COMELEC.

On whether there is a need to spell out in the Constitutional
provision the terms of the 24 senators to be elected in the first
election and to determine who would serve for only 3 years and who would
serve for a full 6-year term, Mr. Suarez replied that in the first
Congress, the first 24 senators to be elected would serve the full 6
years and that in the 1991 election, the adjustment would have to be
made. This, he pointed out, is the Committee’s understanding of the
provision in the Article on the Legislative.

At this juncture, the Chair called attention to the time limit for interpellations.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY OF MR. RODRIGO

Mr. Rodrigo observed that the Body is in the period of general
debate and interpellations at which time, the 3 to 5 minute rule is not
allowed. The rule, he pointed out, is applied only during the period of
amendments.

The Chair replied that the time limit is being observed inasmuch
as the Body has combined the period of debate and the period of
amendments. The Chair added that it has not restricted the Members, to
and in view of Mr. Rodrigo’s manifestation, dispensed with the 3 minute
rule.

Upon inquiry of Mr. Rodrigo, Mr. Suarez clarified that the Members
could interpellate on Section 1 and thereafter proceed with their
amendments.

RESTATEMENT OF THE PARLIAMENTARY SITUATION

On the parliamentary situation, Mr. Rama stated that the Body
would first finish with the period of interpellations or debate before
going into the period of amendments and would not follow the three
minute rule.

INQUIRY OF MR. COLAYCO

Adverting to Section 33 of the Rules, Mr. Colayco noted that it is not correct to say that there is no time limit for debate.

In response thereto, the Chair stated that it was referring to the
three-minute time limit which would apply during the period of
amendments and affirmed that Mr. Colayco was correct in his assertion
that interpellations would follow the ten-minute rule.

MANIFESTATION OF MR. SUAREZ

In connection with the inquiry of Mr. Rodrigo, Mr. Suarez read
into the record the unnumbered section that is being proposed under
Resolution No. 544 by Mr. Davide with regard to the legislative power of
the Senators who would be elected in 1992, to wit:

THE FIRST TWELVE OBTAINING THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF VOTES SHALL SERVE FOR SIX YEARS AND THE REMAINING TWELVE FOR THREE YEARS.

MANIFESTATION OF MR. MAAMBONG

Mr. Maambong likewise read into the record the addendum in the same unnumbered section of proposed Resolution No. 544 to wit:

THE FIRST ELECTION UNDER THIS CONSTITUTION FOR THE MEMBERS OF
CONGRESS AND FOR PROVINCIAL, CITY AND MUNICIPAL ELECTIVE OFFICIALS SHALL
BE ON THE SECOND MONDAY OF MAY, 1987.

He also stated that under Resolution No. 241 introduced by Messrs.
Ople, Natividad, de los Reyes and himself, they also addressed this
particular point and thereafter expressed the hope that the same be
discussed at the proper time.

PERIOD OF AMENDMENTS

On motion of Mr. Rama, there being no objection, the Body proceeded to the period of amendments.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. DAVIDE

Mr. Davide proposed to reformulate the Section, to wit:

THE FIRST ELECTIONS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF MEMBERS OF THE
CONGRESS, AND, UNLESS OTHERWISE FIXED BY THE INCUMBENT PRESIDENT, OF
ELECTIVE PROVINCIAL, CITY, AND MUNICIPAL OFFICIALS SHALL BE HELD ON THE
SECOND MONDAY OF MAY, 1987.

Mr. Davide stated that the proposal is an affirmation of the
statement of the Chairman of the Committee on Transitory Provisions that
in the matter of local elective officials, the incumbent President
under Proclamation No. 3 is vested with the authority to fix the date of
their election, so that unless the incumbent President fixes another
date for local elections, the same must be simultaneous with the
parliamentary election on the second Monday of May, 1987.

At this juncture, Mr. Nolledo manifested that he had another
proposal and suggested that he present it with Mr. Davide’s amendment so
that the Committee may be given a chance to determine which amendment
is acceptable to them.

INQUIRY OF MR. AZCUNA

In reply to Mr. Azcuna’s query, Mr; Davide stated that the matter
left to the incumbent President would refer exclusively to the date of
local elections while, insofar as the Members of Congress are concerned,
it is fixed on the second Monday of May, 1987.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. NOLLEDO

Mr. Nolledo manifested that his proposal is not an amendment to
Mr. Davide’s amendment but an amendment to maintain the provisions as
reported by the Committee, such that after the word “constitution”, add
the sentence: CONGRESS SHALL BY LAW AND WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FROM
ITS ORGANIZATION FIX THE ELECTIONS FOR ALL LOCAL OFFICIALS.

Mr. Nolledo explained that his proposal would override the
provision of Proclamation No. 3 with respect to the Presidential power
to call for local elections because he felt that the Members of Congress
should be elected first. He observed that there are many loopholes in
the present Election Code and Congress may determine if there is a need
to amend the Election Code and fix the elections for local officials ;in
accordance with the request of the League of Governors and City Mayors.

Thereupon, the Chair stated that the Body would act on Mr.
Davide’s amendment first considering that Mr. Nolledo’s amendment was
not an amendment to the amendment.

INQUIRY OF MR. OPLE

In reply to Mr. Ople’s query, Mr. Davide affirmed that his
proposal for simultaneous local and national elections was made with
President Aquino’s statement in mind relative to her speech in the
United States that approximately one year from the installation of a
revolutionary government, the Philippines would move swiftly to full
constitutional government through the adoption of a new Constitution and
the holding of elections for local and national officials.

Mr. Davide, likewise, affirmed that under Proclamation No. 3,
President Aquino is vested with lawmaking power and one of the
transitory provisions states that she could continue to exercise this
power until a new Congress shall have been convened.

On whether the proponent would be amenable to changing the phrase
“unless the President decides otherwise” to “unless a special law
decides otherwise” because the former phrase would give a public officer
a superior position relative to the Constitution, Mr. Davide stated
that his original proposal used the word “simultaneous” but he had to
reassess his position in the light of the stand of the Committee that
the Freedom Constitution provides for local elections as may be mandated
by the incumbent President, thereby settling on a compromise in order
to have some degree of flexibility.

On whether the proponent took into account, when he made the
proposal, the prevailing perception that political stability in the
countryside would remain doubtful until the issue of elected governors
and mayors would have been resolved, Mr. Davide agreed that it was one
of the considerations he had taken into account, but his attention had
been called to the position of the Committee regarding Proclamation No. 3
as well as the provision of Proclamation No. 9 which mandates that
local elections may be held not earlier than the plebiscite which shall
be held not later than 60 days from the conclusion of the work of the
Constitutional Commission.

