JOURNAL NO. 96

Tuesday, September 30, 1986

CALL TO ORDER

At 10:05 a.m., the President of the Constitutional
Commission, the Honorable Cecilia Muñoz Palma, called the session to
order.

NATIONAL ANTHEM AND PRAYER

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

Almighty God, we have imposed on ourselves a
deadline to complete our job at the very latest by the fifteenth of
October, two short weeks away. During the last four months, we
accomplished much, enough for us to believe that the unfinished portion
of our task can be completed within the next two weeks.

Grant us, Almighty God, the strength and the
sagacity to enable us to keep our word to ourselves and to our people,
to the end that this fundamental law over which we have labored for a
third of a year shall be ready to be offered to our people so that they
may render judgment.

Be to us, O Lord, the Guide to rectitude so that
neither personal ambition nor partisan commitment nor ideological
scruples shall sway us away from the path of service to our people.

Finally, Almighty God, infuse each of us with the
grace of Your benediction and Your wisdom so that whatever else we each
may be, we shall be one with our people, who are the only reason for our
being here at all.

Through Jesus Christ, we pray.

Amen.

BIRTHDAY GREETINGS TO MS. FELICITAS S. AQUINO

At this juncture, the Members of the Commission greeted Ms. Felicitas S. Aquino with a song on the occasion of her birthday.

ROLL CALL

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

 

With 31 Members present, the Chair declared the presence of a quorum.

The following Members appeared after the Roll Call:

A.M.

 

Mr. Laurel was absent.

Mr. Rosales was sick.

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

READING AND APPROVAL OF THE JOURNAL

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

REFERENCE OF BUSINESS

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

REFERRAL TO COMMITTEES OF COMMUNICATIONS

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

Communication No. 1025 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from a concerned citizen of Bauko, Bontoc,
Mountain Province, suggesting, among others, that the Philippine flag be
hoisted over the U.S military and naval bases in the Philippines, and
that the U.S. aid should be called rentals of the bases

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

Communication No. 1026 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Ms. Amelia D. Ortega of Caloocan
Industrial Subdivision, Gen. Luis St., Kaybiga, Caloocan, Metro Manila,
expressing her views on “foreign ownership of industrial lands,” saying
that foreign investors should be treated as partners in business and
allowed to own property on which to build their factories

TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY

Communication No. 1027 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Mr. Procopio M. Devera, President of the
Small Landowners Association of Dingle, Iloilo, transmitting Resolution
No. 86-1 of said association, seeking the repeal of Presidential Decree
No. 27, known as Agrarian Reform Law, so that all lands covered by
certificates of land transfer containing an area of more than seven
hectares but not exceeding one hundred hectares be returned to the
original owners

TO THE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL JUSTICE

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

On motion of Mr. Rama, there being no objection, the
Body resumed consideration, on Second Reading, of Proposed Resolution
No. 531 (Committee Report No. 31), entitled:

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

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

Mr. Rama stated that when the previous session was
adjourned, Mr. de Castro was proposing the provisions on the Armed
Forces of the Philippines.

The Chair recognized Mr. de Castro.

MANIFESTATION OF MR. DE CASTRO

Mr. de Castro stated that the proposed Sections on
the Armed Forces of the Philippines, copies of which were distributed to
the Members of the Commission, were the consolidation of Sections 17,
18, 19, 20 and 21 of the original Committee Report.

He pointed out, however, that the Committee on
General Provisions had approved the consolidated report and considered
the same as part of the Committee Report.

PROPOSED SECTIONS 17 AND 18

Thereupon, Mr. de Castro proposed the new Sections 17 and 18, which read:

SECTION 17. THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES
SHALL BE A CITIZEN ARMED FORCE COMPOSED OF ABLE-BODIED CITIZENS WHO
SHALL UNDERGO MILITARY TRAINING AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW. IT SHALL KEEP
A REGULAR FORCE NECESSARY FOR THE SECURITY OF THE STATE.

SECTION 18. A. ALL OFFICERS AND MEN OF THE ARMED
FORCES SHALL TAKE A SOLEMN OATH TO DEFEND AND UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION.
IT SHALL PROTECT THE COUNTRY AND THE PEOPLE, AND YIELD NO LOYALTY TO ANY
PERSON BUT TO THE STATE.

B. THE CITIZEN ARMED FORCE MAY BE EMPLOYED FOR THE INTERNAL SECURITY OF THE STATE AS MAY BE PROVIDED FOR BY LAW.

C. PROFESSIONALISM IN THE MILITARY SHALL BE THE
PRIME CONCERN OF THE STATE. IT SHALL BE INSULATED FROM THE INFLUENCE OF
PARTISAN POLITICS AND NO MEMBER OF THE MILITARY SHALL ENGAGE DIRECTLY OR
INDIRECTLY IN ANY POLITICAL ACTIVITY, EXCEPT TO REGISTER AND VOTE.

D. THE PROVISIONS OF EXISTING LAWS ON RETIREMENT OF MILITARY OFFICERS SHALL BE STRICTLY ADHERED TO.

E. THE TOUR OF DUTY OF THE CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE
ARMED FORCES SHALL BE FOR THREE (3) YEARS, SUBJECT TO EXTENSION ONLY
DURING NATIONAL EMERGENCY.

He explained that Section 17 refers to the concept
that the Armed Forces is a citizen armed force and a regular force
envisioned in Commonwealth Act No. 1, known as the National Defense Act;
while Section 18 refers to particular duties of the armed Forces,
namely to protect the country and people, and to yield no loyalty to any
person but to the State.

He pointed out that Section 18(b) provides for the
employment of the citizen armed force for internal security as may be
provided by law, which was practiced under the “Kamagong concept”
whereby trainees were called to active duty for about sixteen months in
preparation for the campaign against insurgency. He disclosed that
although the campaign had been effective, the trainees thereafter
preferred to stay in the Armed Forces. In view thereof, he urged that
the State support said trainees after their active duty.

On Section 18(c), he underscored that
professionalism in the Armed Forces is necessary in order to avoid human
rights violations. He stated that the Armed Forces should also be
insulated from political influence which destroys professionalism.

On Section 18(d), he stated that extension of the
service of retirable senior officers caused demoralization among the
junior officers who had slim chance of promotion. He, however, expressed
appreciation for the decision of President Aquino to retire overstaying
generals, although he expressed hope that all other retiring generals
would soon be retired.

He also opined that the tour of duty of the Chief of
Staff should be provided in the Constitution in view of the past
experience when Chiefs of Staff stayed in such capacity for more than
ten or fifteen years, which stay demoralized the members of the Armed
Forces.

RESERVATION OF MR. MAAMBONG

At this juncture, Mr. Maambong stated that he had
already indicated to the Committee his reservation on the formulation of
the proposed Section 17.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. SARMIENTO

Thereafter, Mr. Sarmiento proposed the following flagship provision on the Armed Forces of the Philippines:

THE STATE SHALL ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN AN INDEPENDENT AND SELF-RELIANT ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES.

He explained that the Armed Forces of the
Philippines (AFP) is a vital component of Filipino society, but it will
either be a protector of the people or supporter of a tyrant depending
on their training and orientation. He pointed out that the Armed Forces
had never been independent and self-reliant and that it had been
substantially dependent upon a foreign power. He recalled that in 1968,
Congressman Barbero revealed that the United States Unilaterally
determined the types and quantity of arms and equipment and time of
their delivery to the Armed Forces of the Philippines.

