R.C.C. NO. 88

Saturday, September 20,
1986

OPENING OF SESSION

At 9:51 a.m., the Vice-President, the
Honorable Ambrosio B. Padilla, opened the session.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The session is called
to order.

NATIONAL ANTHEM

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Everybody will please
rise to sing the National Anthem.

Everybody rose to sing the National
Anthem.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Everybody will please
remain standing for the Prayer to be led by the Honorable Bernardo M.
Villegas.

Everybody remained standing for the
Prayer.

PRAYER

MR. VILLEGAS: Almighty God, You sent Your
only begotten Son Jesus Christ to bring peace to this world. He is our
Prince of Peace. For the past few days, we have been especially
remembering the peace that still eludes mankind. Teach us to be the men
and women of goodwill to whom peace was promised by the angels who
announced the birth of the Redeemer.

We know that to be of goodwill, we must
love You with all our heart, with all our strength and with all our
mind. You gave us the acid test for loving You above all things. With
divine succinctness, You said: “If you love me, keep my commandments.”
Keeping Your commandments, Lord, requires constant struggle. Peace can
be attained only if each of us wages a war against his own greed,
sensuality and pride. You have made it clear that the true freedom of
man is found in the liberation from the radical slavery of personal sin.

Sometimes we look for scapegoats. We talk
about evil structures, about iniquitous institutions, about social sin.
But as we look into our inner selves with utmost sincerity, we realize
that in the final analysis, evil comes from the heart of man. You said
that “out of the heart come evil thoughts murder, adultery, fornication,
theft, false witness, slander and blasphemy.” Please remove the scales
from our eyes so we can see that only a personal conversion can bring us
that peace and joy that You — as a good Father — are eager to give us.

Our task of writing a constitution is not
yet over. We entertain no illusion that the rest of the way will be
less tortuous. We pray that You continue to illumine our minds and
strengthen our will so that, despite the inevitable clash of opinions,
we can be the first to set an example for our people in achieving truth,
justice, fraternity and love. Above all, let us be exemplary in being
at peace with ourselves by waging that spiritual battle against the
threefold concupiscence of which St. John spoke: the concupiscence of
the flesh, the concupiscence of the eyes and the pride of life. That
inner peace will make possible our being at peace with those around us.
This we ask You through Your Son Jesus Christ, Our Lord. Amen.

ROLL CALL

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General
will call the roll.

THE SECRETARY-GENERAL, reading:

Abubakar	Present*	Natividad	Present*
Alonto	Present*	Nieva	Present
Aquino	Present	Nolledo	Present*
Azcuna	Present*	Ople	Present
Bacani	Present*	Padilla	Present
Bengzon	Present*	Quesada	Present*
Bennagen	Present	Rama	Present
Bernas	Present	Regalado	Absent
Rosario Braid	Present	Reyes de los	Present
Calderon	Present	Rigos	Present
Castro de	Present	Rodrigo	Present
Colayco	Present	Romulo	Present
Concepcion	Present	Rosales	Absent
Davide	Present	Sarmiento	Present*
Foz	Present	Suarez	Present
Garcia	Present*	Sumulong	Present
Gascon	Present	Tadeo	Present
Guigona	Present	Tan	Present
Jamir	Present	Tingson	Present
Laurel	Absent	Treñas	Present
Lerum	Present*	Uka	Present
Maambong	Present	Villacorta	Present*
Monsod	Present	Villegas	Present
Munoz Palma	Present*

The roll call shows 31 Members responded
to the call.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The Chair declares
the presence of a quorum.

MR. CALDERON: Mr. Vice-President.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The Assistant Floor
Leader is recognized.

MR. CALDERON: I move that we dispense
with the reading of the Journal of yesterday’s session.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Is there any
objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is
approved.

APPROVAL OF JOURNAL

MR. CALDERON: Mr. Vice-President, I move
that we approve the Journal of yesterday’s session.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Is there any
objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none, the motion is
approved.

MR. CALDERON: Mr. Vice-President, I move
that we proceed to the Reference of Business.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Is there any
objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is
approved.

The Secretary-General will read the
Reference of Business.

REFERENCE OF BUSINESS

The Secretary-General read the
following Resolution on First Reading and Communications, the
Vice-President making the corresponding references:

RESOLUTION

Proposed Resolution No. 546, entitled:

RESOLUTION URGING THE CONSTITUTIONAL
COMMISSION TO AGREE TO CONCLUDE ITS WORK SOONEST BUT IN NO CASE LATER
THAN OCTOBER 15, 1986.

Introduced by Honorable Ople, Maambong,
Rama, de los Reyes, Jr., Rigos, Bengzon, Jr., Jamir, Padilla, de
Castro, Regalado, Colayco, Romulo, Monsod, Tingson, Treñas, Rodrigo,
Concepcion, Lerum, Villegas, Uka, Bacani and Guingona.

To the Steering Committee.

COMMUNICATIONS

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

1) Ms. Ma. Intes Bettina D. Lumain of 35
Chicago Tech., University Hills, Malabon, Metro Manila, and seventy-four
other students of the University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon
City.

(Communication No. 932 — Constitutional
Commission of 1986)

2) Ms. Carmen G. Diaz de Ventanilla and
one hundred seventeen other professors and employees of the University
of the Philippines.

(Communication No. 933 — Constitutional
Commission of 1986)

3) Ms. Luzviminda A. Bandoy, 345 Pepin
St., Sampaloc, Manila, and one hundred ten other students from De Ocampo
Memorial College, University of the Philippines, and Maryknoll College.

(Communication No. 934 — Constitutional
Commission of 1986)

4) Sister Fidela Ramoso of the Carmelite
Monastery at Subic, Zambales, and one hundred twenty-one other concerned
citizens with their respective addresses.

(Communication No. 935 — Constitutional
Commission of 1986)

5) Ms. Cecilia B. Hizon and five other
concerned citizens.

(Communication No. 936 — Constitutional
Commission of 1986)

To the Committee on Preamble, National
Territory, and Declaration of Principles.

Communications urging the Constitutional
Commission to incorporate in the Constitution the provision that the
separation of the Church and State shall be inviolable as embodied in
the 1973 Constitution and as understood historically and
jurisprudentially in the Philippines, from:

1) Rev. Noe B. Talagtag and twenty-six
(26) other signatories, Pigcawayan Evangelical Alliance Church,
Pigcawayan, Cotabato.

(Communication No. 937 — Constitutional
Commission of 1986)

2) Pastor Ponciano G. Undag, Sr. and
twenty-three (23) other signatories, Grace Church of Christ, Incl. 91-L
Aguadas and Laurel Streets, Ozamiz City.

(Communication No. 938 — Constitutional
Commission of 1986)

3) Free Methodist Church
Bangonay, Jabonga
Agusan del Norte

(Communication No. 939 — Constitutional
Commission of 1986)

4) Rev. Bartolome Bagni
Pentecostal Bible College
Mabini St., San Fernando, La Union

(Communication No. 940 — Constitutional
Commission of 1986)

5) Pastor Joel Dumapit and twenty-two
(22) other signatories, Miracle Christian Center, 141-A East Rembo, Fort
Bonifacio, Makati, Metro Manila

(Communication No. 941 — Constitutional
Commission of 1986)

To the Committee on General Provisions.

Communications calling for foreign
military bases-free and nuclear-free provisions in the Constitution of
the Philippines, from:

1) Mr. Lutgardo Juscales, Jr. and one
thousand four hundred ninety-four other signatories, Nationalist
Alliance for Justice, Freedom and Democracy (NAJFD), 5 Rosal Street,
Cubao, Quezon City

(Communication No. 942 — Constitutional
Commission of 1986)

2) Ms. Maria Lisa Dacanay and four
thousand six hundred eleven other signatories, Nationalist Alliance for
Justice, Freedom and Democracy (NAJFD), 5 Rosal Street, Cubao, Quezon
City

(Communication No. 943 — Constitutional
Commission of 1986)

To the Committee on Preamble, National
Territory and Declaration of Principles.

Communication from the Samahan
Taga-Sa-Panahon, Candelaria, Quezon, requesting the Constitutional
Commission to incorporate in the Constitution provisions providing
support for the National Elderly Association, the association of senior
citizens of our country, just as it had given our youth primary,
importance in their education.

(Communication No. 944 — Constitutional
Commission of 1986)

To the Committee on Social Justice.

Communication signed by seventy (70)
Filipino professionals, veterans, businessmen, and residents of Toronto,
Ontario, Canada, requesting the Constitutional Commission to
incorporate and include in the Constitution provisions synchronizing
national and local elections, limiting reelection to the same office to
not more than two 4-year consecutive terms.

(Communication No. 945 — Constitutional
Commission of 1986).

To the Steering Committee.

Letter from Mr. Jose Mabulay, Jr. and Fr.
Nemie Angus, OFM, Justice and Peace Council, 29 Sacrepante Street,
Mandaluyong, Metro Manila, submitting a position paper containing a
description of the features of the concept of a “mechanism for selective
objection,” together with its rationale.

(Communication No. 946 — Constitutional
Commission of 1986).

To the Committee on Amendments and
Transitory Provisions.

Communication from the Confederacion
Nacional de Profesores de Español, Inc., signed, respectively, by
its President and Secretary, Rosario Valdes-Lamug and Teresa Salazar,
urging the Constitutional Commission to include Spanish as one of the
official languages of the Philippines.

(Communication No. 947 — Constitutional
Commission of 1986).

To the Committee on Human Resources.

Communication from Ms. Sol Rombuena,
President, Immaculate Conception Cathedral Parish, Ozamiz City,
requesting the Constitutional Commission to include in the Constitution a
provision making religion a required subject in the public and private
elementary and high schools.

(Communication No. 948 — Constitutional
Commission of 1986)

To the Committee on Human Resources.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is
recognized.

CONSIDERATION OF
PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 537
(Article on the Declaration of Principles)
Continuation

PERIOD OF AMENDMENTS

MR. RAMA: Mr. Vice-President, I move that
we take up for consideration this morning the Article on the
Declaration of Principles.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Is there any
objection? (Silence) The Chair hears none; the motion is
approved.