Quoting the provisions of Article VI of the Freedom Constitution,
Mr. Davide gave the assurance that the proposal would not impair the
authority vested in the President.

INQUIRY OF MS. AQUINO

In reply to Ms. Aquino’s query, Mr. Davide stated that when he
said that his proposal would not impair the authority of the President
to set the date of the elections for local officials, he was not
challenging the authority of the Commission, but allowing the widest
possible room for the President to exercise her authority under the
Freedom Constitution.

Ms. Aquino then observed that if the Commission adopts Mr.
Davide’s proposal and the President so exercise her prerogative under
this amendment to set a date for local elections, the
officers-in-charge, in effect, would still be in place by the time the
national elections are called, which, she opined, may present some
serious implications because in real politics, it would put the majority
party at a decided advantage as against the other political parties in
that election.

INQUIRY OF MR. MAAMBONG

In reply to Mr. Maambong’s query, Mr. Davide affirmed that the
national election would be fixed by the new Constitution while local
elections would be held on the date to be determined by the President
which, if the President does not so determine, would be simultaneous
with the parliamentary elections.

On the contention that Article VI of Proclamation No. 3 does not
provide that local elections shall be simultaneous with the
parliamentary elections, Mr. Davide stated that it is within the
authority of the Constitutional Commission to provide for such
eventuality.

REMARKS OF MR. RAMA

Responding to the arguments of Mr. Ople and Ms. Aquino, Mr. Rama
stated that as argued by Mr. Ople, if the President would be allowed to
determine the date of the local elections, it may appear that the
President is superior to the Constitutional Commission and, also as
stated by Ms. Aquino, it may appear that this Commission is abdicating
its right to set that date of elections. He pointed out, however, that
the legislative arguments are of no moment. In fact whether or not the
President is superior to the Commission is a lame argument considering
that it was she who appointed and created this Commission. There is, he
argued, a compelling and practical reason for allowing the President to
fix the date of the local elections. Nobody knows what would really
happen several months from today. In view thereof, he opined that the
person best qualified to determine the circumstances prevailing at such
time is the President and, therefore, this Commission should allow the
President to determine whether or not the country would indeed need such
local elections and at what time.

REMARKS OF MR. ABUBAKAR

Mr. Abubakar stated that the Members of the Commission are not
familiar with the situation in the provinces with respect to provincial
elections and, therefore, for this Commission to legislate on the time
element of the election would be presumptuous, since the situation
prevailing all over the country should determine the holding of such
election. In this regard, he stated that he would rather entrust the
choice of the date to the President upon the recommendation of the
Commission.

REMARKS OF MR. PADILLA

Adverting to the provisions of Proclamation No. 3, Mr. Padilla
expressed agreement with Mr. Davide’s amendment although he would prefer
the suggestion of Mr. Nolledo to adopt Section 1 of the Committee
Report and to add another sentence for the holding of the local
elections.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

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

It was 4:03 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 4:09 p.m., the session was resumed.

REFORMULATION OF SECTION 1

Upon resumption of session, Mr. Davide read the new formulation of
Section 1 with Messrs. Padilla, Nolledo, Ople, Rama and Bernas as
coauthors, to wit:

THE FIRST ELECTION UNDER THIS CONSTITUTION OF MEMBERS OF THE CONGRESS SHALL BE HELD ON THE SECOND MONDAY OF MAY, 1987.

THE FIRST LOCAL ELECTIONS SHALL BE HELD ON THE SAME DATE, UNLESS OTHERWISE FIXED BY THE PRESIDENT.

INQUIRIES/AMENDMENT OF MR. MONSOD

On Mr. Monsod’s suggestion that the second paragraph be worded to
simply state that the local elections shall be held on the date fixed by
the President, Mr. Davide stated that the original idea was a
simultaneous election but taking into account the provision of the
Freedom Constitution, the proposed amendment grants the President the
authority to exercise her right thereunder and to fix a date different
from the date for a simultaneous election.

Mr. Monsod maintained that from the practical point of view, the
holding of national and local elections at the same time would be very
difficult because of the number of names that would be written on the
ballot. It is for this reason, he stated, that these elections should be
held separately.

In this regard, Mr. Monsod proposed the adoption of the provision
in the Freedom Constitution with an amendment therein so that it would
read:

THE FIRST LOCAL ELECTIONS SHALL BE HELD BY THE PRESIDENT WHICH MAY BE SIMULTANEOUS WITH THE NATIONAL ELECTIONS.

Reacting thereto, Mr. Davide stressed that his proposed amendment
is merely recommendatory since this would only give full accord to the
authority of the President. He disagreed that simultaneous elections
could not be held, pointing out that simultaneous elections would simply
mean that it is held in one day but it may be separate in the sense
that there may be separate ballot for local officials and another one
for national officials. He expressed the view that there are certain
remedies in having simultaneous elections as against the contention that
there are many names to be written on the ballot, among which is the
proposal to limit the number of voters to a given voting center so that
the voting could be finished in one day regardless of the number of
candidates for any particular office.

Mr. Monsod contended that this is practical because there are
about 87,000 precincts and there would be three public schoolteachers in
each precinct and with the proposal to limit the number of voters to
150 per precinct, there may not be enough public schoolteachers, aside
from doubling the cost of holding such elections.

Mr. Monsod reiterated his proposed amendment so that the second
paragraph would read: THE LOCAL ELECTIONS WILL BE HELD ON A DATE
DETERMINED BY THE PRESIDENT WHICH MAY BE SIMULTANEOUS WITH THE NATIONAL
ELECTIONS, explaining that this would be consistent with the general
rule acknowledging that it is the President who would set the date for
the local elections.

In reply thereto, Mr. Davide stated that it would not really make
any difference although he opined that it should be so worded in that it
would allow simultaneous election on the second Monday of May, 1987
providing, however, flexibility to the President to fix another date for
local elections.

REMARKS OF MR. RODRIGO

Mr. Rodrigo stated that there is a substantial difference between
stating in the provision that there shall be simultaneous elections on a
certain date except when the President sets another date for the local
elections and stating that the President shall set the date for both the
national and local elections. He pointed out that the first formulation
presumes that there is a consensus in the Constitutional Commission
that there should be simultaneous elections for national and local
officials when, in fact, there is no such consensus. He stated that,
personally, he would not favor simultaneous elections for local and
national officials not only because of the practical difficulties but
also because of the issues involved. He stressed that the issues in
local elections are different from the issues in national elections
especially the senatorial elections or the presidential and
vice-presidential elections. He expressed preference to leave the
decision on the holding of local elections to the President.