Adverting to an article entitled “Militarization of
the Philippines” written by a U.P. professor, Mr. Sarmiento stated that
the article revealed that during the height of activism in the early
1970s, the US military advisers, through the Internal Security Program
helped train paramilitary and police forces to quell urban strikes and
demonstrations and that the United States likewise provided advance
military training for some 14,000 AFP officers and men in U.S. military
schools before the martial law days.

He said that the article also revealed that in 1976,
the Philippines ranked fifth among the countries receiving military aid
from the United States, third among 17 countries extended military
assistance program; and seventh among 43 countries given
counterinsurgency related training.

He also disclosed that a study conducted by General
Hermilo N. Ahorro, former Deputy Director of the PC-INP, showed that the
Philippines relied heavily on U.S. military assistance.

In reply, Mr. de Castro pointed out that, as stated
in his speech on September 12, 1986 on the self-reliance policy of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines in relation to the U.S. military bases,
because of its very limited resources, the Philippines could only
manufacture small arms and ammunitions. He underscored that considering
the budget constraints coupled with the growing insurgency problem, it
would be difficult to have a self-reliant armed forces at this time.

He explained, however, that military assistance does
not mean control by the U.S. Government, but compliance with the Mutual
Defense Treaty under which the United States has the responsibility of
furnishing the Philippines with necessary military hardware. He further
stated that Philippine Government actually signed three treaties
involving military relations, namely, the RP-US Military Bases
Agreement, the Mutual Defense Treaty and the Military Assistance
Program.

He stated that the training of military officers in
U.S. military schools is part of the Military Assistance Program, but it
does not mean subservience to the United States or to other countries,
which train Filipino military officers. He explained that it is in this
same manner that foreign military officers are trained in the Command
and General Staff College and in the National Defense College, both in
Fort Bonifacio.

Thereupon, Mr. de Castro manifested that the
Committee could not accept Mr. Sarmiento’s proposed amendment on the
ground that independence and self-reliance are not attainable under
present conditions.

REMARKS OF MR. GARCIA

Mr. Garcia observed that there had been some
selective deletion with respect to the subsections on the Armed Forces
of the Philippines. In view thereof, he asked that the Body adopt the
original draft on the ground that the revised version delimits five
critical areas, namely: 1) the original Section 17 containing the idea
that the AFP belongs to the people and is tasked to preserve the
sovereignty and territorial integrity of the nation and the idea that
the State strengthens patriotic and national consciousness in performing
their sacred duty to the nation and people; 2) the concept in Section
19(a) pertaining to the AFP’s loyalty to the people and its members’
obedience to laws; 3) Section 20(b) which originally contained the idea
that the soldiers’ interest will be taken at heart through periodic
review of their salaries and allowances so that they could live in
dignity as men in uniform; 4) the original first sentence of Section 21
which contained the idea that the military is an impartial guardian and
protector of the Constitution; and 5) Section 22 which originally
contained the concept of a police force which shall be both national and
civilian in character. He then appealed to the Body to adopt the
original draft of the provisions which are more comprehensive and
encompassing.

REMARKS OF MR. SARMIENTO

In response thereto, Mr. Sarmiento stated that the
thrust of his amendment is to make the AFP independent from foreign
intervention. He observed that the country’s armed forces cannot
purchase its requirements from sources outside the U.S. without prior
approval of the U.S. Government. He stressed the need to make the
military independent from this intervention under existing military
agreements.

OBJECTION OF MR. RODRIGO

Mr. Rodrigo manifested his objection to the proposal
on the grounds that 1) while almost every country in the world has a
military alliance with other countries, because of the country’s
military alliance with the U.S., it is able to procure military hardware
and at the same time maintain the lowest military budget among ASEAN
countries, except for Brunei; and 2) during the discussions on the
Article on Education it was decided that the State should provide free
elementary and secondary education by reducing the military
appropriation while the proposal seeks to have an independent and
self-reliant armed forces, an objective which could not be achieved
unless the military’s budget is doubled or trebled.

INQUIRY OF MR. SUAREZ

Mr. Sarmiento agreed with Mr. Suarez’ observation
that a self-reliant Armed Forces means that the army would be built
without foreign intervention or assistance.

On whether this also means being independent of
external assistance, Mr. Sarmiento clarified that he is not advocating
absolute and complete freedom from assistance. He stressed that the
country could still avail of foreign military assistance aside from
using its own resources but its military organization must be free from
external dictation and control. He added that self-reliance and freedom
from external control also means that the military could procure arms
from other countries, not necessarily the U.S., and do away with
military organizations such as the Joint United States Military
Assistance Group (JUSMAG which dictates upon the country’s armed forces a
matters relative to training and procurement of arms from the U.S.

Responding thereto, Mr. de Castro pointed out that
JUSMAG does not in any way interfere in the operation, management and
formulation of policies of the country’s armed forces. He also pointed
out that the country’s military hardware are basically made in the U.S.
and although it could procure arms from other countries, this could only
result in confusion and waste of funds because arms made by different
countries need different spare parts, ammunition, maintenance and
repair.

REMARKS OF MR. MAAMBONG

At this juncture, Mr. Maambong opined that the word
“independent” in the proposal may be subject to misinterpretation
because it has to be interpreted within the context of other provisions
in the Constitution. He added that Mr. Sarmiento’s interpretation of
“independent” as being independent from external control may not be
enforced against other countries because the Constitution is merely a
municipal law. He also pointed out that “independent” may be construed
to mean in the context of independent Constitutional Commissions, and
“self-reliant” could also be given many interpretations which could lead
to confusion.

OBJECTION OF MR. MONSOD

Mr. Monsod likewise manifested his objection to the
proposal because “independent and self-reliant military” may be
interpreted to mean that the present military organization is not
independent and that the Body does not trust it. He added that there are
also other Sections in the Constitution which clearly state that the
armed forces should be the protector of the people.

REMARKS OF MR. OPLE

Thereupon, Mr. Ople concurred with the observations
of Messrs. Maambong and Monsod that the word “independent” is
susceptible to ambiguous interpretations. He pointed out that the
reality of the present situation is that the military is not independent
from civilian authority and that the AFP is merely an instrument of
national policy as determined by the civilian government. He also stated
the one of the substantive demands made by the National Democratic
Front (NDF) is the reorganization and reorientation of the armed forces
as well as the resignation of Messrs. Enrile and Ramos. He opined that
it is within this political context that the Body discussing Section 17
and that he could not support the proposed amendment because it could be
construed as advocating a reorientation and reorganization of the AFP
in response to demands which are not acceptable to the AFP and to the
legitimate political authority.

Thereafter, Mr. Sarmiento restated his proposal to reword Section 17 as follows:

SECTION 17. THE STATE SHALL ESTABLISH AND MAINTAIN AN INDEPENDENT AND SELF-RELIANT ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES.

Submitted to a vote, and with 13 Members voting in favor and 23 against, the amendment was lost.

Thereupon, Mr. Garcia suggested that the Body
consider the original Section 17 rather than the reformulated version
proposed by Mr. de Castro.

RESTATEMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY SITUATION

At this juncture, Mr. Maambong, explaining the
parliamentary situation, stated that the original Committee proposal, as
reformulated by Mr. de Castro, was accepted by the Committee. He then
urged that, instead of the original Committee proposal, the Members
present amendments to the reformulated version in order to have a more
expeditious proceedings.

PROPOSAL OF MR. TREÑAS

Mr. Treñas proposed consideration of original the version of Section 17 instead of the reformulation.

Mr. de Castro did not accept Mr. Treñas’ proposal

SUGGESTION OF MR. BERNAS

Thereafter, Mr. Treñas agreed to Mr. Bernas’
suggestion to make the original version of Section 17 merely as the
first paragraph thereof and not as a substitute section.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

At this juncture, the Chair suspended the session.