MR. RAMA: May I request the chairman and
the members of the Committee on Preamble, National Territory, and
Declaration of Principles to please take their seats in front.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The chairman and
members of the committee will please take their places at the front
table.

MR. TINGSON: Mr. Vice-President, could we
please call on Commissioner Rustico de los Reyes to state the latest
amending formulation that he had when we adjourned yesterday.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner de los
Reyes is recognized.

MR. GUINGONA: Mr. Vice-President, I have
an inquiry which, I think, would be a prejudicial question. May I be
allowed to ask a clarificatory question of the committee.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Guingona
is recognized.

MR. GUINGONA: I have noted that there are
provisions contained in this article which, to my mind, are not
verbatim but substantial repetitions of provisions in other articles,
such as the Articles on National Economy and Patrimony, Social Justice,
and the provisions on education, science and technology and family life.

I was talking with Commissioner Villegas a
while ago and he informed me that it was the decision of the committee
to state some general concepts in the Declaration of Principles, without
prejudice to their being repeated but in more specific forms in the
other articles.

I was wondering whether this would also
include a repetition of the declarations themselves re the specification
of rights. This is to guide the Committee on Sponsorship, one of the
exclusive functions of which is to avoid repetitions.

I have no objection; I just wanted to be
clarified, Mr. Vice-President.

MR. TINGSON: Mr. Vice-President,
Commissioner Aquino would like to respond.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Aquino
of the committee is recognized.

MS. AQUINO: Thank you, Mr.
Vice-President.

The committee met about this, and what
really happened was that, for example, in the Article on Social Justice
the supervening approval and adoption of a paragraph defining social
justice, therefore, required the committee to do some recasting of the
sections. The same situation would hold, for example, in the section on
labor and some of the other provisions in the Declaration of Principles.

So the committee met to recast some of
our sections and the basic agreement is that, consistent with the intent
of the sections on the Declaration of Principles, the sections here
which would have similar provisions in the other articles are intended
to provide, as Commissioner Nolledo would say, “the curtain provision,”
which would be fleshed out in the specific articles we have approved
earlier.

MR. GUINGONA: So the committee would not
preclude repetitions, at least, for purposes of emphasis.

MS. AQUINO: No, I am sorry, Mr.
Vice-President, not repetition, but this will be in the nature of an
explicit declaration of principle; not at all in repeating the articles
that we have approved before.

MR. GUINGONA: So if there is a repetition
in the other articles, then, perhaps, the provisions in the other
articles may be deleted.

MS. AQUINO: I think the Gentleman is
misunderstanding our manifestation.

The committee position is that the
sections in the Article on the Declaration of Principles have been
recasted or would remain as they are considering what we have reported
already, and depending on what we think is the best thrust and best
focus of a section in the Declaration of Principles as compared to the
specific articles that we have approved before.

MR. GUINGONA: I see. Thank you very much.

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Vice-President.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong
is recognized.

MR. MAAMBONG: On the same point. I can
understand the thinking of the committee, but I would just like to
indicate that in the outline which I submitted to the committee, which
has been acknowledged by the chairman before, I mentioned in the portion
on policies that we have something like 20 policies in the present
formulation, and most of the policies I indicated, like sociopolitical
and economic system, social justice, labor, social services, indigenous
cultural communities, nongovernment and community-based organizations,
health and healthy environment, science and technology, education and
culture and others, are covered in detail in specific articles. That is
why I was suggesting to the committee in the outline which I presented
that probably a single sentence will do, or if it could not be done at
all, at least to formulate it in a brief manner. Anyway, these policies
will be taken up in detail in the main body of the Constitution.

Thank you, Mr. Vice-President.

MS. AQUINO: We have taken that suggestion
favorably. In fact, the committee will introduce committee amendments
that will streamline the concepts.

MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you very much.

MS. AQUINO: The matter, of course, of
rubrication and resequencing has not yet been undertaken by the
committee.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner de los
Reyes is recognized.

MR. DE LOS REYES: Mr. Vice-President, the
amendment which this Representation proposes to introduce is a
deletion.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Has this reference to
Section 7?

MR. DE LOS REYES: Yes, Mr.
Vice-President. This is to delete the phrase which reads: “that can free
the people from mass poverty and enhance the” and to substitute the
same with the original proposal of the committee, but only in a more
brief and more concise manner and with the inclusion of the word “JUST”
as proposed by Commissioner Nieva. So that Section 7 will read as
follows: “THE STATE SHALL PROMOTE A DYNAMIC AND JUST SOCIAL ORDER THAT
SECURES FOR THE PEOPLE THE BENEFITS OF FULL EMPLOYMENT, a rising
standard of living and better quality of life.”

MR. TINGSON: Mr. Vice-President.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: What is the reaction
of the committee?

MR. TINGSON: Mr. Vice-President, this is
the formulation that we remember was presented to us yesterday. However,
the Floor Leader had an amendment previous to that which included a
phrase. He claims that that phrase was never eliminated from the
amendment that we did vote upon.

We would like to ask the Floor Leader
what the situation is as far as he is concerned.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is
recognized.

MR. RAMA: Commissioner de los Reyes
presented an amendment to insert some words. There was a little mistake
in the Journal and he read the words that we inserted.

On the other hand, he was trying to amend
a section that has a formulation already accepted by the committee
which included the words, “to free the nation from poverty.” So, when
the vote was taken, I asked the Presiding Officer to clarify the matter
regarding the words I had previously presented and were accepted by the
committee as follows: “to free the nation from poverty.” The Presiding
Officer, however, confirmed my position that those words were not
deleted by the insertion of the phrases presented by Commissioner de los
Reyes. That was the end of the session.

So, may I now ask the committee to read
the formulation as amended by Commissioner de los Reyes.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: And the Chair has
noticed that the committee report had the phrase “ensure the
independence and prosperity of the nation.” Is the committee deleting
that clause?

MS. AQUINO: Mr. Vice-President, when
Commissioner de los Reyes reinstated the original, it was not actually
an original in the sense that what his motion covered was a composite of
the Bacani proposal and the original committee proposal.

In this amendment, he excluded the
clause, “prosperity of the nation”; together with the exclusion was the
Rama amendment.

So, Mr. Vice-President, may I request
Commissioner de los Reyes to read again his proposal on Section 7.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner de los
Reyes is recognized.

MR. DE LOS REYES: With the permission of
the honorable Vice-President and the committee, Section 7 is recommended
to read as follows: “THE STATE SHALL PROMOTE A DYNAMIC AND JUST SOCIAL
ORDER THAT SECURES FOR THE PEOPLE THE BENEFITS OF FULL EMPLOYMENT, A
RISING STANDARD OF LIVING AND BETTER QUALITY OF LIFE.”

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: What is the reaction
of the committee?

MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Vice-President.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

MR. TINGSON: Mr. Vice-President, may we
request a suspension of the session so we could get together with the
two principal proponents.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The session is
suspended for a few minutes.

It was 10.15 a.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 10.21 a.m., the session was
resumed.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The session is
resumed.

MR. RAMA: Mr. Vice-President.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is
recognized.

MR. RAMA: The committee and the
proponents of this amendment on Section 7 have come to an agreement and a
meeting of the mind on the formulation which Commissioner Aquino will
read before voting.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Aquino
is recognized.

MS. AQUINO: Mr. Vice-President, this
formulation as culled from the amendments of Commissioners Rama, Bacani,
de los Reyes, Padilla, Davide, together with the committee amendments:
“IT SHALL BE THE PRIME CONCERN OF THE STATE TO PROMOTE A DYNAMIC SOCIAL
ORDER THAT WILL ENSURE THE INDEPENDENCE AND PROSPERITY OF THE NATION. IT
SHALL ENDEAVOR TO FREE THE PEOPLE FROM POVERTY, SECURE FOR THEM THE
BENEFITS OF FULL EMPLOYMENT, A RISING STANDARD OF LIVING, EQUALITY IN
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES, SECURITY IN OLD AGE AND OTHER BASIC HUMAN
RIGHTS.”

The committee would welcome comments and
reactions to this formulation.

MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Vice-President, may we
request the deletion of “SECURITY IN OLD AGE” because there is a proper
space for that in social security.

MR. TINGSON: The committee agrees.

MR. SARMIENTO: Mr. Vice-President.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner
Sarmiento is recognized.

MR. SARMIENTO: Thank you, Mr.
Vice-President.

May I be allowed to comment on the
proposed amendment. Considering that we have included the words
“INDEPENDENCE AND PROSPERITY,” would it not be proper to delete “FREE
THE PEOPLE FROM POVERTY”? No, I think that was the subject matter of our
discussions yesterday because we are constitutionalizing poverty. After
all, the words “INDEPENDENCE AND PROSPERITY” would cover the
elimination of poverty. Would the honorable Commissioner Tingson be
willing to accommodate these observations?

MR. TINGSON: The committee would like to
call upon Commissioner Rama to explain further. However, we did accept
this originally because the committee looks at the reality of things and
state of affairs, and our researches show that the Philippines and
Indonesia are about the only two remaining countries in this part of the
world that really have mass poverty, and it is possible to solve the
situation. But we would like to ask Commissioner Rama to explain
further.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rama is
recognized.

MR. RAMA: The reason we have to include
the phrase “FREEDOM FROM POVERTY” is that it is the number one problem
in this country for a century now. For a constitution to try to hide
that problem because it is embarrassing is not a good reason. As a
matter of fact, Rizal had pointed out that one of the unflattering
traits of the Filipinos is hiding their problems. That is why Rizal
wrote Noli Me Tangere, to expose the problem so that we may
find the solution to it. How can we write a constitution which professes
to solve the problems of the country by hiding the number one problem,
which is poverty. There is nothing to be ashamed of in saying that that
is a problem and we are trying to solve it. I cannot understand why
people are disturbed when we try to identify the number one problem of
the country. As a matter of fact, the biggest crime of Mr. Marcos is not
imprisoning people nor violating human rights but making everybody
poor, because when one inflicts poverty on the people, he inflicts all
other evils like prostitution, robbery, thievery, killings etc., arising
out of poverty. The sufferings of the people are tremendous because
when they are so poor, they live hell on earth. That is why it is
absolutely necessary to identify that problem of poverty in the
Declaration of Principles.