RESTATEMENT AND APPROVAL OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF SECTION 1

Mr. Davide restated the first paragraph of Section 1, to wit:

THE FIRST ELECTION UNDER THIS CONSTITUTION OF MEMBERS OF THE CONGRESS SHALL BE HELD ON THE SECOND MONDAY OF MAY, 1987.

The Committee accepted Mr. Davide’s proposed amendment.

Submitted to a vote, and with 24 Members voting in favor and none
against, the first paragraph of Section 1 was approved by the Body.

RESERVATION OF MR. OPLE

Mr. Ople made a reservation to take up the issue of elections at
the presidential level when the Body takes up Section 7, which
reservation was noted by the Chair.

RESTATEMENT OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF SECTION 1

Mr. Davide restated the second paragraph of Section 1, to wit:

THE FIRST LOCAL ELECTIONS SHALL BE HELD ON THE SAME DATE, UNLESS OTHERWISE FIXED BY THE PRESIDENT.

MR. MONSOD’S AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT

Mr. Monsod proposed an amendment to the second paragraph so that it would read:

THE FIRST LOCAL ELECTIONS SHALL BE HELD ON A DATE TO BE DETERMINED
BY THE PRESIDENT WHICH MAY BE SIMULTANEOUS WITH THE ELECTION OF THE
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

Upon request of Mr. Davide, the Chair suspended the session.

It was 4:31 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 4:33 p.m., the session was resumed.

Upon resumption of session, Mr. Davide, on behalf of the other
proponents of the second paragraph, manifested that he is prepared to
accept Mr. Monsod’s proposed amendment. He then asked Mr. Monsod to
restate his proposed amendment.

RESTATEMENT OF MR. MONSOD’S AMENDMENT

Mr. Monsod restated his proposed amendment, to wit:

THE FIRST LOCAL ELECTIONS SHALL BE HELD ON A DATE TO BE DETERMINED
BY THE PRESIDENT WHICH MAY BE SIMULTANEOUS WITH THE ELECTION OF THE
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.

INQUIRIES OF MR. NOLLEDO

On Mr. Nolledo’s inquiries, Mr. Monsod affirmed that under his
proposal, it would be possible for the incumbent President to call for
local elections even before the elections on the second Monday of May,
1987, the only limitation being that she could not call it earlier than
the date of the plebiscite; He further affirmed that his proposed
amendment would not in any way amend Section 2, Article VI of the
Freedom Constitution.

INQUIRY OF MR. SUAREZ

On Mr. Suarez’ inquiry whether the local elections referred to
would also include barangay elections, Mr. Monsod stated that it would
not, because it would only refer to provincial, city and municipal
elections.

Thereupon, Mr. Suarez asked that Mr. Monsod’s proposed amendment be submitted to a vote.

APPROVAL OF MR. MONSOD’S AMENDMENT

Submitted to a vote, and with 33 Members voting in favor, none
against and one abstention, the Body approved Mr. Monsod’s amendment.

RESTATEMENT AND APPROVAL OF SECTION 1, AS AMENDED

Mr. Suarez restated the entire Section 1, as amended, to wit:

THE FIRST ELECTION UNDER THIS CONSTITUTION OF MEMBERS OF THE CONGRESS SHALL BE HELD ON THE SECOND MONDAY OF MAY, 1987.

THE FIRST LOCAL ELECTIONS SHALL BE HELD ON A DATE TO BE DETERMINED
BY THE PRESIDENT WHICH MAY BE SIMULTANEOUS WITH THE ELECTION OF THE
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.

Submitted to a vote, and with 34 Members voting in favor and one against, the Body approved Section 1, as amended.

INQUIRY OF MS. TAN

On Ms. Tan’s query as to when would be the barangay elections, Mr.
Suarez opined that it would be provided by law. He, however, asked Mr.
Monsod for his interpretation.

REMARKS OF MR. MONSOD

Mr. Monsod expressed the view that the term of the incumbent
barangay officials would end in 1988 so that unless Congress changes
that date, then the next elections for barangay officials would still be
in 1988.

INQUIRIES OF MR. FOZ

Relative to local elections, on Mr. Foz’ query as to who are the
elective local officials, Mr. Suarez stated that these would refer to
the provincial governor, the vice-governor and the eight members of the
provincial board; the city mayor, the city vice-mayor and the eight
members of the Sangguniang Panlungsod; and the municipal mayor, the
municipal vice-mayor and the eight members of the Sangguniang Bayan.
These positions, he explained, are provided for under the existing Local
Government Code including the manner of their election. He added that
their election is likewise covered by the Omnibus Election Code.

POINT OF INFORMATION OF MR. MAAMBONG

Mr. Maambong stated that the Local Government Code recognizes the
existence of subprovinces which are transitory in the sense that they
are given ten years to qualify as a province, otherwise they would
revert to the mother province to which each of them belongs. He
expressed the view that the local officials referred to would include
the officials of these subprovinces unless in the interim the incumbent
President, under her authority, would abolish the subprovinces
altogether.

INQUIRY OF MR. NOLLEDO

In reply to Mr. Nolledo’s query, Mr. Suarez affirmed that it would
be theoretically be possible that the local officials which he
mentioned might be changed by Congress. He agreed with Mr. Nolledo’s
observation that it may be possible for the President to call the local
elections much later than the second Monday of May, 1987 and Congress
may amend the Local Government Code to provide for a new set of
officials citing as an example greater participation in the city council
level.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. DAVIDE

Mr. Davide proposed a new Section immediately following Section 1, to read as follows:

THE INCUMBENT PRESIDENT SHALL PRESIDE AT THE JOINT INAUGURAL SESSION OF CONGRESS.

INQUIRY OF MR. OPLE

On Mr. Ople’s inquiry whether this provision is necessary, Mr.
Davide opined that this is necessary because this would be the first
Congress and the Members thereof would still have to elect the officers
of both Houses. He stated that his proposal would only be for the
purpose of the inaugural session so that there would be somebody who
would preside during the formal inauguration of both Houses of Congress.

Mr. Ople accepted Mr. Davide’s justification of the proposal, it being transitory in character.

Mr. Davide stated that he would be willing to amend his proposal so that it would read:

THE INCUMBENT PRESIDENT SHALL PRESIDE AT THE JOINT INAUGURAL SESSION OF THE FIRST CONGRESS.

INQUIRIES OF MR. NATIVIDAD

Mr. Natividad recalled that in the interim Batasang Pambansa, it
was the President who presides because the government at that time was
semi-parliamentary. He pointed out, however, that in the defunct
Congress, the Secretary of the House elected by the Members presided in
the absence of an elected Speaker. He then questioned the proposal of
requiring the President to preside over Congress considering that under a
presidential system of government, there is separation of powers
between the Executive and the Legislative branches.