It was 11:01 a.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 11:23 a. m., the session was resumed.

Upon resumption of session, Mr. de Castro informed
that the Committee could not accept the proposal of Messrs. Garcia and
Treñas to revert to the original formulation as these are covered by
Sections 17 and 18. He pointed out that Section 17 states what the Armed
Forces is while Section 18 explains the tasks of the Armed Forces.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. TREÑAS

In view of the Committee’s explanation of the thrust
of the formulation, Mr. Treñas proposed to delete the phrase “composed
of able-bodied citizens” in Section 17 stating that it can be presumed
that the Armed Forces shall be composed of able-bodied citizens.

The Committee accepted the proposed amendment with
the modification proposed by Mr. de Castro changing the word “who” to
WHICH so that the sentence would partly read: “The Armed Forces of the
Philippines shall be a citizen armed force WHICH shall undergo . . .”

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. OPLE

Mr. Ople observed that a number of Members would
like to introduce a philosophy in Section 17 so that it can be a
flagship Section to include the significant features contained in the
original Section 17. Thereupon, he proposed the following amendment as
the first sentence of the Section, to wit:

THE PURPOSE OF A MILITARY ESTABLISHMENT IS TO SECURE
THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE PEOPLE AND THE INTEGRITY OF THE NATIONAL
TERRITORY AND TO SERVE THE GENERAL WELFARE.

Mr. de Castro inquired whether Mr. Ople would, agree to Section 18(a) as the flagship provision.

Replying thereto, Mr. Ople noted that Section 18
partly meets his desire, although he would move for the deletion of the
second sentence thereof if his amendment were approved. He maintained
that to defend and uphold the Constitution is sufficient.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

Upon request of Mr. de Castro, the Chair suspended the session.

It was 11:29 a.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 11:44 a.m., the session was resumed.

RESTATEMENT OF SECTION 17, AS AMENDED

Upon resumption of session, Mr. de Castro restated Section 17, as amended, to wit:

THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES IS THE PROTECTOR
OF THE PEOPLE AND THE STATE. ITS GOAL IS TO SECURE THE SOVEREIGNTY OF
THE STATE AND THE INTEGRITY OF THE NATIONAL TERRITORY. IT SHALL BE
COMPOSED OF A CITIZEN ARMED FORCE WHICH SHALL UNDERGO MILITARY TRAINING
AND SERVICE AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW.

Mr. de Castro manifested for the record that the
amended version of Section 17 was coauthored by Messrs. Monsod, Ople,
Maambong, Nolledo, Villacorta, Ms. Aquino and Messrs. Garcia and
Bengzon.

INQUIRIES OF MR. DAVIDE

Relative to the reserve force, Mr. Davide stated
that the 1973 Constitution provides that “It shall have a corps of
trained Officers and men in active duty status, as may be necessary, to
train, service and keep it in reasonable preparedness at all times.” He
noted, however, that the proposal seemed to have completely obliterated
this very important concept of the reserve force.

Replying thereto, Mr. de Castro stressed that
Section 17 would serve as the flagship provision for the Armed Forces.
He explained that the citizen armed force is actually composed of
trainees, specifically the ROTCs who are trained by a cadre of regular
officers and enlisted men. He opined that the 1973 Constitutional
provision referred to by Mr. Davide would not be necessary as it would
amount to stating in the Constitution how the training should be done.

On the contention that under the proposal, as
worded, the training would only relate to the regular force, Mr. de
Castro stated that it would not, explaining that the Armed Forces shall
be composed of the citizen armed force which shall undergo military
training and service as may be provided by law. He pointed out that this
is not exactly the reserve force but the citizen armed force.

As to who would be included in the regular force,
Mr. de Castro stated that the Armed Forces would keep a regular force,
not necessarily the citizen armed force, to take care of the security of
the State. He asked the Body to vote first on Section 17 before
considering Mr. Davide’s proposal to be placed in Section 18.

Mr. Davide suggested that the Body vote sentence by sentence.

INQUIRIES OF MR. OPLE

Mr. Ople suggested the term CITIZEN ARMY rather than
“citizen armed force” in order to give the readers of the Constitution a
more familiar and clearer meaning of the intent of Section 17.

He adverted to Switzerland as the original model of a
citizen army which was copied by the Israel army which, in turn, was
copied by the Singapore army. He stated that Switzerland, a nation of
5.5 million people, has a citizen army of 650,000 ready to mobilize
within 48 hours, yet only one and a half percent of it constitutes the
regular professional force of the Swiss army. He pointed out how one
could imagine, in the Swiss context, the composition of this citizen
army, considering that most of the Swiss people are bankers,
professionals and the like. It was for this reason, he stated, that
during World War II, Hitler spared Switzerland knowing fully well the
Swiss preparedness. In this regard, he inquired whether the citizen army
and the regular army referred to in Section 17 have as its model the
citizen armies of Switzerland, Israel and Singapore.

In reply, Mr. de Castro explained that,
historically, or from 1935, the country has only an army known as the
Philippine Constabulary and that there was no navy or air force at that
time. He stated that he was intrigued why the 1973 Constitution made
reference to a citizen army despite the fact that the country already
had the air force and navy.

Mr. Ople stated that the term “army” is being used
in the generic sense to mean the military establishment commonly known
as an army composed of the three armed forces, namely, the air, sea and
ground services.

Reacting thereto, Mr. de Castro insisted that the
Armed Forces should be called the citizen armed force consistent with
the concept embodied in the National Defense Act, which concept refers
to all citizens of the Philippines. He stated that it was only
incidental that in 1935 the Philippine Constabulary was the regular
force for maintaining peace and order so that it later became the
nucleus of the Philippine army. He stated that although the concept of a
citizen armed force existed, the government retained a regular army
because of the insurgency problem after the liberation. It was
unfortunate, he stated, that the citizen armed force could not be
provided the necessary training due to lack of funds although there were
small regular forces called the “Commandant and his staff” who were
assigned in universities to continue the ROTC training. He reiterated
that the concept of a citizen armed force was patterned after
Switzerland, although the members of the reserve force are not provided
the necessary military equipment.

On Mr. Ople’s final question, Mr. de Castro affirmed that all citizens of the country are members of the citizen armed force.

INQUIRIES OF MR. SARMIENTO

Mr. Sarmiento inquired as to what body or entity
shall determine the force necessary for the security of the State in the
light of Ms. Beth Day Romulo’s article published in the Manila Daily
Bulletin, a portion of which reads:

“The army was expanded threefold during the martial
law days under the guise of fighting the insurgency, while at the same
time making a little effort to curb it since it was being used as a
political ploy, both to justify the extension of martial law and to
support the demands for increased military aid to the Philippines. It
was to President Marcos’ interest for the insurgency to grow, or at
least go unchecked.”

From this article, Mr. Sarmiento noted that the
determination of the force necessary for the security of the State was
left entirely to the President.

Replying thereto, Mr. de Castro explained that in
order to contain insurgency, the normal ratio is 1:15 or 1:20 and which,
on the basis of about 20,000 NPAs, would require 400,000 soldiers. He
discloses that the present regular force is composed of 350,000 members
of which 150,000 belong to the Constabulary and the police force charged
with maintaining peace and order. He stated that, in effect, there are
only 200,000 soldiers for the fight against insurgency. He stated that
he would propose in Section 18(b) the use of the Citizen Armed Force for
the internal in security of the State, the reason being that it is more
se economically viable to maintain and that its members have better
knowledge of human rights.