MR. SARMIENTO: Mr. Vice-President, may I
briefly respond to the observations of Commissioner Rama?

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner
Sarmiento is recognized.

MR. SARMIENTO: It is true that poverty is
a problem, but I would say that it is more of a manifestation of major
problems. I would like to cite Pope John Paul II in his speech at the
UNESCO where he said that the problems are imperialism and
neo-colonialism. These are the more basic problems, and poverty is only a
manifestation of these problems.

MR. RAMA: That is a theory, Mr.
Vice-President, which is already passe. That is a theory of the
leftists. But that is an artful theory — imperialism. How can one
directly connect that to poverty? It is poverty whether these people are
leftists or not, whether the government is leftist or communistic.
Poverty is the problem of the country. The plundering of Mr. Marcos, for
instance, which is unparalleled in the world, has worsen this poverty.
It is not imperialism. As a matter of fact, it was Mr. Marcos who
plundered the country in the last twenty years. So, let us not go into
this theoretical, artful argument about imperialism being the problem of
the country. People will not understand that in the first place.

MR. SARMIENTO: Mr. Vice-President, just a
brief rejoinder to those comments. These are not leftist terms, Mr.
Vice-President. These are terms being used by the Vatican II, by Pope
John Paul II, by Papal encyclicals, by Mr. Marcos himself, by Claro M.
Recto. So, imperialism is not a leftist term; it is a term being used by
almost everybody.

I humbly submit, Mr. Vice-President.

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Vice-President.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong
is recognized.

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Vice-President,
Commissioner Rama could correct me if I am wrong but in down-to-earth
terms, what I understand is that in this country today there are four
problems that we are facing: the problem of poverty, ignorance, disease
and injustice, of which the government has always been telling us. I
have no quarrel with Commissioner Rama regarding the use of the word
“poverty,” but by way of suggestion, perhaps, he would accept a
substitute word which will also reflect the same meaning, if we just say
“freedom from want” because “poverty” seems to be a little bit
inelegant in a constitution. Of course, Commissioner Rama has his own
reason for being very blunt about it.

MR. RAMA: Mr. Vice-President, we are
writing a constitution that would be easily understood by the people.
“Freedom from want” — how many of the people would know what is “freedom
from want”? But when we say “freedom from poverty,” everybody knows
that.

Mr. Vice-President, I have said before
that this Constitution should not only echo the sentiments and
aspirations of the people but also their fear and despair. The people
must be able to hear their own voices in the Constitution. And,
therefore, we must try to make it simple. What is this fear and despair
of the poor all their lives? Does the Vice-President know and understand
how it is to be poor all his life? Ignorance is not even the big
problem, because once we have made people prosperous, they can conquer
ignorance by going to school. Disease is not the main problem because
once we are prosperous, we are liberated from poverty. We can feed
ourselves and buy medicine. The main problem is poverty.

MR. MAAMBONG: It is only a suggestion
anyway, Mr. Vice-President.

Thank you.

MR. MONSOD: Mr. Vice-President.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod
is recognized.

MR. MONSOD: May I suggest the following
formulation: “IT SHALL BE THE PRIME CONCERN OF THE STATE TO PROMOTE A
SOCIO-POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC SYSTEM THAT WILL ENSURE THE INDEPENDENCE
AND PROSPERITY OF THE NATION AND WHICH CAN FREE THE PEOPLE FROM POVERTY
THROUGH POLICIES THAT PROMOTE FULL EMPLOYMENT, A RISING STANDARD OF
LIVING AND AN IMPROVED QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ALL.”

MR. RAMA: I have no problem with that.

MS. AQUINO: May we request a suspension,
Mr. Vice-President?

MR. RAMA: We ask that we suspend the
session for two minutes.

MR. OPLE: Mr. Vice-President.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople is
recognized.

MR. OPLE: Thank you.

Will Commissioner Rama entertain a
question or two?

MR. RAMA: Gladly.

MR. OPLE: I have been looking forward to
an opportunity to support a proposal of Commissioner Rama with genuine
conviction. But I would like to put a question to him.

Poverty is, of course, a phenomenon not
unique to the Philippines as a developing country. There are pockets of
poverty even in the richest nations. If one has been to the Bowery of
New York, for example, he could have been confronted with a pocket of
poverty no less galling than what we see in Tondo. Would Commissioner
Rama agree to that?

MR. RAMA: Correct, Mr. Vice-President,
but let us put it in perspective. I am talking here about mass poverty.
Pockets of poverty can be found in every nation. And even poverty is no
longer unique because all the countries around us have progressed, have
conquered poverty, except Indonesia and Bangladesh; and we are
catalogued with Bangladesh as the poorest country in Asia. Does the
Gentleman not believe that that is the alarming problem that we should
face too?

MR. OPLE: Mr. Vice-President, I want to
support Commissioner Rama but on accurate historical and sociological
terms. The world is divided between the rich and poor and there is a
cutoff that divides the rich from the poor. Very roughly, when a
country, in present terms and according to present prices, graduates
beyond the $3,000 to $4,000 income per capita, provided there is a
compliance with certain economic liberalization policies prescribed by
the OECD so that there is a standard of liberalization applicable to all
the members of the OECD, the club of the rich, then that country is
said to have attained the status of a developed nation.

In our part of the world, the Republic of
Korea hopes to join the OECD in 1988. That is a formal statement of the
Chun Doo Hwan government. Taiwan, if considered an independent State,
would qualify for membership in the OECD also by 1988 and, of course,
there are the so-called Newly Industrialized Countries, the NICs that
would include Hongkong and Singapore. But the rest of developing Asia,
including countries not mentioned in the enumeration by Commissioner
Rama, are afflicted with mass poverty. They are still a long way off
from leaving the ranks of the poor to join the club of the rich in
Brussels.

I want Commissioner Rama’s assent to the
statement that when he speaks of mass poverty as he proposes in this
section, he refers to the major feature of a state of economic
underdevelopment. This means that the major features of underdevelopment
are, as Commissioner Maambong said a while ago, mass poverty,
ignorance, disease and injustice. And based on those terms, freedom from
mass poverty merely means transcending poverty as a state of
underdevelopment, so that this relates dynamically to the statement of
aspirations for national development, especially in this Article on
National Economy and Patrimony.

If Commissioner Rama agrees to this
intent behind the meaning of freedom from poverty, I will be very happy
to support him.

MR. RAMA: I do not have any problem with
that.

MR. OPLE: Thank you, Mr. Vice-President.

MR. TINGSON: Mr. Vice-President, we have a
new formulation here that seems to be acceptable now to all the
committee members and, hopefully, to the majority of our fellow
Commissioners. The formulation was based on the suggestions of
Commissioners Davide, Padilla, Rama, de los Reyes, Monsod and Romulo.
May we read it.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Please proceed.

MR. TINGSON: “IT SHALL BE THE PRIME
CONCERN OF THE STATE TO PROMOTE A DYNAMIC SOCIAL ORDER THAT CAN ENSURE
THE PROSPERITY AND INDEPENDENCE OF THE NATION AND FREE THE PEOPLE FROM
POVERTY THROUGH POLICIES THAT PROMOTE FULL EMPLOYMENT, A RISING STANDARD
OF LIVING AND AN IMPROVED QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ALL.”

That, Mr. Vice-President, is the
formulation.

REV. RIGOS: Was the word “just” deleted
from the term “dynamic and just society”?

MR. TINGSON: We would like Commissioner
Monsod to answer that, please.

REV. RIGOS: No, I am asking the
committee.

MR. MONSOD: It is up to the committee.

MS. AQUINO: The committee deliberately
deleted that with the clear intention of not deleting the intent because
there is a consensus that the phrase “dynamic social order” should be
necessarily just.

REV. RIGOS: On the other hand, a just
social order will be dynamic. But a dynamic social order is not
necessarily just.

MS. AQUINO: When we say “order,” it
means, therefore, that everything should fall into place to be just.

REV. RIGOS: I suggest that we go back to
the original formulation approved yesterday which included the word
“just” — “dynamic and just society.”

MS. AQUINO: The committee is not too
sanguine about that. However, the focus of that phrase “dynamic social
order” is mobility, upward mobility, the progress-oriented social order.

MR. AZCUNA: Mr. Vice-President, I support
Commissioner Aquino because we believe that precisely, the whole thrust
of this provision is to secure justice, since justice means to give
everyone his due. Therefore, a dynamic social order is designed to
secure and achieve justice. So, it would be a tautology to say “a just
social order that is designed to secure justice.” There is the dynamism
which will be used as an agent for achieving justice.

MR. GUINGONA: Mr. Vice-President.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Guingona
is recognized.

MR. GUINGONA: Thank you, Mr.
Vice-President.

There are two reformulations that the
committee has made immediately preceding the one just read. There was
the phrase “security in old age” which was sought to be deleted by
Commissioner Davide. It seems that the committee has acceded to that
amendment to delete. I would like to express my objection, because as
expressed by Commissioner Rosario Braid during the previous
interpellation, other areas of concern are included in this Article on
Declaration of Principles, such as the youth, women, labor, members of
the indigenous cultural communities but no mention is made of the old.
There are, of course, already old people among the 55 million populace.
But even among those who are not old, a good number of these citizens
would become old. I am concerned about them, especially the
underprivileged and even those belonging to the middle class because we
link this matter of old age with illness. The prohibitive cost of
hospitalization these days, including medicines and doctor’s fees, would
be very much related to this concern for security of old age. Some
injection vials cost as much as P300; capsules cost as much as P10 each.

And so, I am objecting to the deletion.
Commissioner Davide says that he will introduce this in Section 13, and I
have no objection. My only concern is that we might not approve the
suggested amendment in Section 13. Therefore, I suggest that we retain
this without prejudice to deleting it in case the proposed amendment
mentioned by Honorable Davide in connection with security of old age is
approved when we come to Section 13.

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Vice-President.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong
is recognized.

MR. MAAMBONG: Can we not solve that issue
by getting some sort of commitment from the committee that the
provision will be inserted in Section 13? What does the committee say to
that?