But Mr. Davide pointed out that the practice was applicable only
to the defunct Congress but in the coming First Congress there could be
no Secretary because he would be elected only after its convening.

Mr. Natividad observed that with the proposal the President would
be performing the work of the Secretary even if there should be
separation of powers between the Executive and the Legislative.

MR. BERNAS’ AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT

Thereupon, Mr. Bernas proposed that instead of the President, the
oldest senator-elect should be designated to preside over the opening
ceremonies of the First Congress, which would be a joint inaugural
session.

Mr. Davide accepted the amendment to his amendment.

OBSERVATION OF MR. PADILLA

Mr. Padilla opined that such provision would not be necessary
because the practice has been that a temporary Presiding Officer, not
necessarily the Secretary, is chosen to preside over the opening
ceremonies of Congress and thereafter the President of the Senate and
the Speaker of the House of Representatives are elected.

In view of the explanations, Mr. Davide withdrew his proposed amendment.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. MAAMBONG

Mr. Maambong read the proposed Section 2, to wit:

THE INCUMBENT PRESIDENT SHALL CONTINUE TO EXERCISE LEGISLATIVE POWER UNTIL THE CONVENING OF CONGRESS.

He pointed out that the proposed Section 2 was based on Resolution
No. 262 which adopted the provision of Section 1 of Proclamation No. 3
which states that “Until a legislature is elected and convened under a
new Constitution, the President shall continue to exercise legislative
power.”

INQUIRY OF MR. OPLE

In reply to Mr. Ople’s query on whether the treaty-ratifying.
power of the Legislature could be exercised by the President between the
adoption of this Constitution and the convening of Congress, Mr. Suarez
explained that the President may enter into treaties, both in her
capacity as the Chief Executive and as one who exercises legislative
power.

Mr. Ople observed that although it would be extraordinary and
since the other signatory nations might not recognize a treaty, it would
be necessary and prudent on the part of the President that she wait
until the convening of Congress before ratifying a treaty, which
actually requires the ratification by the Senate, to which Messrs.
Suarez and Abubakar agreed.

AMENDMENT OF MR. JAMIR

Mr. Jamir proposed to proposed change the phrase “the convening of Congress” to THE CONGRESS IS CONVENED.

The Sponsor accepted the amendment.

Mr. Davide further proposed to insert the word FIRST between “the”
and “Congress”, which amendment to the amendment was, likewise,
accepted by the Sponsor.

APPROVAL OF SECTION 2, AS AMENDED

Thereupon, Mr. Maambong restated Section 2, as amended, to wit:

THE INCUMBENT PRESIDENT SHALL CONTINUE TO EXERCISE LEGISLATIVE POWER UNTIL THE FIRST CONGRESS IS CONVENED.

Submitted to a vote, and with 35 Members voting in favor and none against, Section 2, as amended, was approved by the Body.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. VILLACORTA

Thereafter, Mr. Villacorta, jointly with Messrs. Monsod, Tadeo,
Ople, Lerum, Suarez, Bernas, Sarmiento, Rigos, Bennagen, Uka, Garcia,
Gascon, Nolledo, Foz and Treñas, and Mrs. Quesada, Ms. Aquino, Mrs.
Nieva, Ms. Tan and Mrs. Rosario Braid, proposed to insert a new Section
after Section 2, to read:

SECTION ____ DURING THE FIRST ELECTIVE TERM OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE SECTORS UNDER ARTICLE ____
SHALL BE APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT FROM A LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS BY
THEIR RESPECTIVE SECTORS. IN DETERMINING THE NUMBER OF SEATS FOR EACH
SECTOR, THE PRESIDENT SHALL GIVE PROPORTIONATELY MORE SEATS TO THE
PEASANTS’ AND WORKERS’ SECTORS.

Mr. Villacorta explained that the proposed amendments would fill
up the reserved seats provided in the Article on the Legislative for the
sectoral representatives in the absence of national and district
elections for sectoral representatives, and it would mandate that the
President shall give proportionately more seats to the peasants’ and
workers’ sectors.

REMARKS OF MR. SARMIENTO

In reply to Mr. Sarmiento’s query, Mr. Villacorta stated that
“respective sectors” refer to youth, peasants, cultural communities,
women and workers.

On how the President would select the representatives for the
women’s sector from among several women’s organizations, Mr. Villacorta
pointed out that the proposal would give the President the discretion to
choose the representatives in the same manner as the selection of the
Members of the Constitutional Commission. He added that each sector may
also hold a sectoral congress to narrow down their recommendees, but the
proposal is silent on such sectoral congress because it might lead to
divisiveness rather than unity.

On the reason for allotting more seats to the peasants and
workers, Mr. Villacorta explained that sectoral representation would be
in favor of the marginalized, disadvantaged sectors because they
comprise the majority of the population.

REMARKS OF MR. RODRIGO

Mr. Rodrigo observed that Section 5 of the Article on the
Legislative provides that the party list and sectoral representation
would be provided by law, in order to avoid the possible doubts in the
election or selection of sectoral representatives. He underscored that
it was clearly provided that Congress would enact the enabling law for
the selection or election of sectoral representatives. He believed that
it would be premature to provide the manner of selecting such sectoral
representatives because other sectors may still be provided by law.

REMARKS OF MR. DAVIDE

Speaking against the proposed amendment, Mr. Davide pointed out
that Section 5 of the Article on the Legislative does not provide for
the start of the three consecutive terms of the sectoral representatives
who will occupy one-half of the reserved seats in the party list
system, because if their term is fixed to begin from the First Congress,
it would not give Congress the authority to prescribe for sectoral
representation.

He affirmed that it would prevent Congress or even the incumbent
President in the exercise of her legislative power, from determining
what other sectors would be represented.

He stated that the proposal would be inconsistent with what had
been approved and would, in effect, reopen Section 5 of the Article on
the Legislative.

REMARKS OF MR. VILLACORTA

In response thereto, Mr. Villacorta pointed out that the
Transitory Provisions would precisely fill the gap between the
ratification of the Constitution and the convening of the First
Congress, by immediately implementing the provisions of the
Constitution. He added that without such provisions the seats allotted
to the sectoral representatives in the First Congress would be vacant.

On the phrase “other sectors as may be provided by law” found in
Section 5 of the Article on the Legislative, Mr. Villacorta opined that
it would not prevent the President from enacting a law, to implement it
and therefore, it would not be inconsistent with the proposed amendment.

He suggested, however, that because of the reservation of Mr.
Davide on the second sentence of the proposal, the voting should be done
sentence by sentence.