On whether it is the intention to integrate the
reserve force into the army, Mr. de Castro explained that the concept
contemplates a small regular “cadre” to train new 20-year-old trainees
for a six-month period before their entrance to the reserve force.

On whether the reservists would be used for national
security purposes, including counterinsurgency drives, Mr. de Castro
affirmed that under Section 18(b), the citizen armed force would be
employed for internal security considering the lack of funds needed to
beef up the regular force.

SUGGESTION OF MR. DAVIDE

At this juncture, the Chair asked that the Body vote on Section 17.

Mr. Davide suggested that the voting be done by
sentence, however, Mr. de Castro requested only one voting on the first
two sentences which are related to each other.

APPROVAL OF THE FIRST TWO SENTENCES OF SECTION 17

Mr. de Castro restated the first two sentences, to wit:

THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES IS THE PROTECTOR
OF THE PEOPLE AND THE STATE. ITS GOAL IS TO SECURE THE SOVEREIGNTY OF
THE STATE AND THE INTEGRITY OF THE NATIONAL TERRITORY.

Thereupon, the first two sentences were submitted to
a vote with 31 Members voting in favor and none against. The Chair
declared the first two sentences of Section 17 approved by the Body.

APPROVAL OF THE THIRD SENTENCE OF SECTION 17

Mr. de Castro restated the third sentence of Section 17, to wit:

IT SHALL BE COMPOSED OF A CITIZEN ARMED FORCE WHICH SHALL UNDERGO MILITARY TRAINING AND SERVICE AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW.

Submitted to a vote, and with 24 Members voting in
favor, 3 against and 5 abstentions, the third sentence of Section 17 was
approved by the Body.

At this juncture, Mr. Sarmiento manifested that he abstained from voting.

APPROVAL OF THE FOURTH SENTENCE OF SECTION 17

Mr. de Castro restated the fourth sentence of Section 17, to wit:

IT SHALL KEEP A REGULAR FORCE NECESSARY FOR THE SECURITY OF THE STATE.

Submitted to a vote, and with 32 Members voting
favor, none against and 3 abstentions, the fourth sentence of Section 17
was approved by the Body.

APPROVAL OF SECTION 17, AS AMENDED

The Chair submitted the entire Section 17 to a vote,
and with 34 Members voting in favor, none against and 2 abstentions,
Section 17, as amended, was approved by the Body.

AMENDMENT OF MR. DE CASTRO

On Section 18(a), Mr. de Castro proposed the following amendment, to wit:

SECTION 18(a), ALL OFFICERS AND MEN OF THE ARMED
FORCES SHALL TAKE A SOLEMN OATH TO DEFEND AND UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION.
THEY SHALL YIELD NO LOYALTY TO ANY PERSON BUT TO THE STATE.

MR. DAVIDE’S AMENDMENTS TO THE AMENDMENT

Mr. Davide proposed to amend the amendment by
changing the words “officers and men” to MEMBERS; and by changing the
word “the” to THIS.

Mr. de Castro accepted the amendments.

MR. RAMA’S AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT

Mr. Rama proposed to amend the amendment by changing the word “yield” to RENDER.

Mr. de Castro, likewise, accepted the amendment.

INQUIRY OF MR. OPLE

In reply to Mr. Ople’s observation that the sentence
“They shall render no loyalty to any person but to the State” may be
misconstrued as a denial of loyalty to the President who is the
Commander-in-Chief, and who symbolize the State, Mr. de Castro stated
that since the President, as Commander-in-Chief, represents the State,
loyalty should be to the State.

MR. RAMA’S PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT

Mr. Rama proposed to amend the amendment by changing the words “the State” to THEM, meaning the country and people.

MR. MONSOD’S AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT

Mr. Monsod proposed to amend the amendment by
deleting the sentence “They shall render no loyalty to any person but to
the State” on the ground that the first sentence of Section 17 already
provides that the armed forces is the protector of the people and the
State and the first part of Section 18 talks about the oath to defend
and uphold the Constitution. Moreover, he stated that said sentence
reflects the disappointments over what happened during the regime of Mr.
Marcos and, therefore unnecessary.

Mr. de Castro accepted the amendment.

MR. PADILLA’S AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT

Mr. Padilla proposed to amend the amendment by
deleting the word “solemn” and changing the article “a” to AN, on the
ground that the word “solemn” is unnecessary. He also moved to transpose
the verbs “defend and uphold,” to read “uphold and defend”.

Mr. de Castro accepted the amendment.

MR. DAVIDE’S AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT

Mr. Davide proposed to amend the amendment by adding the words OR AFFIRMATION after “oath”.

Mr. de Castro accepted the amendment.

APPROVAL OF SECTION 18(a)

Mr. de Castro restated Section 18(a), as amended, to wit:

ALL MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES SHALL TAKE AN OATH OR AFFIRMATION TO UPHOLD AND DEFEND THIS CONSTITUTION.

Submitted to a vote, and with 37 Members voting in favor and none against, Section 18(a) was approved by the Body.

REMARKS OF MR. BENGZON

At this juncture, Mr. Bengzon invited attention to
the fact that the deletion of the second sentence which had been
accepted by the Committee was not placed on record. He then requested
that the Body vote on said amendment to determine whether there was any
objection to the deletion.

Thereupon, the Chair submitted the amendment to
delete the second sentence of Section 18(a) to a vote and, there being
no objection, the same was approved by the Body.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. DAVIDE

Mr. Davide proposed to delete the entire paragraph
(b) of Section 18 on the ground that it was already included in the
flagship provision on the role of the military.

Mr. de Castro rejected the amendment stating that
the intent of the provision is to use the reservists in the campaign
against insurgency on account of the fact that it is very expensive to
maintain a regular force.

Mr. Davide maintained, however, that the provision
is unnecessary because the law may require them to serve in the armed
forces anytime.

REMARKS OF MS. TAN

Ms. Tan registered her objection to Section 18(b) on
the ground that nobody could really ascertain who are the insurgents.
She also questioned the wisdom of giving the army vast powers which they
may use to eliminate brother Filipinos on insufficient grounds.

REMARKS OF MR. SARMIENTO

Mr. Sarmiento expressed support for Mr. Davide’s
amendment to delete the entire subparagraph (b) for the following
reasons, namely, 1) the country would be using people against their
sons, brothers, sisters and relatives; and 2) the Commission would be
sending to Congress and the Executive the wrong signal that the
insurgency problem requires a military solution only.

REMARKS OF MR. DE CASTRO

In response, Mr. de Castro stated that while
Filipinos may be fighting each other, the fight is for an ideology
against another ideology espoused by the insurgents. However, he
expressed the hope that the President would be successful in her
campaign for peace so that the country could reduce its armed forces,
which, otherwise, would be constrained to continue fighting the
insurgents. He likewise, underscored that the use of the citizen armed
force for the internal security of the State had already been tested
under the “Kamagong concept” as an effective way of suppressing
insurgency. He then reiterated his rejection of the amendment.

VOTING ON MR. DAVIDE’S AMENDMENT

The Chair submitted Mr. Davide’s amendment to a vote
and with 25 Members voting in favor, 3 against and 2 abstentions, the
amendment was approved by the Body.

Mr. de Castro remarked that the Commission wants communism in the country.

Mr. Ople suggested that Mr. de Castro’s statement be stricken off the record to maintain goodwill in the Commission.

RULING OF THE CHAIR

The Chair directed Mr. de Castro’s remark be stricken off the record.