MR. TINGSON: We will be glad to. The
committee is in favor of the sentiments expressed by Commissioner
Guingona and we will commit ourselves.

MR. MAAMBONG: Just one more point, Mr.
Vice-President.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Maambong
is recognized.

MR. MAAMBONG: There was a concern of
Commissioner Rigos about the word “just.” I do not know if the committee
has already reached a consensus on that.

MR. TINGSON: Mr. Vice-President, I
amended the statement a while ago because the committee is really
divided on this. May I ask Commissioner Rosario Braid, on behalf of the
other committee members, to please explain?

MR. MAAMBONG: Before that, I would just
like to indicate for the record that yesterday this issue was somewhat
resolved in this body. Page 51 of yesterday’s Journal reads:

In reply to Mrs. Nieva’s query on whether
there is no social order that is unjust, Mr. Bacani explained that if
it is not just, there is no social order to speak of, for which reason
Mrs. Nieva desisted from proposing her amendment.

I want this on record so that
Commissioner Rigos will also understand that somehow this has been
resolved yesterday.

Thank you, Mr. Vice-President.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Mr. Vice-President,
may I just make a statement on this matter.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rosario
Braid is recognized.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Yes, we are divided
because I quite agree with Commissioner Nieva that there is an unjust
social order. This is why in the literature of development, we have such
phrases as “a balanced social order,” which means that there is an
unbalanced social order. We also have such phrases as “transformation of
the social order,” which means that there is a social order that has to
be transformed. Likewise, we have such phrases as “new economic order,”
which means that there is an economic order that is not positive. In
the same way, we have a “new information order,” which acknowledges the
fact that certain orders are not quite relevant to the needs of a just
society.

So I would support the need to include a
word such as “just” or “balanced,” whatever the Commission would like to
entertain.

MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Vice-President.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner de
Castro is recognized.

MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you, Mr.
Vice-President.

I do not like to add confusion to this
section. However, yesterday I took note of the word “prime” in Section 6
where we say the “prime” duty of government. Then we now come to
Section 7 which mentions the “prime” concern of the State. I do not know
whether we still have to use the word “prime” in Section 8.

I have no vigorous objection to this word
“prime,” but I wonder what the readers of the Constitution shall say.
Baka naman sabihin nilang: “Wala na bang nalalaman ang Constitutional
Commission na letra o titik kung hindi ‘prime’?” Yesterday, on page 52
of the Journal, Commissioner Rama said the original formulation was “the
primary concern,” not prime.

Mr. Vice-President, yesterday we voted on
the deletion of the word “poverty,” with a 13-9 result on motion of
Commissioner de los Reyes. I voted in favor of the amendment of
Commissioner de los Reyes. If we will put back the word “poverty,” what
is the meaning of the 13-9 result of our voting yesterday?

Thank you, Mr. Vice-President.

MR. RAMA: Mr. Vice-President, the
parliamentary situation is that there is an amendment or a proposal
presented by Commissioner Rigos and he insists on his amendment to the
amendment, which is the insertion of the word “just.” So, we will have
to vote on it.

MR. TINGSON: Mr. Vice-President, we would
like to have the body vote on that — whether or not to insert the word
“just.” Is that right, Mr. Floor Leader?

MR. RAMA: Yes, that is the anterior
issue.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: So, the issue is
whether the word “just” should be inserted or should remain in the
committee formulation. Is the body ready to vote on that issue?

MR. RAMA: Yes, Mr. Vice-President.

VOTING

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: As many as are in
favor of retaining the word “just,” please raise their hand. (Several
Members raised their hand.)

As many as are against, please raise
their hand. (No Member raised his hand.)

As many as are abstaining, please raise
their hand. (Three Members raised their hand.)

The results show 24 votes in favor, none
against and 3 abstentions; the proposal is approved.

MR. TINGSON: Mr. Vice-President.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Tingson
is recognized.

MR. TINGSON: Mr. Vice-President, we have
made a minor reformulation which includes the word “just.” May we read
it now.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Please proceed.

MR. TINGSON: Mr. Vice-President, Section
7, as amended, reads as follows: “THE STATE SHALL PROMOTE A JUST AND
DYNAMIC SOCIAL ORDER THAT CAN ENSURE THE PROSPERITY AND INDEPENDENCE OF
THE NATION AND FREE THE PEOPLE FROM POVERTY THROUGH POLICIES THAT
PROMOTE FULL EMPLOYMENT, A RISING STANDARD OF LIVING AND AN IMPROVED
QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ALL.”

MR. SUAREZ: Mr. Vice-President.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Suarez
is recognized.

MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Mr.
Vice-President.

May I submit an amendment to the amended
Section 7, in the light of the acceptance by the Commission on a
unanimous vote of the word “just” which is all-embracing and
all-encompassing. As the term now stands, it would refer to the
establishment of a just and dynamic social order. We submit, Mr.
Vice-President, that all of the terms that come after the words “just
and dynamic social order” are included in that significant phrase. It is
very difficult for Commissioners to decline a constitutional fruit
salad like what is being enumerated after the words “social order.”

May I formally submit an amendment that
we put a period (.) after the words “social order” and then delete all
the other phrases after that.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Rama is
recognized.

MR. RAMA: I object to that amendment, Mr.
Vice-President, because that was already taken up yesterday, and the
provision has been amply debated. May I ask what is the position of the
committee so that we can vote on it, if necessary?

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: What does the
committee say?

MS. AQUINO: The committee will insist on
the formulation that was read by the chairman, with a minor amendment.

MR. RAMA: Does Commissioner Suarez insist
on that amendment to the amendment so we can vote on it?

MR. SUAREZ: In all seriousness, I would
like to submit that to the committee for appreciation, because I think
we really have to put a stop to all these flowery expressions in the
Constitution, Mr. Vice-President.

MR. RAMA: May I ask that we vote on that
amendment to the amendment, Mr. Vice-President.

MR. SUAREZ: Thank you.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Will the committee or
Commissioner Suarez restate the proposed amendment which will be voted
upon?

MR. SUAREZ: I propose that after the
phrase “just and dynamic social order,” a period (.) be placed and that
we delete the phrases subsequent thereto.

MR. TINGSON: Therefore, the provision
will only be: “THE STATE SHALL PROMOTE A JUST AND DYNAMIC SOCIAL ORDER.”

MR. SUAREZ: That is right.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Is the body ready to
vote?

MR. SUAREZ: My proposal is subject to the
understanding that all the words after “social order” should be read
into the record as forming part of the description of what would
constitute “a just and social order” for our government — “for a just
and dynamic social order.”

Thank you, Mr. Vice-President.

VOTING

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The Chair now submits
the Suarez amendment to a vote.

As many as are in favor of the Suarez
amendment, please raise their hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)

As many as are against, please raise
their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)

The results show 6 votes in favor and 20
against; the amendment is lost.

MR. RAMA: Mr. Vice-President, I now move
that we take a vote on the whole provision.

MR. OPLE: Mr. Vice-President.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Ople is
recognized.

MR. OPLE: May I know whether the word
“can” still stands there because I think that word is unconstitutional.
It should be replaced by “SHALL” or “WILL” — “A social order that WILL
secure the prosperity and. . .”

MR. TINGSON: Yes.

MR. OPLE: So, may I move that the word
“can” be replaced by “WILL” or “SHALL” at the option of the committee.

Thank you, Mr. Vice-President.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: What does the
committee say?

MR. TINGSON: We accept, but we leave it
to the Style Committee to use either word.

MR. RAMA: The body is ready to vote, Mr.
Vice-President.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Is there any
objection to the motion to substitute the word “can” with “WILL”?

MR. MAAMBONG: Mr. Vice-President, I have
no objection but I suggest that the committee decide between “SHALL” or
“WILL.”

MR. TINGSON: We will opt for “WILL.”

MR. MAAMBONG: Thank you.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: So, the word “can” is
substituted with “WILL.”

Is there any objection? (Silence)
The Chair hears none; the amendment is approved.

MR. RAMA: Mr. Vice-President, we are now
ready to vote on the whole amendment of Section 7.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Will the committee
read Section 7 again?

MR. TINGSON: Section 7 finally will read
as follows: “THE STATE SHALL PROMOTE A JUST AND DYNAMIC SOCIAL ORDER
THAT WILL SECURE THE PROSPERITY AND INDEPENDENCE OF THE NATION AND FREE
THE PEOPLE FROM POVERTY THROUGH POLICIES THAT PROMOTE FULL EMPLOYMENT, A
RISING STANDARD OF LIVING AND AN IMPROVED QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ALL.”

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Is the body ready to
vote on the reamended and final Section 7?

MR. RAMA: The body is ready to vote, Mr.
Vice-President.

MR. TINGSON: Yes, but with just a minor
correction. It should read: “AND DYNAMIC SOCIAL ORDER THAT WILL ENSURE
THE PROSPERITY AND INDEPENDENCE OF THE NATION.” The word is “ENSURE,”
not “secure.”

VOTING

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: As many as are in
favor of the version of Section 7 last read, please raise their hand.
(Several Members raised their hand.)

As many as are against, please raise
their hand. (No Member raised his hand.)

As many as are abstaining, please raise
their hand. (Two Members raised their hand.)

The results show 28 votes in favor, none
against and 2 abstentions; Section 7, as amended, is approved.

MR. RAMA: Mr. Vice-President, I ask that
Commissioner Monsod be recognized.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Monsod
is recognized.

MR. MONSOD: Thank you, Mr.
Vice-President.

I would like to reserve the right to
reconsider Section 4 in order to come within the technicality of our
Rules. Today, I found on my desk a proposal of Commissioner Suarez to
propose in the Transitory Provisions the establishment of a commission
which is inextricably tied up with Section 4. I just wanted to make sure
I am within the Rules in case we consider this after 24 hours and also
in case there are other sections that may be introduced in the
Transitory Provisions or in any other articles that are inextricably
bound or dependent on Section 4.

Mr. Vice-President, I also would like to
ask for certain clarifications from the committee through Commissioner
Azcuna, on the interpretation and intent of Section 4 and on which also a
decision will be made — whether I will ask for a reconsideration now or
later. That is the reason for the reservation. May I put that on
record.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Does Commissioner
Azcuna want to say something?