REMARKS OF MS. AQUINO

Ms. Aquino took exception to Mr. Davide’s observation that the
proposed amendment is improper, stating that during the deliberations on
Section 5 of the Article on the Legislative, the Body deferred the
voting on the amendment because it would be proper to place it in the
Transitory Provisions. She pointed out that the proposal would not be
inconsistent with the provisions on the Article on the Legislative but
would precisely implement the provision on the reserved seats for
sectoral representatives, which would be an innovative political
mechanism that would attempt to democratize popular representation, so
that they could be part of the First Congress that would enact the
statutory implementation of sectoral representation.

REJOINDER OF MR. DAVIDE

Reacting to Ms. Aquino’s statements, Mr. Davide reiterated that
the First Congress may still have sectoral representatives because the
President can exercise her legislative power in the absence of the
Legislature and may promulgate an executive order providing for sectoral
representation.

In this connection, Mr. Villacorta pointed out that the proposal
would precisely mandate the President to pass a law on sectoral
representation, in the absence of Congress, to ensure that they would be
proportionately represented in the First Congress.

INQUIRY OF MR. DE CASTRO

In reply to Mr. de Castro’s query whether the urban poor are
included in the proposal, Mr. Villacorta stated that according to Mr.
Gascon, they are.

On whether the President could include representatives from other
sectors other than the six already identified, Mr. Villacorta stated
that it is possible.

On the rationale for giving more seats to peasants and workers,
Mr. Villacorta explained that they compose the majority of the
population and they are the most marginalized.

On whether this could be proven by statistics, Mr. Villacorta
pointed out that the same query was raised during the period of
interpellations, but since he did not expect that the query would be
brought up again, he did not bring the statistics.

As to whether the urban poor are not also marginalized, Mr.
Villacorta stated that they are, but the peasants and the workers are
greater in number.

REMARKS OF MR. LERUM

At this juncture, Mr. Lerum manifested his support for the
proposal because there would be no representatives from the sectors in
the First Congress. He pointed out that sectoral representation is not
something new because there were sectoral representatives in the interim
Batasang Pambansa as well as the regular Batasang Pambansa, with the
sector already defined, including the manner of election or selection of
their representatives. He added that since there would be no Congress
yet, it would be better to provide for the election or selection of
sectoral representatives in the Transitory Provisions.

REMARKS OF MR. OPLE

Speaking in support of Mr. Villacorta’s proposal, Mr. Ople stated
that during the interim and regular Batasang Pambansa, there were 4
reserve seats for the industrial labor and 4 reserve seats for the
agricultural labor sector and another 6 reserve seats for the youth
sector thereby having the precedent for Mr. Villacorta’s proposal. He
added that during such time, the elected members of the interim and
regular Batasang Pambansa tried to delay the seating of the sectoral
representatives on the ground that they owed their seats to a
constitutional provision and since they were not elected, they could not
rise to the same level and status of dignity enjoyed by those who were
elected by the people. He opined that there is inherent discrimination
and unless the Body supports Mr. Villacorta’s amendment, the sectoral
seats would not be filled if the Body would allow Congress to enact the
implementing law for sectoral representation.

AMENDMENT OF MR. BERNAS AS MODIFIED BY MESSRS. MAAMBONG AND DAVIDE

Thereafter, Mr. Bernas proposed to amend Mr. Villacorta’s proposal
by substituting the first paragraph with the following: UNTIL A LAW IS
PASSED ON THE SUBJECT THE PRESIDENT MAY FILL BY APPOINTMENT THE SEATS
RESERVED FOR SECTORAL REPRESENTATION UNDER SECTION 5 OF ARTICLE ___ OF
THIS CONSTITUTION.

Mr. Villacorta accepted the proposal.

In reply to Ms. Aquino’s query whether once appointed, the term of
the sectoral representatives would also pertain to the term of
Congress, Mr. Bernas replied in the affirmative.

On whether a law passed during the term of the first Congress
would affect the term of the appointed sectoral representatives, Mr.
Bernas stated that such law would not unseat them.

Thereupon, Mr. Ople proposed to substitute “until a law is passed”
with UNTIL A LAW IS ENACTED BY CONGRESS in order not to foreclose the
exercise by the President of the legislative power in Section 2 until
Congress is convened. He added that the President may also find the need
to promulgate an Executive Order dealing with the essentials of the
manner of selection or election until such time that Congress could deal
with them in full.

Mr. Bernas explained that he used the phrase “until a law is
passed” in order to allow the President to appoint before a law is
enacted. He added that this would not foreclose the exercise of the
President’s legislative power because any law relative to the
appointment of sectoral representatives would have to be passed by her.

Mr. Bernas agreed with Mr. Gascon’s observation that the intent of
Mr. Villacorta’s proposal is to ensure that there would be sectoral
representatives in the first Congress after the Constitution is
ratified.

Mr. Bernas agreed to Mr. Gascon’s suggestion to substitute “may” with SHALL.

OBSERVATION OF MR. MONSOD

At this juncture, Mr. Monsod opined that it would be better to
retain the word “may” rather than “shall” because the President may not
have the time to make the proper selection since according to Mr. Lerum,
the candidates for sectoral representatives would have to undergo
various processes and they may not have enough time to make the proper
selection.

Mr. Gascon maintained that there should be an assurance that all
sectors mentioned in Section 5 of the Article on the Legislative would
be represented in the First Congress. He pointed out that there would be
five months from the ratification of the Constitution to the election
of the first Congress, hence, the process of selection could be done in
the same manner as the Members of the Commission were chosen.

Replying thereto, Mr. Monsod stressed that the process between
selecting the Members of the Commission and the sectoral representatives
is different. He stated that it is enough that a provision is included
in the Constitution and for the Body to remain silent because the
President would abide by her commitments.

Mr. Bernas suggested that the Body should first vote on whether to change “may” to SHALL.

Mr. Davide sought permission from the Chair to speak against the change of the word “may” to SHALL.

The Chair, however, recognized Mr. Colayco who, in turn, queried
as to the reason why Mr. Villacorta favored the peasants and workers
sectors as against the women, indigenous communities, youth and urban
poor sectors, to which the latter replied that his proposal is not
discriminatory but merely preferential.

Mr. Colayco opined that Mr. Villacorta’s proposal is
discriminatory and that he would propose for the deletion of the second
paragraph thereof.

The Chair stated that the proposal would be taken up later on.

At this juncture, Mr. Gascon proposed to reinsert the phrase FROM A
LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS BY THEIR RESPECTIVE SECTORS which had been
deleted by virtue of Mr. Bernas’ proposed amendment to encourage the
members of the different sectors to participate in the selection of the
appointees to the First Congress.

Mr. Villacorta stated that when he accepted Mr. Bernas’ proposal,
it was with the understanding that those belonging to the different
sectors would be allowed to participate in the process of choosing their
representatives.

Mr. Bernas agreed that that would be the sense of his proposal.