However, Mr. de Castro chose to withdraw his statement, although, he maintained that there is communism in the country.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MS. AQUINO

Ms. Aquino proposed to substitute subsection (b) with the following:

THE STATE SHALL STRENGTHEN THE MILITARY’S PATRIOTIC
SPIRIT AND NATIONALISTIC CONSCIOUSNESS IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR
SACRED DUTY TO THE NATION AND THE PEOPLE.

MR. MONSOD’S AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT

Mr. Monsod proposed to amend the amendment by putting a period (.) after “duty” and deleting the rest of the, sentence.

Ms. Aquino accepted the amendment.

Mr. de Castro, however, rejected the amendment, as amended.

REMARKS OF MS. AQUINO

Explaining her proposal, Ms. Aquino stated that it
is a costly and tedious process to instill historical knowledge in the
minds of the officers and men of the army and, without meaning to offend
their sensibilities, that it would, in fact, be an Alpine climb to make
them appreciate the humanizing influence of history and culture.
However, if this would not be possible, she stated that the most
convenient thing to do is to ensure that the military does not meddle in
formulating the theories of international policy, or in determining
what books shall be prescribed in schools. She pointed out that the
military needs the humanizing influence of culture, arts and letters to
lessen the possibilities of abuse of discretion and power and to make
them more sensitive to respect for the rights of other people. She then
expressed the hope that, with a humanist education and culture imbibed
in them, the military men would think like men of action and act like
men of thought.

REMARKS OF MRS. ROSARIO BRAID

Adverting to the constitutions of Austria and the
Dominican Republic, Mrs. Rosario Braid stated that they mention the need
to transcend the scope of military defense of the country by going
beyond their in usual functions and helping in the socioeconomic
development of the country by protecting the freedom which underscores
the need to be patriotic and nationalistic.

She informed the Body that the Committee was divided on this matter and would like to leave it to the Body.

REMARKS OF MR. DE CASTRO

Mr. de Castro stated that Section 18(c) refers to
professionalism which means the patriotic spirit and consciousness of
the soldiers in the performance of their duties. He stressed that it
takes the Philippine Military Academy four years to instill duty, honor,
courage, integrity, and loyalty in the minds of the cadets while it
takes six months to instill in the minds of enlisted men the sense of
nationalism, patriotism and sacred duty. He opined that the intent of
Ms. Aquino’s proposal is already covered by Section 18(c).

MR. OPLE’S AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT

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

THE STATE SHALL STRENGTHEN THE MILITARY’S PATRIOTIC
SPIRIT AND NATIONALIST CONSCIOUSNESS, INCLUDING RESPECT FOR THE PEOPLE’S
RIGHTS IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR DUTY.

Ms. Aquino accepted the amendment.

REJOINDER OF MS. AQUINO ON MR. DE CASTRO’S REMARKS

Ms. Aquino expressed disagreement to Mr. de Castro’s
remarks. She contended that although professionalism in military refers
to the work ethic which includes training, recruitment, advancement and
promotion, for purposes of the amendment, professionalism should be
related to the needs and sensibilities of the people so that the
military would be people-oriented. In reply, Mr. de Castro stated that
as a professional soldier for thirty years, he had respected the rights
of people and protected them, and had remained pro-Filipino and
nationalistic.

He maintained that the proposed amendment is already
included in the term “professionalism” in Section 18(c). He asked that
the proposal be submitted to a vote.

Ms. Aquino restated her amendment which she proposed to be the new Section 18(b), to wit:

THE STATE SHALL STRENGTHEN THE MILITARY’S PATRIOTIC
SPIRIT AND NATIONALIST CONSCIOUSNESS, INCLUDING RESPECT FOR PEOPLE’S
RIGHTS, IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR DUTY.

Submitted to a vote, and with 27 Members voting favor and one against, the proposed amendment as approved by the Body.

OBSERVATION OF MR. MONSOD

On Mr. Monsod’s observation that the phrase
“including respect for people’s rights” in Ms. Aquino’s amendment is
unnecessary because the armed forces as the protector of the people
should necessarily protect the people and respect their rights, Mr. Ople
stated that the phrase “patriotic spirit and nationalist consciousness,
including respect for people’s rights” merely elaborates the philosophy
in the flagship Section.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. GUINGONA

On Section 18(c), after the word “military”, Mr.
Guingona proposed to insert a comma (,) and the phrase WOULD INCLUDE
ADHERENCE TO THE RULES ON SENIORITY AND MERIT.

He explained that professionalism in the military
should be anchored on seniority and merit, without which the morale in
the armed forces would not be enhanced, and there would be more
undesirable political encroachments. He pointed out that a similar
provision on merit and fitness is provided for in the sections on the
Civil Service, but since the military men do not strictly fall under the
classification of civil servants, a separate proviso in Section 18 is
proper.

In reply, Mr. de Castro underscored that existing
policy on promotion in the armed forces is based on seniority and merit
and, in addition, the members of the armed forces undergo training. He
stated that a Philippine Military Academy graduate is qualified to be an
officer in the regular force while a Reserve Officers’ Training Corps
graduate could become an officer in the reserve force.

On Mr. Guingona’s suggestion to insert the phrase
“with emphasis on the rules on seniority and merit”, Mr. de Castro
opined that it would not fit in in the strict meaning of
professionalism.

However, on the understanding that professionalism
in the military already includes the concept of seniority and merit, Mr.
Guingona withdrew his proposed amendment.

MR. VILLACORTA’S AMENDMENT JOINTLY WITH MESSRS. BACANI, BENGZON, ROMULO, RAMA, ABUBAKAR AND GUINGONA

Mr. Villacorta, jointly with Messrs. Bacani,
Bengzon, Romulo, Rama, Abubakar and Guingona, proposed to amend the
first sentence of Section 18(c), to read:

PROFESSIONALISM IN THE MILITARY SHALL BE A PRIME
CONCERN OF THE STATE WITH DUE REGARD TO ADEQUATE COMPENSATION SPECIALLY
AT THE LOWER LEVELS.

He stated that the proposed amendment would enhance
the morale, commitment and professionalism of the lower rank military
men, considering that the abuses in the countrysides were often due to
the very low salary and allowances of the enlisted men, so that some of
them are driven to steal chickens and other food items so that they and
their families may survive. He opined that improving their quality of
life would in turn improve their service to the people. The provision
will ensure that allocations for the military will reach and benefit the
rank and file.

Mr. de Castro stated that the proposal would be
acceptable, considering the low salaries that the members of the armed
forces receive. He proposed, however, to put a period (.) after
“compensation” and to delete the phrase “specially at the lower levels”,
in order to avoid class legislation.

Mr. Villacorta accepted Mr. de Castro’s amendment to his amendment.

MR. OPLE’S AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT

Mr. Ople further proposed to change the word
“compensation” to REMUNERATION AND BENEFITS, the latter being wider in
scope to include retirement benefits.

Mr. Villacorta also accepted Mr. Ople’s amendment to his amendment.

Mr. de Castro, however, pointed out that the
retirement pay of 75 percent of the actual salary upon retirement is
already assured by the Retirement, Separation and Benefit System,
wherein members of the armed forces were deducted 5 percent of their
salary for the purpose.

Nevertheless, he accepted Mr. Villacorta’s amendment as amended, so that the first sentence of Section 18(c) would read:

PROFESSIONALISM IN THE MILITARY SHALL BE A PRIME CONCERN OF THE STATE WITH DUE REGARD TO ADEQUATE REMUNERATION AND BENEFITS.

AMENDMENT OF MR. DAVIDE

Mr. Davide further proposed to reformulate the first
sentence of Section 18(c) to read: PROFESSIONALISM IN THE ARMED FORCES
AND ADEQUATE REMUNERATION AND BENEFITS OF ITS MEMBERS SHALL BE A PRIME
CONCERN OF THE STATE.