MR. AZCUNA: Does the Gentleman wish to
interpellate right now?

MR. MONSOD: I just want, first of all, to
reserve the right to seek for a reconsideration of Section 4.

MR. AZCUNA: I have no objection to the
same.

MS. AQUINO: I just want a clarification,
Mr. Vice-President.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Aquino
is recognized.

MS. AQUINO: Would the reconsideration be
contingent on anything, Mr. Vice-President?

MR. MONSOD: That would be contingent on
the following matters: First, the disposition of the proposal that was
sent by Commissioner Suarez on a proposed commission that would be tied
to Section 4; second, any other sections or formulations that may be
introduced in the Transitory Provisions or in any other articles, such
as the General Provisions, that are tied to or bound with Section 4;
and, third, depending on the answers I will get from the committee
through Commissioner Azcuna on the intent and interpretation of Section 4
as approved.

MR. SUAREZ: Mr. Vice-President, may we be
recognized for further information.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Suarez
is recognized.

MR. SUAREZ: Thank you, Mr.
Vice-President.

We submitted the proposal to be
transferred to the Transitory Provisions, and this is by way of creating
an agency or instrumentality, or call it commission, in order to
monitor the activities in connection with the implementation of the
state policy that has already been declared under Section 4 of the
Article on the Declaration of Principles. Section 4, as approved by this
Commission and which we are assuming as a fact when we submitted our
proposal for the creation of a monitoring agency, must be accepted as
having already been approved. That is to say, we have already stated
categorically that we want a country that is nuclear weapons-free.

On that assumption, we feel that it may
be necessary to set up a sort of monitoring agency in order that we can
give a little teeth to this nuclear weapons-free provision now appearing
in the Declaration of Principles.

MR. MONSOD: Mr. Vice-President, I do not
want to debate on the merits of the proposal of Commissioner Suarez on
such a commission at this point. That is the reason I want to reserve,
among other reasons, the right to move for the reconsideration of
Section 4 within the technicalities of our Rules. I do not even preclude
asking for the reconsideration today, if the answers that will be given
by the committee are not, I think, reflective of the intent and the
spirit with which we filed this motion.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Is that a motion or
resolution of Commissioner Suarez that was mentioned by Commissioner
Monsod?

MR. MONSOD: Mr. Vice-President, it has
not yet been filed.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Has it not been filed
in the Order of Business?

MR. MONSOD: No, Mr. Vice-President. But
it was on my desk, and so I assumed that it was going to be filed. I
just wanted to make sure that we are within the technicalities of the
Rules because it might not be taken up today; it might be taken up after
the 24 hours within which we can technically ask for a reconsideration
of the section.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The Chair rules that
we should not consider at this time the reaction of Commissioner Suarez
which is not scheduled in the agenda. But the reservation made by
Commissioner Monsod is made of record.

MR. MONSOD: Thank you.

May I now proceed to ask the committee my
questions on the interpretation and intent of Section 4.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: I think now would not
be the appropriate time. After all, there was a reservation made by the
Commissioner and that supposed resolution to be filed is not in the
agenda.

MR. MONSOD: Mr. Vice-President, the
resolution is only one of the reasons. As I said earlier, I may move for
a reconsideration of the approval of Section 4 today, depending on the
answer of the committee, through Commissioner Azcuna, to certain
questions I will pose.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Is the committee or
Commissioner Azcuna willing to answer some of the questions Commissioner
Monsod wants to propound on Section 4?

MR. AZCUNA: I am willing, Mr.
Vice-President.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Does the body have
any objection to Commissioner Monsod’s propounding questions to the
committee, particularly to Commissioner Azcuna? (Silence) The
Chair hears none; Commissioner Monsod may proceed.

MR. MONSOD: I just want to get an answer
from the committee in the formulation of Section 4. Is this not an
absolute ban on nuclear weapons under any and all circumstances or would
this admit of exceptions in the national interest?

MR. AZCUNA: Yes, Mr. Vice-President.

MR. MONSOD: And among the exceptions
which the Commissioner has mentioned in the interpellation is a
case-to-case basis. Depending on the government, we may allow such
weapons. Let me restate that — that depending on the government, we may
allow ships that are capable of bearing nuclear weapons to dock in
Philippine waters, provided they do not carry nuclear weapons.

MR. AZCUNA: Yes, I said that, Mr.
Vice-President.

MR. MONSOD: That is if the government
does not opt for the exception?

MR. AZCUNA: The Commissioner is right.

MR. MONSOD: Also, I would like to clarify
that this does not, in any way, diminish the options of our government
with respect to the approved Transitory Provisions on the bases, because
there were interpellations yesterday that tended to suggest that ships
or airplanes that are capable would come within the prohibition. What I
am saying is that it will not mean an immobilization of such bases
should the government agree to a new treaty in accordance with the
provision.

MR. AZCUNA: No, Mr. Vice-President. As I
said, what it will entail is that the government, in view of this
policy, will probably request the review of the existing treaty or take
up a position during the negotiation of a new treaty that these bases
should be nuclear weapons-free — a position which the Philippine panel
had already advanced way back in 1976 but which was rejected by the
United States. So it is one of the options that our government may do
and it is within this context that the options are there.

MR. MONSOD: In other words, the general
rule is that the Philippines adopts and pursues a policy of nuclear
weapons-free Philippines, subject to such exceptions as the government
may allow in the national interest.

MR. AZCUNA: That is right, Mr.
Vice-President. This is a basic policy, and any divergence from that
policy while they are possible can only be justified on one test, on the
crucible of national interest.

MR. MONSOD: Mr. Vice-President, that is
my question for today. I still reserve the right to ask for a
reconsideration of the approval of Section 4, if and when there is any
more equivocation or if there is any proposal which, in our view, does
not reflect this policy.

Thank you, Mr. Vice-President.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The reservation is
made of record.

MR. DE LOS REYES: Mr. Vice-President, may
I be recognized.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner de los
Reyes is recognized.

MR. DE LOS REYES: Mr. Vice-President, I
am the author of Proposed Resolution No. 216 and it was stated in my
original formulation that the Philippines is a nuclear-free country and
at no instance shall we allow any foreign country or even us to use our
territory as a place for stockpiling nuclear weapons, mobile or
stationary. But this was changed and in a spirit of accommodation, I
agreed and even signed that compromise proposal which states “national
interest.” But when I signed that, I have in mind national interest only
in case of self-defense. In fact, we did not even state that because in
cases of self-defense, we have to take into account the instinct of
self-preservation. In criminal law, there must be unlawful aggression,
reasonable necessity of the means employed to repel the aggression and
there is a lack of sufficient provocation. That is the only instance. I
did not agree nor was it my intention that we should allow our country
in the future to be a member of the club of countries using nuclear
weapons, because I am against the proliferation precisely of nuclear
weapons. That is my stand on the matter, Mr. Vice-President.

MR. AZCUNA: I believe that if ever we opt
to join the club of nations advocating the use of nuclear weapons, it
would be only in the interest of national defense, because we renounce
war as an instrument of national policy.

MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Vice-President.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner de
Castro is recognized.

MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you, Mr.
Vice-President.

Commissioner Azcuna may correct me, if I
am wrong. Yesterday when we read this provision and I voted for it, it
stated: “The Philippines, consistent with the national interest.” I
asked the question: “Will the national interest include the defense and
security of the State?” And the answer was “Yes.” When I asked that, I
have in mind the possibility that our President may take the option of
allowing another treaty for the retention of the bases. I feel all the
time, and I have that in my sponsorship speech on September 12, that the
bases are part of the national defense and security of the State. And
since the national interest includes, as in the record, national defense
and security, there is no question in my mind that there is a
possibility that in the defense and security of this nation, consistent
with the possible exercise of the option of our President for the
retention of the bases, there may be tactical nuclear weapons in the
defense of our State in the bases which may be approved in the treaty.
That was the reason I asked whether the national interest included
national defense and security.

Am I right in my interpretation?

MR. AZCUNA: Mr. Vice-President, the
Commissioner is right in saying that the national interest includes
national defense and security. He is also correct in saying that it is
up to our President in renegotiating a new treaty to determine whether
or not it is part of our national interest to allow nuclear weapons to
be maintained in such bases. It is not for us to say that it is. We
would leave it to the implementors of this policy — basically the
President and the Senate — because they have to concur in the treaty and
render the judgment. But the judgment will be predicated solely on the
crucible of Philippine national interest and no other national interest.

MR. DE CASTRO: I thank the Commissioner. I
am very, very glad that he is with me in my interpretation of the
meaning of national interest and in my question of including it as part
of defense and security of the State.

Thank you, Mr. Vice-President.

MR. RAMA: Mr. Vice-President.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The Floor Leader is
recognized.

MR. RAMA: May I ask that Commissioner
Suarez be recognized.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner Suarez
is recognized.

MR. SUAREZ: This is by way of a
parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Vice-President.

We heard the honorable Commissioner
Monsod make a reservation to file a motion for a reconsideration,
depending on the result of his dialogue with the Honorable Azcuna in
connection with the approved Section 4 on the Article on the Declaration
of Principles. But after the Honorable Monsod made his inquiries — and I
do not know whether he was satisfied with the answers or not — he,
nevertheless, maintained his reservation. That is fine as far as I am
concerned. But the Honorable de los Reyes and the Honorable de Castro
stood up also to make interpellations by way of interpretations of the
Honorable Azcuna. Under our Rules, is this allowable, Mr.
Vice-President? I take it that a ruling must first be had on the
suspension of the Rules or on the motion for a reconsideration before
anyone of us could be free to ask questions of the Chair. I myself would
have no objection to that, but I only want to clear this up because
there are many pending matters and this may serve as a precedent in
future deliberations, Mr. Vice-President.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The Chair had already
ruled on the reservation because I think that reservation, although it
mentions or refers to Section 4, was prompted by the Commissioner’s
resolution, a copy of which I have not seen yet and which the Chair
ruled as not being in the agenda. We should not consider prematurely the
merits and demerits of the Commissioner’s proposed resolution. That was
the ruling of the Chair.