Mr. Villacorta, however, stated that in order to make it clearer, Mr. Bernas’ proposed amendment should read as follows:

UNTIL A LAW IS PASSED ON THE SUBJECT, THE PRESIDENT MAY FILL BY
APPOINTMENT THE SEATS RESERVED FOR SECTORAL REPRESENTATION FROM A LIST
OF RECOMMENDATIONS BY THEIR RESPECTIVE SECTORS UNDER ARTICLE ____ OF
THIS CONSTITUTION.

At this juncture, Mr. Rodrigo questioned the propriety and
practicability of limiting the President’s choice to a list submitted by
the different sectors because labor, for example, has many unions all
over the country and they may not have enough time to submit their
respective lists.

Responding thereto, Mr. Lerum stated that in the last regular
Batasang Pambansa, the sectors were allowed to submit their recommendees
from which former President Marcos chose the appointees. He added that
there were certain criteria followed such as the recommending
organization must be national in character and must also follow the rule
of law.

On whether Mr. Marcos was limited in his choice to the list
submitted by the sector or whether he had the freedom to appoint
somebody who was not included in the list, Mr. Lerum stated that Mr.
Marcos appointed only those who were included in the list because there
is a law which provided that the appointees must come only from among
the recommendees of the various sectors. He stated, however, that the
appointments made by Mr. Marcos were 17 months late which, in effect,
was a violation of the law.

REMARKS OF MR. MONSOD

Thereupon, Mr. Monsod stated that 80 to 90 percent of labor are
unorganized, for which reason there is a reservation about using the
word “shall” because an exhaustive selection process might take more
than 5 months.

Mr. de Castro added that he supports Mr. Rodrigo’s view that using
the list submitted by the various sectors as basis for selecting their
representatives would unduly restrict the hand of the President from
making her own choices.

Thereafter, Mr. Maambong suggested the deletion of the phrase “on the subject”, to which Mr. Bernas agreed.

He then proposed to reword the proposal as follows:

UNTIL A LAW IS PASSED, THE PRESIDENT MAY FILL BY APPOINTMENT FROM A
LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE RESPECTIVE SECTORS THE SEATS RESERVED
FOR SECTORAL REPRESENTATION UNDER SECTION 5 OF ARTICLE OF THIS
CONSTITUTION.

Mr. Villacorta accepted the rewording of the proposal.

Thereafter, Mr. Bernas’ suggestion for the Body to vote on either
“may” or SHALL was submitted to a vote, and with 14 Members voting for
SHALL and 15 voting for “may”, the latter word was approved by the Body.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. DAVIDE

Thereupon, Mr. Davide proposed to insert a comma (,) and the word
PREFERABLY after “appointment” and to substitute “recommendations” with
NOMINEES.

Mr. Gascon, however, objected stating that it would be awkward if
the appointee would not even come from the list of nominees submitted by
the sectors. He suggested that the proposal be submitted to a vote.

The Chair inquired on the Committee’s reaction to the proposal, in
reply to which Mr. Suarez sought clarification as to what would be
voted upon.

In response thereto, the Chair stated that the word PREFERABLY
proposed by Mr. Davide has been rejected by the Committee and would be
submitted to the Body for a vote.

Thereupon, submitted to a vote, and with 11 Members voting in
favor, 15 against and 1 abstention, the proposed amendment was lost.

RESTATEMENT OF THE FIRST SENTENCE

Upon direction of the Chair, Mr. Villacorta read the first sentence of the proposed Section as follows:

UNTIL A LAW IS PASSED, THE PRESIDENT MAY FILL BY APPOINTMENT FROM
THE LIST OF NOMINEES BY THE RESPECTIVE SECTORS, THE SEATS RESERVED FOR
SECTORAL REPRESENTATION UNDER ARTICLE OF THIS CONSTITUTION.

Mr. Colayco registered his objection to the submission of the
first sentence of the first paragraph to a vote for the reason that his
vote on the entire Section would depend on how the second paragraph is
disposed of. He suggested that the entire Section be first debated upon
before submitting any portion thereof to a vote, and in case the second
paragraph is not deleted, he would not be voting in favor of the first
paragraph because it is affected by the merits of the second paragraph.

INQUIRY OF MR. MAAMBONG

In reply to Mr. Maambong’s query whether the first paragraph could
stand alone without the second paragraph, Mr. Villacorta answered in
the affirmative.

COMMENT OF MR. PADILLA

Mr. Padilla pointed out that voting on a single word, such as
“may” or “shall” and “preferably” is unprocedural and unparliamentary
suggesting that the second sentence be first voted upon.

Mr. Colayco stated that he has to present his amendment to the
second paragraph, after which, if rejected by the Committee, he would
ask that it be submitted to a vote.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

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

It was 5:42 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 5:43 p.m., the session was resumed.

MANIFESTATION OF MR. VILLACORTA

Upon resumption of session, Mr. Villacorta stated that his
coauthors had expressed their willingness to delete the second
paragraph.

UNTIL A LAW IS PASSED, THE PRESIDENT MAY FILL BY APPOINTMENT FROM A
LIST OF NOMINEES BY THE RESPECTIVE SECTORS THE SEATS RESERVED FOR
SECTORAL REPRESENTATION UNDER ARTICLE OF THIS CONSTITUTION.

Submitted to a vote, and with 28 Members voting in favor, none against and 1 abstention, the Body approved the same.

INQUIRY OF MR. ROMULO

In reply to Mr. Romulo’s query whether the President could ask for
a new listing until she is satisfied, Mr. Villacorta opined that,
theoretically, the President could do so, but knowing her, she would
not.

Mr. Bernas stated that the President may ask for another list if
she wants to, but if she is not satisfied, she might decide not to
appoint anybody. He affirmed that the President has the discretion on
whether or not she would appoint on the basis of the list presented to
her.

Mr. Ople volunteered the information that in the past, guidelines
were drawn by the Office of the President to guide sectoral
organizations in choosing their nominees.

SUGGESTION OF MR. MAAMBONG

At this juncture, Mr. Maambong suggested that the new Section be
denominated as Section 13 to avoid confusion and in order not to disturb
the numbering of the Committee Report.

INQUIRY OF MR. NOLLEDO

In reply to Mr. Nolledo’s query whether “laws” on Section 3 would
refer to Acts of the Philippine Commissions the Philippine Legislature,
the Philippine Commonwealth and Republic Acts, Mr. Suarez answered in
the affirmative. He also affirmed that “Executive Orders” would also
include those issued by President Corazon Aquino.

Mr. Maambong volunteered the information that President Aquino had
already issued nine Proclamations, forty-three Executive Orders, six
Memorandum Circulars and ten Memorandum Orders.