The Sponsor accepted the reformulation of the first sentence of Section 18(c).

Submitted to a vote, and with 30 Members voting in
favor and none against, the first sentence of Section 18(c) as
reformulated by Mr. Davide was approved by the Body.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

At this juncture, on motion of Mr. Rama, the Chair suspended the session until two-thirty in the afternoon.

It was 12:50 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 3:06 p.m., the session was resumed.

Upon resumption of session, Mr. de Castro read Section 18(d) as follows:

THE PROVISIONS OF EXISTING LAWS ON RETIREMENT OF MILITARY OFFICERS SHALL BE STRICTLY ADHERED TO.

Mr. de Castro explained that the extension of the
terms of retirable officers is a cause of great demoralization in the
armed forces because it hampers the promotion of younger officers,
hence, the need for the provision.

At this juncture, Mr. Ople stated that the Body has
only approved the first sentence of Section 18(c) and that he made
reservation to propose the second sentence.

Thereupon, Mr. de Castro read the second sentence of Section 18(c) as follows:

IT SHALL BE INSULATED FROM THE INFLUENCE OF PARTISAN
POLITICS AND NO MEMBER OF THE MILITARY SHALL ENGAGE DIRECTLY OR
INDIRECTLY IN ANY POLITICAL ACTIVITY EXCEPT TO REGISTER AND VOTE.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. MONSOD

Thereafter, Mr. Monsod proposed the deletion of
paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) and their consolidation into one sentence to
read as follows: THE MILITARY SHALL STRICTLY OBSERVE THE RULES ON
RETIREMENT AND NON-PARTISANSHIP IN POLITICS IN ITS ORGANIZATION AND
CONDUCT OF OPERATIONS.

Mr. de Castro did not accept the amendment on the
ground that it lumps into one sentence the concepts on retirement and
nonparticipation in partisan politics. He stated that while the armed
forces must be professionalized, this could not be achieved unless it is
insulated from partisan politics. On the other hand, he stated that the
rule on retirement must also be emphasized through a separate
subsection highlighting its importance.

Thereupon, Mr. Ople proposed to reword Section 18(c)
by placing a period (.) after “politics” so that the first sentence
would read “It shall be insulated from the influence of partisan
politics.”; to delete the clause “and no member of the military shall
engage directly or indirectly in any political activity except to
register and vote.”; and to add the following sentence: BONA FIDE
SOLDIERS MAY FORM THEIR OWN PEOPLE’S ORGANIZATIONS AND RETIRED SOLDIERS
OR VETERANS SHALL BE ENTITLED TO SECTORAL SEATS OF THEIR OWN TOGETHER
WITH THE OTHER SECTORS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AS MAY BE
PROVIDED BY LAW, PROVIDED THAT NOTHING IN THIS PROVISION SHALL BE
CONSTRUED AS IMPAIRING MILITARY DISCIPLINE WITHIN THE SPHERE OF MILITARY
RULES AND REGULATIONS.

West Germany and the Netherlands. He stressed that
the authority to form their own people’s organizations could broaden the
experience of the members of the armed forces in democratic
participation and improve their insights into national problems and
their own motivation in fighting for democracy and the country’s
welfare.

Mr. Ople also stated that authorizing soldiers to
form their own people’s organization, and to have representation in the
House of Representatives under the reserve seat system is a meaningful
step to assure them of a role in the country’s democratic process
without being exposed to the charge of engaging in partisan politics. He
pointed out that many young officers of the AFBP feel that the values
for which they fight and lay down their lives are not sufficiently
articulated in national debates. He stressed that instead of suppressing
the new awareness and intellectual vitality in these officers, the Body
should provide them a status similar to what was accorded the youth,
labor, peasants, women and indigenous cultural communities to qualify
for representation in the House of Representatives.

The Chair stated that the Body should first consider Mr. Monsod’s proposal and thereafter consider Mr. Ople’s amendment.

Thereupon, Mr. de Castro reiterated the Committee’s
rejection of Mr. Monsod’s proposed amendment, stating that it wants to
have separate subsections on the nonparticipation of members of the
armed forces in partisan politics and on retirement because of the
effect of the extension of the terms of retirable officers on the morale
of younger officers.

At this juncture, Mr. Bacani stated that although he
is a member of the Committee, he disagrees with Mr. de Castro’s view
and supports Mr. Monsod’s proposal because it encompasses briefly and
comprehensively the concerns stated in Subsections (c), (d) and (e).

Thereupon, Mr. Monsod restated his proposal as
follows: THE MILITARY SHALL OBSERVE THE RULES ON RETIREMENT AND
NONPARTISANSHIP IN POLITICS IN ITS ORGANIZATION AND CONDUCT OF
OPERATION. He explained that the proposal would form part of Section
18(b) and would, in effect, substitute sub-sections (c) and (d).

In reply to Mr. de Castro’s query as to what “rules
on retirement” are referred to, Mr. Monsod stated that the phrase refers
to all existing and applicable retirement rules for members of the
armed forces.

Mr. de Castro then explained that the existing laws
on retirement stipulate that officers must retire upon reaching the age
of 66 or after 30 years service whichever comes first, subject to the
exception that the President may extend the service of retirable
officers. He stressed, however, that the exception to the rule had been
much abused leading to demoralization among the men in uniform.

Responding thereto, Mr. Monsod stated that he did
not intend to change the substance of the Committee formulation but to
lump the principles in one concise sentence.

Mr. de Castro maintained that the three principles
should not be lumped in one sentence, to which Mr. Monsod replied that
there is nothing irregular in placing more than one principle in a
section. He stressed that he merely wanted to underline the principles
by putting them in the Constitution without going into unnecessary
details.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

Upon request of Mr. de Castro, the Chair suspended the session.

It was 3:26 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 3:33 p.m., the session was resumed.

Upon resumption of session, Mr. Monsod read the
second sentence of Section 18(c) as follows: THE ARMED FORCES OF THE
PHILIPPINES SHALL BE INSULATED FROM THE INFLUENCE OF PARTISAN POLITICS.

Mr. Davide proposed to delete “influence of”.

Mr. Monsod accepted the proposal. Thereupon, he read
subparagraph (d) as follows. THE LAWS ON RETIREMENT SHALL BE OBSERVED.
He added that subparagraph (e) would read THE TOUR OF DUTY OF THE CHIEF
OF STAFF SHALL BE PROVIDED BY LAW.

INQUIRY OF MR. BERNAS

On Mr. Bernas’ query on the meaning of the sentence
“The Armed Forces shall be insulated from partisan politics”, Mr. Monsod
explained that the Armed Forces should be free from partisan politics.
He added that the Civil Service provision is more sharply focused on
this aspect.

Mr. Bernas observed that instead of a vague
principle in the statement “shall be insulated from partisan politics”,
Mr. Monsod could state directly and clearly that “The military shall not
engage directly or indirectly in any political activity except to
register and vote”.

Mr. Monsod then read the reformulation, to wit:

THE MEMBERS OF THE MILITARY SHALL NOT ENGAGE IN ANY POLITICAL ACTIVITY EXCEPT TO REGISTER AND VOTE.

Mr. Bernas proposed to insert the phrase “directly or indirectly” so that the sentence would read:

THE MEMBERS OF THE MILITARY SHALL NOT ENGAGE DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY IN ANY POLITICAL ACTIVITY EXCEPT TO REGISTER AND VOTE.

Mr. Monsod accepted the amendment.