MR. SUAREZ: We accept that ruling, Mr.
Vice-President, but this is a different matter of inquiry: whether or
not, even before the motion for a reconsideration is resolved, the
honorable Commissioners would be entitled, as a matter of right, to
address inquiries to the Chair. If that is allowable, that is fine; but
we only want this to be a precedent to be invoked in future
deliberations, Mr. Vice-President.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: What precedent,
Commissioner Suarez? I just noted the reservation because I think it has
reference to your proposed resolution which is not yet in the agenda.

MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Vice-President.

MR. RAMA: Mr. Vice-President, I ask that
Commissioner de Castro be recognized.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: Commissioner de
Castro is recognized.

MR. DE CASTRO: I asked a question for
clarification of the proponent of Section 4 which we accepted yesterday.
He told me that the interpretation of “consistent with national
interest” includes defense and security of the State. And when his
interpretation jibes with mine, I accepted it and did not make any move.
My intention, Mr. Vice-President, is that if his interpretation is
different from mine, I will move for a reconsideration without
reservation. But now that his interpretation of national interest is in
line with mine, I am not moving for a reconsideration anymore. That was
my only intention; otherwise, I should have moved for a reconsideration
right now without awaiting the reservation of the Honorable Monsod.

Thank you, Mr. Vice-President.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

MR. RAMA: Mr. Vice-President, I move for a
suspension of the session.

THE VICE-PRESIDENT: The session is
suspended.

It was 11:24 a.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 11:32 a.m., the session was
resumed, with the Honorable Regalado E. Maambong presiding.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The
session is resumed.

The Floor Leader is recognized.

MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I ask
that Commissioner Davide be recognized to amend Section 8.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Commissioner Davide is recognized.

MR. DAVIDE: Thank you, Mr. Presiding
Officer.

The amendment on Section 8 is very
simple. On line 22, I seek for the substitution of the words “the
pursuit” with “ALL PHASES” and the deletion of the word “objectives.”

On lines 23 to 28, delete all the words
therein, so that the whole section will only read: “The State shall
intensify efforts to promote social justice in ALL PHASES of national
development.”

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
What does the committee say?

MR. TINGSON: Mr. Presiding Officer, we
should have said this a while ago, but Commissioner Davide presented an
amendment to which we accede except for a little difference. We would
like to say, based on Commissioner Davide’s amendment: “The State shall
intensify efforts to promote social justice in ALL PHASES of
development.” So that all other words found on lines 23 to 28 are
deleted.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): Is
it the understanding of the Chair that the reaction of the committee is
that it agrees to the amendment of Commissioner Davide?

MR. TINGSON: Yes, precisely, Mr.
Presiding Officer. May I repeat. Section 8 will now just read: “The
State shall intensify efforts to promote social justice in ALL PHASES of
development.”

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The
Chair would like the committee to read the first section on the Article
on Social Justice which contains practically the same words. For this
purpose, the Chair will suspend the session.

It was 11:34 a.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 11:39 a.m., the session was
resumed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The
session is resumed.

The Floor Leader is recognized.

MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I ask
that Commissioner Tingson be recognized.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The
chairman of the committee is recognized.

MR. TINGSON: Mr. Presiding Officer, I am,
in turn, asking Commissioner Rosario Braid, one of the committee
members, to please take care of this particular section.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Mr. Presiding Officer,
our committee amendment in Section 8 reads: “The State shall intensify
efforts to promote social justice in ALL PHASES of development.”

MR. SARMIENTO: Mr. Presiding Officer, may
I be recognized.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Just a moment, Commissioner Sarmiento.

Is Commissioner Rosario Braid through
with her reading of the new formulation?

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Yes, this is the new
formulation, Mr. Presiding Officer, which differs from the opening
sentence of the Article on Social Justice.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The
Chair now recognizes Commissioner Sarmiento.

MR. SARMIENTO: May I address two
questions to Commissioner Rosario Braid. Section 1 of the Article on
Social Justice reads: “The State shall promote social justice in all
phases of national development.”

We have this new formulation in the
Article on Declaration of Principles which reads: “The State shall
intensify efforts to promote social justice in ALL PHASES of
development.” May we know the reason why the committee adopted the words
“intensify efforts” instead of “promote”? That is my number one
question.

The second question: Why did the
committee delete the word “national” and simply use “development”?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Could we have a response from the committee?

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: The phrase “intensify
efforts” here recognizes that there are already efforts towards
achieving social justice. The declaration would like to intensify these
efforts.

We deleted “national” because
“development” is an all-embracing concept which includes the concept of
human development — the concept of that goes beyond national boundaries.
It also extends beyond. It recognizes that social justice is not just a
means as used in national development but an end. Also, it includes an
attitudinal frame of mind which would extend man’s concept beyond his
family, social group and national boundary towards the whole
international community.

This is the concept of social justice as
defined in this provision.

MR. SARMIENTO: I thank the Commissioner.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The
chairman is recognized.

MR. TINGSON: We certainly would
appreciate it very much, if the body could expedite matters somehow.
Perhaps, I will agree with the committee that this one brief pungent
sentence would be sufficient for Section 8.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Will the committee explain to the body whether or not there is any
substantial difference between this formulation and the first sentence
of Section 1 of the Article on Social Justice.

MR. TINGSON: There is no substantial
difference, Mr. Presiding Officer. We justify this, of course, by the
fact that this is a declaration of principle which, as already explained
before, could be given flesh and further elucidation in the other
committees, for instance, in the Social Justice Committee.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): It
is also the understanding of the Chair that the second sentence starting
with the words “To this end” on line 23 up to “structures” on line 28
is supposed to be deleted.

MR. TINGSON: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): Mr.
Floor Leader, are we ready to vote?

MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, there is
a suggestion by Commissioner Bernas that perhaps for purposes of a
tidier framing of the Constitution, the same phrase contained in the
Article on Social Justice may be deleted by the Committee on Style upon
its recommendation since this is already included in the Article on the
Declaration of Principles.

MR. TINGSON: Mr. Presiding Officer, the
committee would not pose any objection to that. We will, of course, give
the discretion to the Committee on Style.

MR. GUINGONA: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Commissioner Guingona is recognized.

MR. GUINGONA: Just for clarification. The
matter of reviewing the draft Constitution for purposes of avoidance of
repetitions is not a function of the Committee on Style.

Under Section 8 (17) of the Rules, it is
the function of the Committee on Sponsorship. So I think reference
should be made to the Committee on Sponsorship, not to the Committee on
Style. Even the chairman of the Committee on Style agrees to his.

FR. BERNAS: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Before we get entangled in all these, may the Chair suggest to
Commissioner Bernas that we do not use the same words. Perhaps, he could
formulate a new wording so that Commissioner Rodrigo, chairman of the
Committee on Style, will not be put in a very difficult situation.

FR. BERNAS: Actually, Mr. Presiding
Officer, my recommendation was not to delete the principle already
approved in the Article on Social Justice, but rather to transfer it to
the Article on the Declaration of Principles. In other words, the
Article on Social Justice would be an implementation of the general
principle. The general principle is found in what we have already
approved. So we simply transfer that to the Article on the Declaration
of Principles.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): To
be more specific, is Commissioner Bernas suggesting that Section 1 of
the Article on Social Justice will be transferred as Section 8 of the
present formulation?

FR. BERNAS: That is the substance of what
I am saying.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): So
it is only Section 1, not Section 2.

FR. BERNAS: Yes, just Section 1.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
What does the committee say?

MR. NOLLEDO: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Commissioner Nolledo is recognized.

MR. NOLLEDO: Do we have a copy of the
provisions of the Article on Social Justice?

MR. TINGSON: Yes, we have one.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The
Chair also has.

MR. NOLLEDO: I think the committee should
make a comparison between our proposal and the pertinent provisions of
the Article on Social Justice.

MR. TINGSON: Mr. Presiding Officer, we
already did a while ago and really the formulation of the committee is
not the same. The essence and meaning is still there but the formulation
is stated differently as explained by Commissioner Rosario Braid a
while ago.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
With the indulgence of the honorable Vice-President, may I recognize
first Commissioner Nieva. She has been transferring from one microphone
to another.

MS. NIEVA: I just want to clarify the
status now. According to Commissioner Bernas, the statement “The State
shall intensify efforts to promote social justice in ALL PHASES of
national development” should be the omnibus provision in the Article on
the Declaration of Principles. Hence, the first sentence in the Article
on Social Justice, Section 1, “The State shall promote social justice in
all phases of national development,” will be deleted. Is it only the
first sentence or the whole section?

MR. DE CASTRO: Mr. Presiding Officer.

FR. BERNAS: May I hear again what the
Commissioner read.

MS. NIEVA: In the Article on the
Declaration of Principles, the proposed provision says: “The State shall
intensify efforts to promote social justice in ALL PHASES of
development.” In the Social Justice Article, Section 1 starts with this
statement: “The State shall promote social justice in all phases of
national development.” Do I understand that this first sentence will now
be deleted since this now appears here in the Article on the
Declaration of Principles?

FR. BERNAS: I do not like to use the word
“deleted.” I think the Commissioner is rejecting it.

MS. NIEVA: So it would be transposed.

FR. BERNAS: It would just be transposed.

MS. NIEVA: But would that refer only to
the first sentence?

FR. BERNAS: Yes, to the first sentence.

MS. NIEVA: So the rest will remain. The
section now starts with “In the pursuit of social justice . . .”

FR. BERNAS: Yes. If we delete the first
sentence, then the second sentence will read: “In the pursuit of social
justice . . .”

MS. NIEVA: Now I understand. I thought we
have deleted the whole section.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): May
I just clarify this for the committee. The suggestion of Commissioner
Bernas is that the first sentence of Section 1 of the Article on Social
Justice which reads: “The State shall promote social justice in all
phases of national development” will be transposed to Section 8 of the
Article on the Declaration of Principles. The second sentence thereof
and Section 2 will remain with the Social Justice Article with slight
modification. Is that correct, Commissioner Bernas?

FR. BERNAS: Yes, exactly.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
What does the committee say?

MR. TINGSON: Inasmuch as the chairman of
the Social Justice Committee obviously and willingly acceded to that
suggestion, we would favor it, Mr. Presiding Officer. In fact, we like
it that way. So the committee accepts the Bernas suggestion.