With respect to Executive Agreements, Mr. Suarez affirmed that
they are not covered by Section 3. He also affirmed that under Section 3
the Supreme Court may declare the laws, decrees, orders, proclamations,
instructions and other executive issuances unconstitutional.

On whether the Committee would be amenable to insert the words THE
INCUMBENT PRESIDENT UNDER SECTION 2 HEREOF OR between the words
“repealed” and “by” considering that the provision, as worded, states
that Congress alone has the power to amend, modify or repeal existing
laws, Mr. Maambong stated that the same is already covered by Section 2.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. DAVIDE

Mr. Davide proposed to add after “Congress”, a comma (,), followed
by the words OR REVOKED OR SUPERSEDED BY SUBSEQUENT EXECUTIVE ORDERS,
PROCLAMATIONS, OR OTHER EXECUTIVE ISSUANCES, stating that without it,
the authority to repeal, modify or supersede Executive Orders or
Proclamations would be limited to Congress alone.

Adverting to his answer to Mr. Nolledo’s query, Mr. Maambong
stated that the Committee could not accept the proposed amendment
because the power is already inherent in the President. He stated that
the legislative power vested in the President under Section 2 carries
with it the power to issue and revoke Executive Orders.

Mr. Davide pointed out, however, that such power holds true only
until Congress convenes, beyond which, executive issuances could only be
superseded, repealed or amended by Congress because said legislative
power of the President ceases by then.

In reply to Mr. Maambong’s query whether an enabling law would be
necessary to grant the President her inherent powers such as the
issuance of Executive Orders, Memorandum Circulars, Administrative
Orders and Proclamations, Mr. Davide answered in the negative, stating
that under the Committee’s proposal, all existing laws, decrees,
executive orders, proclamations, letters of instructions and other
executive issuances consistent with the Constitution shall remain
operative, unless amended, modified or repealed by Congress. He stated
that, in effect, the executive orders and proclamations are
institutionalized perpetually unless superseded or amended by Congress.

Mr. Maambong expressed agreement with the views of Mr. Davide, but
requested for a reformulation so as not to make Section 3 too lengthy,
to which Mr. Davide agreed.

Mr. Suarez proposed to add OR THE PRESIDENT AS THE CASE MAY BE
after “Congress”, which Mr. Davide rejected stating that even a law may
be amended or repealed by the President under such formulation.

As to Executive Orders, Mr. Davide expressed agreement thereto.

SUGGESTION OF MR. PADILLA

Mr. Padilla observed that in Section 3, all existing laws,
decrees, executive orders, proclamations, letters of instructions and
other executive issuances are all placed in the same category. He
suggested that statutory laws be distinguished from Presidential
Decrees, especially those issued by the past regime.

He suggested the reformulation of Section 3 to read as follows:

ALL EXISTING LAWS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS CONSTITUTION SHALL
REMAIN OPERATIVE UNTIL AMENDED, MODIFIED OR REPEALED BY CONGRESS. ALL
PRESIDENTIAL DECREES, EXECUTIVE ORDERS, PROCLAMATIONS, LETTERS OF
INSTRUCTIONS AND OTHER EXECUTIVE ISSUANCES OF THE PAST REGIME SHALL NOT
BE OPERATIVE UNLESS CONFIRMED BY THE PRESIDENT OR APPROVED BY THE
CONGRESS.

INQUIRY OF MR. LERUM

In reply to Mr. Lerum’s query whether the executive orders issued
by President Aquino would become ineffective unless validated, Mr.
Padilla stated that presidential issuances could be adopted by the
President in the exercise of her legislative power until Congress is
convened, or that they could also be confirmed, adopted or enacted by
Congress.

Mr. Lerum inquired about Wage Orders No. 1 to No. 6 in the
meantime that no validation is made. Mr. Padilla stated that during the
past regime, six wage orders had been successively issued, which were
imposed on the private sector but which are not even implemented for
government employees. He stated that he is against impositions of all
kinds of control even of wage orders especially when they are imposed on
the private sector without their previous consent.

On a point of information, Mr. Nolledo stated that Section 1,
Article 4 of Proclamation No. 3 answers Mr. Padilla’s concern as it, in
effect, validates the decrees and other executive issuances of the past
regime.

Reacting thereto, Mr. Maambong explained that when he, Messrs.
Ople, Natividad and de los Reyes filed Resolution No. 262 which was the
basis of the present formulation, and when Mr. Davide filed his
Resolution No. 476, there were a lot of debates at the Committee level
because of the objection of Mr. Padilla and that in view of the debates,
the members had decided to adopt the wording of Section 1, Article IV
of the Freedom Constitution which was quoted by Mr. Nolledo. Mr.
Padilla, he observed, would again seek to amend the formulation.

He noted that as far as executive orders, proclamations, letters
of instructions and executive issuances are concerned, there is a
presumption of legality until they are repealed. He manifested that he
had volunteered an information, at the Committee level, that in his
conversation with Minister Villafuerte, he was informed that there was
an instruction to all Cabinet Ministers to compile all the repressive
decrees, LOIs and issuances of the previous administration and report
them to Malacañang. He stated that before Congress is convened, all
these presidential decrees, orders and issuances shall have been
compiled by the ministries and shall have been repealed by an Executive
Order or Proclamation issued by President Aquino.

He argued that to accept Mr. Padilla’s suggestion to make
exceptions would damage the whole section as there are so many decrees,
letters of instructions and other issuances which, if repealed outright,
might paralyze the government.

Mr. Rama informed that Mr. Davide has an amendment and that Mr. Padilla has an amendment to the amendment.

Mr. Padilla stated that he is aware of Section 1, Article IV of
the Freedom Constitution but observed that it is not very clear whether
it intends to keep alive as operative, valid and effective all the
issuances of the former regime. He noted that all these issuances, some
of which are not published and known, could not even be validated. He
remarked that even if the intention is assumed, which he perceived is
not an intention to validate, the Commission can make the distinction
between existing laws or statutory laws and unilateral presidential
issuances of the past regime.

MODIFIED AMENDMENT OF MR. DAVIDE

On the Chair’s inquiry whether he is accepting the amendment, Mr.
Davide proposed a modified amendment, which would, split Section 3 into
two paragraphs, to wit: .

ALL EXISTING LAWS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS CONSTITUTION SHALL
REMAIN VALID UNTIL AMENDED, MODIFIED, OR REPEALED BY CONGRESS. ALL
DECREES, EXECUTIVE ORDERS, PROCLAMATIONS, LETTERS OF INSTRUCTIONS, AND
OTHER EXECUTIVE ISSUANCES NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THIS CONSTITUTION SHALL
REMAIN IN FORCE UNTIL AMENDED, MODIFIED OR REPEALED BY THE INCUMBENT
PRESIDENT OR BY CONGRESS.