INQUIRY OF MR. OPLE

Mr. Ople inquired whether the reformulation would
mean a constitutional prohibition on groups of officers who seek urgent
reforms in the Armed Forces. He adverted to the “Reform the Armed Forces
Movement” which during the February revolution helped bring about
change in government and inquired whether the movement’s activities
which have political dimension would be prohibited.

Mr. Bernas clarified that Philippine jurisprudence
has assigned a definite meaning to partisan political activity which
means campaigning for a candidate. He observed that the provision would
not prohibit a person from expressing preferences for certain candidates
or policies, although it prohibits him from campaigning for said
candidate or candidates.

REMARKS OF MR. RAMA

Mr. Rama observed that the Members had misread the
meaning of the phrase “insulated from politics” in equating it with the
phrase “not to engage directly or indirectly in any political activity”
as there are two different meanings and two different problems
confronting the military. He cautioned the Members not to confuse the
two concepts.

Mr. Rama stated that the insulation of the armed
forces from politics would address a great evil which has existed for
many years. He noted that politicians have been meddling in military
appointments, in advancing the promotions of their own men or in
extending the services of some generals. He urged the Members to
separate the concepts of insulation from politics and the prohibition
from engaging in political activities.

Mr. Monsod pointed out that this would be covered by
the mandate on professionalism. He stated that unless insulated from
politics, the military men would engage in partisan political
activities. He then suggested a reformulation to read: THE MEMBERS OF
THE MILITARY SHALL NOT ENGAGE DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY IN PARTISAN
POLITICAL ACTIVITY, EXCEPT TO VOTE.

OBJECTION OF MR. DAVIDE

Mr. Davide objected to the deletion of the original
formulation with respect to insulation. He reasoned that the idea is not
merely to prohibit the military from engaging in partisan politics but
also to prevent the government from using it for partisan political
activities.

He stated that the President is the
Commander-in-Chief of all the armed forces. Insulating the armed forces,
he stated, would actually be a control on any act of the President to
use the armed forces for partisan political activity. He advised the
Members not to confuse the totality of the armed forces with the
individual members thereof.

Thereafter, he stated that the Body could proceed to
the individual responsibility of the members of the armed forces not to
engage in any partisan political activity.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. DAVIDE

Mr. Davide, thereupon, proposed an amendment, to wit:

IT SHALL, AT ALL TIMES, BE INSULATED FROM PARTISAN
POLITICS AND NO MEMBER THEREOF SHALL ENGAGE DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY IN
ANY PARTISAN POLITICAL ACTIVITY, EXCEPT TO VOTE.

He stated that the phrase “to register”, which is not a partisan political act, was deleted.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. BERNAS

Mr. Bernas proposed the following reformulation:
PROFESSIONALISM IN THE MILITARY SHALL BE THE PRIME CONCERN OF THE STATE.
NO MEMBER OF THE MILITARY SHALL ENGAGE DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY IN
PARTISAN POLITICAL ACTIVITY EXCEPT TO VOTE.

Mr. Bernas explained that the reformulation would
join the first clause of the second sentence with the first sentence
inasmuch as insulation from the influence of partisan politics is an
elaboration on the concept of professionalism and is addressed to those
who have any power over the military, whereas the second clause of the
second sentence is addressed to the military officers themselves.

Mr. de Castro called attention to the approved
phrase “adequate remuneration and benefits” and inquired whether this
should be included in the amendment.

CLARIFICATION OF MR. MAAMBONG

Mr. Maambong informed that the first sentence was
approved by the Body and pointed out that the starting point for Mr.
Bernas’ amendment would be the second sentence. He noted that Mr.
Bernas’ proposal was practically the same as Mr. Davide’s formulation.

Mr. Bernas clarified that he accepted the
explanation of Messrs. Rama and Davide that there are two concepts
involved. He argued that the concept in the first clause of the second
sentence is related more to the first sentence.

Mr. Maambong then inquired whether Mr. Bernas’ proposal is the same as Mr. Davide’s formulation, to wit:

THE ARMED FORCES SHALL AT ALL TIMES BE INSULATED
FROM PARTISAN POLITICS AND NO MEMBER OF THE MILITARY SHALL ENGAGE
DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY IN ANY POLITICAL ACTIVITY, EXCEPT TO VOTE.

In reply, Mr. Bernas stated that he would prefer to
split the second sentence into two inasmuch as the first clause is
addressed to those who have power over the military, whereas the second
clause is addressed to the military itself.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

The Chair suspended the session.

It was 3:47 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 3:53 p.m., the session was resumed.

As reformulated by Messrs. Davide, Monsod, Bernas and Guingona, Section 18(c) reads as follows:

PROFESSIONALISM IN THE ARMED FORCES AND ADEQUATE
REMUNERATION AND BENEFITS OF ITS MEMBERS SHALL BE A PRIME CONCERN OF THE
STATE. THE ARMM FORCES SHALL BE INSULATED FROM PARTISAN POLITICS.

NO MEMBER OF THE MILITARY SHALL ENGAGE DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY IN ANY PARTISAN POLITICAL ACTIVITY, EXCEPT TO VOTE.

The Committee accepted the reformulated Section 18(c).

Submitted to a vote, and with 25 Members voting in favor and none against, Section 18(c) was approved by the Body.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. MONSOD

Thereafter, Mr. Monsod further proposed, as part of
Section 18(c), the following sentence: THE LAWS ON RETIREMENT SHALL BE
OBSERVED.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. OPLE

Mr. Ople proposed a separate subsection.

Mr. Monsod stated that his amendment has precedence
inasmuch as it is still on the subsection of Section 18. Upon the
Chair’s inquiry, Mr. Monsod affirmed that his amendment is to delete
subsections (d) and (e) and that Mr. Ople’s amendment would become
Section 19.

Mr. Ople informed that his amendment would be a separate subsection which was arranged with the Committee.

Thereupon, Mr. Ople stated his amendment, to wit:

BONA FIDE SOLDIERS MAY FORM THEIR OWN PEOPLE’S
ORGANIZATIONS AND RETIRED SOLDIERS OR VETERANS SHALL BE ENTITLED TO
SECTORAL SEATS OF THEIR OWN TOGETHER WITH THE OTHER SECTORS IN THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW, PROVIDED THAT NOTHING IN
THIS PROVISION SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS IMPAIRING MILITARY DISCIPLINE
WITHIN THE SPHERE OF MILITARY RULES AND REGULATIONS.

Mr. de Castro suggested deleting the clause “Bona
fide soldiers may form their own people’s organization and”. He stated
that there should be no organization within the Armed Forces as it is
divisive in nature. He noted that the presence within the military of
organizations such as the RAM-MND, RAM-AFP, “El Diablo” and the
“Guardians” are destroying the morale and efficiency of the Armed
Forces. He also observed that the existence of these organizations worry
the Chief of Staff more than the insurgency problem and that the
retired officers are working to remove these organizations.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. DE CASTRO

Mr. de Castro proposed to simplify the amendment, to wit:

MILITARY PERSONNEL SHALL BE ENTITLED TO SECTORAL
SEATS OF THEIR OWN TOGETHER WITH THE OTHER SECTORS IN THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW.

He stated that the rest can be deleted.

Mr. Ople, responding thereto, stated that he is not
inflexible on his proposal. He underscored that the formation of such
organizations as the RAM, “El Diablo” and the “Guardians” should be
treated as symptoms of an apparent growing demand within the ranks of
the armed forces for democratic means of participation. He argued that
the fact that they exist and have not been banned by military
authorities indicates that they are useful in some respect.