MR. PADILLA: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The
honorable Vice-President is recognized.

MR. PADILLA: My observation is that the
different articles or provisions in the Constitution need not
necessarily be restated or be a part of the Article on the Declaration
of Principles. In fact, I would like to have a distinction between
principles and policies.

If we want to consider social justice as
part of the Article on the Declaration of Principles, why do we not just
adopt the provision in Section 5 of the 1935 Constitution which reads:

The promotion of social justice to
ensure the well-being and economic security of all the people should be
the concern of the State.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
What does the committee say?

MR. TINGSON: Mr. Presiding Officer, some
Members would like Commissioner Padilla to read it once more.

MR. PADILLA: Section 5, Article II on the
Declaration of Principles in the 1935 Constitution reads:

The promotion of social justice to ensure
the well-being and economic security of all the people should be the
concern of the State.

Perhaps with this we would be avoiding
the repetition of the phrase “The State shall.”

MR. TINGSON: The committee accepts that
good suggestion. The wording is good and then, secondly, there would be a
bridge somehow also between the 1935 Constitution to the work that we
are now framing.

MS. NIEVA: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Commissioner Nieva is recognized.

MS. NIEVA: The 1935 Constitution just
ensures the well-being and economic security. The 1973 Constitution goes
a bit further. It ensures the dignity, the welfare and security of all
the people. So that phrase “well-being and economic security” is the
1935 Constitution wording and I think the word “dignity” is very
important which may not be envisioned or embraced by the phrase
“well-being and economic security.”

MR. TINGSON: Mr. Presiding Officer, the
committee suggests to Commissioner Nieva to amend Commissioner Padilla’s
amendment, if she so desires.

MS. NIEVA: Yes. If Commissioner Padilla
would like to start with the phrase “The promotion of social justice,”
to avoid the repetition of the phrase “the State shall,” it will be all
right. The proposed amendment then will read: “THE PROMOTION OF SOCIAL
JUSTICE TO ENSURE THE DIGNITY, WELFARE AND SECURITY OF ALL THE PEOPLE
SHOULD BE THE CONCERN OF THE STATE.”

FR. BERNAS: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Commissioner Bernas, shall we finish this issue first?

Commissioner Padilla is recognized.

MR. PADILLA: The phrase, “to ensure the
well-being and economic security of all the people” in the 1935
Constitution is even better than the phrase used in the 1973
Constitution which says: “The State shall promote social justice to
ensure the dignity, welfare and security of all the people.” The phrase
“the well-being” is even more specific and clearer than the phrase
“dignity and welfare.”

After all, in Section 7, I believe that
the dignity of man is already mentioned there.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): To
abbreviate the proceedings, the Chair recommends that all the
suggestions of Vice-President Padilla and Commissioner Nieva be
submitted to the committee so that the committee can make a definitive
statement on this. In the meantime, the Chair recognizes Commissioner
Bernas on his original proposal.

FR. BERNAS: I would like to go back to my
original proposal because I think that the Article on Social Justice
which we approved earlier goes beyond the 1935 and the 1973
Constitutions. The 1935 Constitution’s concern was mainly economic
prosperity and the 1973 Constitution became a little bit more explicit
about that. But when we come to the Article on Social Justice in our
provision now, we go not just into socioeconomic matters also but into
sociopolitical matters and we even touch on cultural inequities. So,
this is a development beyond the 1935 Constitution. Hence, I do not see
why we should allow ourselves to be nailed to the 1935 Constitution when
we have liberated ourselves already from that rather limited concept of
social justice. So I would like to go back to my original proposal,
that we start with a very general statement on social justice: “The
State shall promote social justice in all phases of national
development.” Then when we come to the Article on Social Justice, we try
to explain what we mean by this phrase “all phases of national
development” which includes socioeconomic, sociopolitical and cultural
development. I just want to emphasize the fact that we have transcended
the 1935 Constitution and that we do not allow ourselves to be nailed to
that.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Will the committee please take serious note of the reasons of
Commissioner Bernas so that the committee can resolve this.

Commissioner Padilla is recognized.

MR. PADILLA: Mr. Presiding Officer, the
various provisions under the Article on Social Justice, will still
remain under this proposal. It does not mean the deletion of the entire
Article on Social Justice. All those other provisions will remain. It is
true that in the 1935 Constitution there is only one section for the
Declaration of Principles. In the 1973 Constitution, there is also one
section for the Declaration of Principles but expressed in two
sentences. The second sentence in the 1973 Constitution is what
Commissioner Bernas says is the expansion. But those are already
provided for in the Article on Social Justice. So, I believe that
adopting the one-section provision in the Declaration of Principles in
the 1935 Constitution and retaining the many articles and sections on
the title of the Article on Social Justice would be very good provisions
in our 1986 Constitution.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Does Commissioner Bernas want to respond? Will Commissioner Davide wait
for just a moment so that we can finish his interpellations.

Commissioner Bernas is recognized.

FR. BERNAS: Yes. The whole point I am
trying to say is that the formulation in the 1935 Constitution is a very
limited concept. It is limited to economic social justice. It says:
“The well-being and economic security of all the people.” If we look at
the jurisprudence of the 1935 Constitution, we will see that the whole
jurisprudence in this is along socioeconomic lines. It does not contain
in seed what we have put into our new draft Constitution. It is an
inadequate expression of what we are now trying to achieve.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Commissioner Rosario Braid, member of the committee, is recognized.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Yes, we would like to
stay with our original proposal. Therefore, we will not delete the
opening phrase in the Article on Social Justice anymore. We would like
the Commission to vote on this, if necessary.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Before the Chair recognizes Commissioner Davide, there are now two
proposals on stream, subject to the committee’s decision.

The Chair will now recognize Commissioner
Davide.

MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer, I was
about to raise a point of order. I understand that the committee had
already accepted the Bernas proposal, which to me is really very
logical. It is just a matter of transporting the first sentence of the
Article on Social Justice to the Article on Declaration of Principles
and, precisely, to the very section that we are discussing now.

We have approved that particular Section 1
of the Article on Social Justice. So, if we have to vote on the
transportation of the first sentence to the Declaration of Principles,
that would be consistent with the original stand of the Commission. We
should not insert in it any provision of the 1935 Constitution nor of
the 1973 Constitution, because it will destroy the very essence of the
Article on Social Justice.

So, I will call for the previous
question; that is, the acceptance of the Bernas proposal.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The
Chair takes the statement of Commissioner Davide as an additional
argument for the proposal of Commissioner Bernas. The Chair will not
rule on the point of order. The difficulty here as far as the Chair is
concerned is that the committee believes that both proposals are good.
That is the problem.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: No.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): So,
if the committee will want a two-minute recess so that they can decide
for themselves what proposal is good out of the two, which are both
good, then the Chair will entertain a suspension of the session.

MR. TINGSON: Mr. Presiding Officer, that
is exactly what we want to say.

Thank you very much.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The
session is suspended.

It was 12:02 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 12:07 p.m., the session was
resumed.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The
session is resumed.

The Floor Leader is recognized.

MR. RAMA: I ask that Commissioner
Tingson, the chairman of the committee, be recognized.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Commissioner Tingson is recognized.

MR. TINGSON: Mr. Presiding Officer, our
committee was under the understanding that we were mandated, so to
speak, to just move the first sentence in the committee report regarding
the Article on Social Justice to the Article on Declaration of
Principles. Therefore, Section 8 will now read: “THE STATE SHALL PROMOTE
SOCIAL JUSTICE IN ALL PHASES OF NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT.” That is word for
word lifted from the Article on Social Justice to the Article on
Declaration of Principles.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): Is
there any objection to the adoption of the words: “THE STATE SHALL
PROMOTE SOCIAL JUSTICE IN ALL PHASES OF NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT,” to be
Section 8 in the Declaration of Principles?

MR. PADILLA: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The
honorable Vice-President, Commissioner Padilla, is recognized.

MR. PADILLA: That transposition from the
Article on Social Justice to the Article on Declaration of Principles is
the amendment of Commissioner Bernas. I have a proposed amendment to
that amendment by adopting Section 5, Article II of the 1935
Constitution which reads: “THE PROMOTION OF SOCIAL JUSTICE TO ENSURE THE
WELL-BEING AND ECONOMIC SECURITY OF ALL THE PEOPLE SHOULD BE THE
CONCERN OF THE STATE.”

FR. BERNAS: Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. PADILLA: The first sentence in the
Article on Social Justice does not have to be deleted nor transferred.
It can remain in the Article on Social Justice. But for the Article on
the Declaration of Principles, my proposed amendment to the amendment is
the adoption of Section 5, Article II of the 1935 Constitution.

FR. BERNAS: Mr. Presiding Officer.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. PADILLA: If that is not acceptable to
Commissioner Bernas, then I would ask that my amendment to his
amendment be voted upon.

MR. DE CASTRO: Parliamentary inquiry, Mr.
Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Just a moment, Commissioner de Castro. There were two proposals
presented before the committee. The committee decided to adopt the
proposal of Commissioner Bernas. The Chair would just like to specify
that what we are going to vote on in Section 8 is not the transposition,
but the wordings which read: “THE STATE SHALL PROMOTE SOCIAL JUSTICE IN
ALL PHASES OF NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT.”

The Chair will take care later on on how
to deal with this precise Article on Social Justice. That would be for
later. So the situation now is that there is an objection from
Commissioner Padilla regarding the formulation of Section 8 by the
committee which reads: “The State shall promote social justice in all
phases of national development.” Mr. Floor Leader, are we ready for a
vote?

MR. DE CASTRO: Parliamentary inquiry,
please.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): Let
us take care of the parliamentary inquiry first of Commissioner de
Castro.

MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you, Mr. Presiding
Officer.

I am not used to parliamentary rules but I
am only reading Sections 27 and 28 of our Rules. The Article on Social
Justice has been approved on Second Reading. It is ready for Third
Reading. Can it still be the subject of a debate and transposition in
the light of the third sentence of Section 28 which reads: “No further
debate nor amendment shall be made on the resolution on its Third
Reading?” This article is now scheduled for Third Reading since it is
already approved on Second Reading. My question is: Is it still allowed
by the Rules that debate on an article or a section which has been
approved on Second Reading be in order?