Mr. Padilla observed that the reformulation is in line with his amendment to divide the section into two sentences.

INQUIRY OF MR. MAAMBONG

In response to Mr. Maambong’s query whether decrees are included
in the second paragraph, Mr. Davide stated that the decrees would remain
in force in order to accommodate the position of Mr. Padilla.
Additionally, he stated that inasmuch as the decree is in force, it is
operative until the incumbent President or Congress modifies, amends or
repeals it.

As to whether the second paragraph would allow the President to
amend, modify or repeal presidential decrees even after Congress shall
have convened, Mr. Davide replied in the negative. Mr. Maambong remarked
that it is not clearly indicated in the formulation, to which Mr.
Davide pointed out that by then, the President shall no longer exercise
legislative power to enact decrees.

Mr. Maambong observed that the second paragraph may run counter to
the approved provision on the judicial department in which the validity
of presidential decrees, as far as enforceability is concerned, is
impliedly admitted and that it even requires a certain number of votes,
either majority of all the members of the Supreme Court or in certain
cases majority of those present, in declaring the decrees
unconstitutional or unenforceable. He pointed out that the Body is
giving validity to presidential decrees under the judicial department
but the formulation of Mr. Davide would revert to the opinion that
presidential decrees are just like executive orders.

In reply, Mr. Davide stated that he is not too sure of the
provision on the Judiciary, although he remembers that declaring a
proclamation, decree, letter of instruction, unenforceable or void, a
lesser number of votes would be required, unlike in the case of a
treaty, international agreement or law.

Mr. Maambong concurred with the observation but pointed out that
in the matter of presidential decrees a lesser number of votes is
required to declare a decree unenforceable but not to declare it
unconstitutional. He stressed the need for consistency in all the
constitutional provisions.

INQUIRY OF MR. NATIVIDAD

On the query of Mr. Natividad, Mr. Davide explained that insofar
as the first paragraph is concerned, existing laws remain valid until
modified, amended or repealed by Congress.

On the difference between the first and second paragraphs, Mr.
Davide clarified that the word “valid” is in the first and the words
“remain in force” are in the second paragraph. The first, he clarified,
allows Congress while the second allows the President or Congress to
amend, modify or repeal decrees and other executive issuances.

Mr. Natividad adverted to Presidential Decree No. 769 or the Adult
Probation Law under which 50,000 sentenced offenders are serving their
terms, not in prison but in certain communities, under the terms and
conditions of the law.

Mr. Natividad observed that the country has adopted a liberal
approach of not sentencing old People to jail for all types of offenses.
He informed that for the first time in Philippine history and in
accordance with resolutions passed in the U.N. Congresses on Crime
Prevention, the government has adopted through PD No. 769, complemented
by PD No. 603, the Adult Probation System and Juvenile Probation System,
respectively. Under the former, he informed that the government has
opted for suspension of the implementation of the sentence on adults,
while in the latter, the suspension of actual sentencing on the
juvenile. He noted that through the Law, some P300 million had been
saved and that the U.N. has found the Philippine system, in terms of
rate of violation of probation, as one of the best in the world. He
noted that the Philippine rate of violation of probation is only 2%
compared to the U S’s and England’s 25%.

As to whether the formulation would affect the operation of the
system, Mr. Davide maintained that the laws shall remain in force and
operative until otherwise repealed, amended or modified by Congress or
by the President. He added that the President or Congress cannot just
set aside a very good law affecting both adult and youth offenders.

INQUIRY OF MR. OPLE

Mr. Ople stated that over the years, millions of transactions
between and among citizens and with foreign countries had taken place on
the basis of the decrees and executive orders issued by the former
President which resulted in thousands of earned and vested rights,
including those based on contracts. He asked whether the formulation
would deny the validity of such decrees and executive powers which were
authored by President Marcos without the participation of an elected
Congress, and in so doing, vitiate all the earned vested rights and the
integrity of contracts and even international agreements based on them.

Mr. Davide drew attention to Section 3 which he stated, does not
even mention validity but says only “shall remain operative?’ referring
to all existing laws. He stated that in his proposal, he had used
“valid” in reference to existing laws and used “shall remain in force”
with respect to others, which have the same effects as the original
wording of the Committee Report. He stressed that Congress, taking into
account the vested interests acquired under a particular law, would not
just repeal, amend or modify an existing law or executive order.

On whether there shall be a deleterious effect on contracts,
agreements, earned rights and vested rights, Mr. Davide opined that such
an effect would follow if Section 3 is approved. He underscored that
Congress shall take into consideration everything affecting a particular
Executive Order.

Upon inquiry, Mr. Davide affirmed that his amendment is to put the laws in clearer arrangement and perspective.

REMARKS OF MR. PADILLA

Mr. Padilla stated that contractual and vested rights shall not be
impaired. He concurred with Mr. Natividad that some presidential
decrees are good laws.

Apropos the observation of Mr. Maambong, Mr. Padilla opined that
there is no need to mention the Judiciary inasmuch as it is a
fundamental rule that it is the Judiciary’s prerogative and power to
declare any law or executive order invalid or unconstitutional if it
contravenes any provision of the Constitution.

Thereupon, he accepted the amendment of Mr. Davide.

MR. SARMIENTO’S AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT

Mr. Sarmiento observed that Mr. Davide’s amendment does not cover
unpublished decrees issued by the former President and proposed an
amendment which would be a third sentence, to read:

UNPUBLISHED DECREES SHALL BE INOPERATIVE UNLESS VALIDATED BY THE INCUMBENT PRESIDENT OR CONGRESS.

Mr. Davide remarked that although it is a good proposal, he could
not agree on the last part thereof inasmuch as the President cannot
validate a decree which is unknown and unpublished.

Mr. Sarmiento insisted that eventually, such decrees would be discovered.

POINT OF INFORMATION OF MR. FOZ

Mr. Foz informed that a recent Supreme Court ruling states that
the presidential issuances and decrees of the former President are not
valid until or unless published.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

Upon request of Mr. Davide, the Chair suspended the session.

It was 6:28 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 6:29 p.m., the session was resumed.

Upon resumption of session, Mr. Sarmiento withdrew his amendment.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

The Chair suspended the session on the request of Mr. Davide.

It was 6:30 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 6:31 p.m., the session was resumed.

Mr. Rama informed that Messrs. Davide and Padilla are still conferring over their proposed amendment.

ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION

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

It was 6:31 p.m.

I hereby certify to the correctness of the foregoing.

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

ATTESTED:

(SGD.) CECILIA MUÑOZ PALMA
President

Approved on October 2, 1986