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The
Chair perfectly understands the parliamentary inquiry of Commissioner
de Castro. First of all, the Chair would like to say that it agrees with
Commissioner Bernas that we are not talking here of deletion. It is
only a transposition. The query of Commissioner de Castro is: Can
transposition and debate be properly done? That is the reason why the
Chair indicated earlier that we should first approve the provision in
Section 8, then the Chair will later on deal with how to approach the
problem on the deletion of that particular word because it will be, in
effect, transposed. And since there is a query, the Chair would like to
indicate that once we approve Section 8 of the Declaration of
Principles, the Chair will entertain a motion from any one of the
Members of the Commission to delete that particular portion in Section 1
of the Article on Social Justice and under the provisions of our Rules
there will be an instruction to the Committee on Sponsorship to delete
that particular provision. At any rate, it will not really be deleted
because it will only be transposed. I hope that satisfies Commissioner
de Castro.

MR. DE CASTRO: It satisfied me on one
point but it does not satisfy me on the second point. The first point is
transposition. It is all right. The second point is debate. We are
actually debating now on the transposition or the nontransposition and
the other sentences of Section 1 of the Article on Social Justice which
are connected with the first sentence. Are we allowed by the Reading?
The Rules states: “No further debate nor amendment shall be made on the
resolution on its Third Reading.” It is now on its Third Reading. Are we
still allowed to debate on it? That is my inquiry. As I said I am not
used to parliamentary rules.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): In
answer to Commissioner de Castro, the Chair would like to repeat what it
said. We are not deleting anything under the Article on Social Justice
which we are not putting into the Declaration of Principles. So, the
issue on whether we are going to debate on the substance of Section 1 is
not well taken because we are not going to debate on the substance of
Section 1. We are only going to transpose the first sentence thereof if
that will be approved by the body. I hope that satisfies Commissioner de
Castro so that we can proceed.

MR. DE CASTRO: Thank you.

In time, I will also object to certain
words that will be made on the second sentence of Section 1 of the
Article on Social Justice.

Thank you, Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. NOLLEDO: Mr. Presiding Officer, this
is in response from the committee on the Padilla amendment.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Commissioner Nolledo is recognized.

MR. NOLLEDO: Thank you.

If we adopt the Padilla amendment we will
be adopting a provision that has a restrictive meaning, compared with
the approved sentence of Section 1 of the Article on Social Justice. The
provision in the Declaration of Principles should reflect what is
contained in the Article on Social Justice.

As correctly pointed out by Commissioner
Bernas, we talk of the promotion of social justice in all phases of
development in Section 1 of the Article on Social Justice. Therefore,
this is broader in scope compared with merely social well-being and
economic security mentioned in the 1935 Constitution. So there will be
no symmetry, Mr. Presiding Officer.

I know when we talk of social well-being,
social aspects and economic security, we also talk of economic aspects.
But we talk of social justice, as indicated by Commissioner Rosario
Braid, in many respects, not only on the economic and social aspects. So
I think that the Bernas amendment is truly in order.

Thank you.

FR. BERNAS: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Commissioner Bernas is recognized.

FR. BERNAS: I do not accept the amendment
to my amendment, and I ask for a vote.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: Yes.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Before we take a vote, does the honorable Vice-President have anything
to add to what he already said?

MR. PADILLA: I was just going to say, Mr.
Presiding Officer, that if my amendment to the amendment is adopted,
this first sentence in Section 1 of the Article on Social Justice will
still remain. I believe that as a principle, the well-being and economic
security of all the people is the essence of the concept of promotion
of social justice.

When we say “in all phases of national
development” in the Article on Social Justice, and then there are many
other provisions on labor, etc., then that is in accordance with and not
in disregard of the well-being and economic security of the people.

MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. PADILLA: So as Commissioner Bernas
has not accepted my amendment to his amendment, then it is correct to
say that we vote first on my proposed amendment, and; that is, without
changing the provisions on the Article on Social Justice, we adopt as
Section 8 in the Declaration of Principles, Section 5, Article II of the
1935 Constitution which reads: “The promotion of social justice to
insure the well-being and economic security of all the people should be
the concern of the State.”

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The
Chair will clarify the situation before the voting. In the meantime,
Commissioner Davide is recognized.

MR. DAVIDE: Mr. Presiding Officer, with
all due respect to the Vice-President, I would raise a point of order
insofar as the Padilla amendment is concerned. The proposal would, in
effect, reopen the Article on Social Justice which we had already voted
on Third Reading. It is at this point that I would say that the position
taken by Commissioner de Castro was correct: we have laid to rest the
Article on Social Justice and, therefore, it cannot be reopened directly
or indirectly even by way of a declaration of principles because there
is indeed a whale of a difference between the concept of social justice
which this Commission had adopted and the concept of social justice as
embodied in the 1935 Constitution or even in the 1973 Constitution.

So, even if it is submitted as a
reformulation to the original wording of the committee on Section 8,
that would amount to a reopening of the Article on Social Justice. But
we have the Bernas proposal which is merely to transpose or to transfer
the first sentence of the first section on Social Justice to the
Declaration of Principles, which is proper and logical at this time.

MR. PADILLA: Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Before hearing from Commissioner Padilla, the Chair would like to
dispose of the point of order raised.

The Chair would consider the statements
of Commissioner Davide as statements in support of the proposal of
Commissioner Bernas. The Chair will not rule on that particular point of
order considering that that is only a point of information.

The honorable Vice-President,
Commissioner Padilla, is recognized.

MR. PADILLA: The statements just made by
Commissioner Davide are based on two-fold assumptions. First, that it is
a reopening.

I am not changing any of the provisions
on the Article on Social Justice. How can it be a reopening?

The second assumption is that Section 5
of the 1973 Constitution is not in accordance with or is violative of
the Article on Social Justice, as approved. There is no opposition and
there is no inconsistency. On the contrary, I believe that the phrase
“well-being and economic security of all the people” is clearer and
better than the very vague statement of the phrase “IN ALL PHASES OF
NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT.”

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The
honorable Vice-President has indicated that several times already.

MR. PADILLA: So, I am willing to submit
it to a vote.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): One
of the committee members, Commissioner Rosario Braid, is recognized.

MS. ROSARIO BRAID: With due regard to
Vice-President Padilla’s representation, we disagree with his stand that
the provisions of the 1935 Constitution support the social justice
provisions of our present article.

First, the 1935 Constitution is not only
economic; but it does not also imply the full participation, the full
partnership of beneficiaries of development, the people with those who
plan development. In other words, what we want to connote here is the
concept of partnership and participation, and the dignity of every
member of all sectors, and this is not contained in the 1935
Constitution very clearly.

The term “well-being” could support the
old model of development of people being the passive receivers of
development under a system of patronage. This is really what it
connotes; it does not involve the concept of participation.

We can have the state of well-being of
economy without being involved in the process of development. That is
why we do not support the inclusion of the provision of the 1935
Constitution.

MR. PADILLA: The 1935 Constitution says
“all the people.” So it is the participation of all; it is not mere
grants or mere concessions. It is all the people, and the well-being of
all.

The Article on Social Justice enumerates
or specifies, but it does not mean that the well-being and economic
security of all the people is contrary to the concept and the specifics
in the Article on Social Justice.

What this Commission or the committee did
is to expand or specify different subheadings. In other words, instead
of having one section under the 1935 Constitution, we now have 16
sections. My proposal does not change nor reconsider nor go against any
of these specifics on sixteen articles. So, the Article on Social
Justice as approved on Second Reading remains intact. What I am saying
is that there is no inconsistency, much less conflict between the
concept of social justice in the 1935 Constitution and the same concept
as specified with details in the Article on Social Justice.

REV. RIGOS: Mr. Presiding Officer.

MR. TINGSON: Let us vote, Mr. Presiding
Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
Commissioner Rigos is recognized.

REV. RIGOS: I would like to support the
motion of Commissioner Padilla. It really does not in any way reopen our
Article on Social Justice already approved on Second Reading.

The 1935 formulation is not an obsolete
formulation, as far as declaration of principles on Social Justice is
concerned. So, I agree that we vote on that and settle the matter once
and for all.

VOTING

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): The
Chair would like to ask the committee to take note of the statement of
Commissioner Rigos in support of the position of Commissioner Padilla.

The Chair will now act on the motion of
the Floor Leader for a vote. But before we do that, let us clarify the
situation.

The original committee formulation in
Section 8 is no longer with us. That is out of the picture. What we have
now is the formulation of the committee which reads in one sentence:
“THE STATE SHALL PROMOTE SOCIAL JUSTICE IN ALL PHASES OF NATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT.”

There is a motion by the honorable
Vice-President to substitute this with the provision on social justice
in the 1935 Constitution. Therefore, we have to vote first on the motion
of the honorable Vice-President for a substitution of the formulation
of the committee.

In other words, if we are in favor of the
amendment by substitution of the honorable Vice-President, Commissioner
Padilla, we will vote “yes.”

So, the Chair will now put it to a vote.

As many as are in favor of the amendment
by substitution of the honorable Vice-President, please raise their
hand. (Few Members raised their hand.)

As many as are against, please raise
their hand. (Several Members raised their hand.)

The results show 14 votes in favor of the
amendment by substitution of Commissioner Padilla and 17 against; the
amendment is lost.

Are we now ready to put to a vote the
single sentence formulation on Section 8, which reads: “THE STATE SHALL
PROMOTE SOCIAL JUSTICE IN ALL PHASES OF NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT”?

MR. RAMA: Yes, Mr. Presiding Officer.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong): Is
there any objection to this formulation of the committee on Section 8? (Silence)
There being no objection, this particular Section 8 is approved.

The Floor Leader is recognized.

ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION

MR. RAMA: Mr. Presiding Officer, I move
that we adjourn the session until Monday at nine-thirty in the morning.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Maambong):
There is a motion to adjourn.

Is there any objection? (Silence) The
Chair hears none; the motion is approved.

The session is adjourned on Monday at
nine-thirty in the morning.

It was 12:29 p.m.

---

^* Appeared after
the roll call.