Mr. Ople then modified the amendment to read as follows:

VETERANS SHALL BE ENTITLED TO SECTORAL SEATS OF
THEIR OWN TOGETHER WITH THE OTHER SECTORS IN THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES AS MAY BE PROVIDED BY LAW.

The Committee accepted the amendment.

REMARKS OF MS. AQUINO

Ms. Aquino objected to the Ople amendment which was
accepted by the Committee. She noted that however summarily the rumors
of a military coup d’etat are dismissed or whatever denials are made to
discredit such rumors, the military has long been infected by the virus
of politics. The story of military intrusion into civilian affairs, she
informed, began with the administration of President Magsaysay who was
enamored by the military in his campaign to bring his government closer
to the people. This, she stated, resulted in the military finding
themselves in government offices, in the hierarchy of civilian affairs,
in the foreign affairs and that all too long the public consciousness
was captured by the soldier’s popularity which was heft up by the media.
She maintained that in the context of supremacy of the civilian
authority over the military, the military has no place in the civilian
government. She stated that the suspicion that the supremacy of the
civilian authority over the military is being threatened cannot be
dismissed easily. She argued that giving the military representation in
the House of Representatives is the first step towards facilitating the
final dismantlement of the concept of supremacy of civilian authority.
She observed that the military is a base of power in itself as it has a
monopoly over the use of legitimate force.

Ms. Aquino further stated that, culturally, the
Filipinos are not prone to accepting the military as their
representatives in Congress, not because the military are less competent
in civilian affairs, but because soldiery and the training of soldiers
are great setbacks in the context of government rule.

INQUIRY OF MR. REGALADO

In reply to Mr. Regalado’s query on the scope of the
phrase, Mr. Ople stated that the phrase is limited only to veterans as
defined in the preceding provisions of this Constitution.

REMARKS OF MR. OPLE

Reacting to Ms. Aquino’s remarks, Mr. Ople pointed
out that the provision does not speak of soldiers sitting in the House
of Representatives but of veterans who have a parity of status with
women and indigenous communities, youth, labor and peasants. He noted
that even a single seat would do, so that it would not detract from the
claims of other groups who are already recognized in the Article on
Social Justice, considering that there are 25 seats available for
sectoral representation. He stressed that all he was asking was a kind
of parity with all the other sectoral groups and thanked the Committee
for accepting his amendment.

REMARKS OF MR. DAVIDE

Speaking against the proposal, Mr. Davide stated
that Section 5 of the proposed Article on the Legislative, reserves 20%
of the total membership of the Lower House to the party list
representatives of national sectoral or regional parties or
organizations, and that insofar as the sectoral representation is
concerned, it would only be for three consecutive terms following the
ratification of the Constitution that they would get 50% of the seats
allotted to the party list representatives.

Quoting Section 5 of said Article, Mr. Davide
contended that Mr. Ople’s proposal would be deemed included because the
representation of the veterans as a sector may be provided by law; on
the other hand, if such is not the intention, the Commission would be
creating a three-tiered Lower House in the sense that there would be
regular representatives, party list representatives and sectoral
representatives, whose representation is already limited to three
constructive terms but within the purview of the party list
representation, in view of which there would be no need for the
proposal, otherwise, it would amount to a reopening of Section 5 if it
is to be interpreted as being not included in the sectors to be provided
for by law.

In response thereto, Mr. Ople opined that Mr.
Davide’s comments were farfetched and highly technical observations
because the Commission does not foreclose the recognition of the
veterans as a sector which deserves representation in the House of
Representatives, just because the recognition appears in a provision on
the role of the Armed Forces of the Philippines which recognition is not
in any manner inferior to those given the other sectors which have
moral claims upon the nation.

Mr. Davide pointed out, however, that when the Body
took up Section 5, especially on the enumeration of sectors, the
Committee took into account the possibility that a law may be passed
allowing the entry of other sectors including the veterans. He affirmed
that the matter can be better addressed to Congress, to which Mr. Ople
replied that there is nothing to prevent this Commission from providing a
constitutional guideline for Congress by including such phrase as “as
may be provided by law” consistent with the earlier provision on
sectoral representation in the Article on the Legislative.

REMARKS OF MR. TINGSON

Adverting to the provision in the Declaration of
Principles that civilian authority shall at all times be supreme over
the military, Mr. Tingson observed that the attitude of the people
towards men in uniform is fear and that, while they are still in their
uniform, they could exert influence to make sure that when they shall
have retired, their candidates would have a place in Congress, in view
of which, he would prefer that the military fuse themselves with the
strictly civilian sector the moment they take off their uniforms. He
then registered his objection to the amendment.

INQUIRY OF MR. COLAYCO

In reply to Mr. Colayco’s query on the proponent’s
special interest in sponsoring special protection for the veterans, Mr.
Ople pointed out that the veterans constitute a very significant social
force which tend to have a feedback effect on the motivation of the
soldiers in active service. He also stated that the proposal is a
measure on how the war veterans who had fought for their country are
treated. He stressed that it is a sector worthy of representation under a
sectoral seat system in the House of Representatives, a representation
that would protect their rights upon retirement as former members of the
military force, as well as promote their continuing interest in the
values which they had fought for as soldiers.

On the contention that the Body had already approved
a section providing that Congress shall pass laws that would protect
the rights of soldiers, veterans and their families and provide funds in
support thereof, Mr. Ople stated that, although such may be a
heartwarming expression of concern by the Commission, it is not the same
thing as conferring constitutional recognition on the sectors like the
youth, women, labor and peasants.

REMARKS OF MS. TAN

Ms. Tan stated that the Constitution should be more
vigilant rather than give the veterans and the military more power. She
pointed out that the 1973 Constitution had given them four paragraphs
while the proposed draft Constitution is giving them 14 which, she
opined, are more than enough.

Reacting thereto, Mr. Ople stated that he does not
feel obliged to answer the comments except that the majority of the
officers and men of the Armed Forces of the Philippines do not fall
under such odious classification.

INQUIRY OF MR. RODRIGO

In reply to Mr. Rodrigo’s query, Mr. Ople stated
that the proposal does not give Congress the discretion to include or
not to include the veterans as a sector.

On the meaning of the phrase “as may be provided by
law”, Mr. Ople stated that Congress may determine how this section could
be implemented in conjunction with the appropriate Article on the
Legislative.

On the observation that such intent is already
provided for in Section 5 of the Article on the Legislative, Mr. Ople
stated that, in effect, this would be detached from said article for the
reason that it now belongs to the most appropriate place in the
Constitution which is the sections dealing with the role of the Armed
Forces of the Philippines.

REMARKS OF MR. BERNAS

Mr. Bernas observed that the point raised by Messrs.
Davide and Rodrigo was that the matter of composition of the House of
Representatives had already been closed with the approval of Section 5
of the Article on the Legislative, in reply to which, Mr. Ople
maintained that his proposal is not an amendment to Section 5 but could
stand on its own by virtue of the powers of this Commission.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

At this juncture, the Chair suspended the session.

It was 4:25 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 4:29 p.m., the session was resumed.

WITHDRAWAL OF MR. OPLE’S AMENDMENT

Upon resumption of session, Mr. Ople withdrew his
amendment on the understanding that it is the intent of the Commission
that the veterans would be considered by Congress as falling under the
phrase “such other sectors as may be provided by law” in the Article on
the Legislative.

REMARKS OF MR. DAVIDE

Adverting to Section 5 of the Article on the
Legislative, Mr. Davide stated that Congress could consider among the
sectors to be represented in the Lower House the veterans whom he
personally believes could qualify as a sector considering the service
they had rendered to the country.

In reply to Mr. Ople’s query on whether Mr. Davide
would consider them eminently qualified for consideration by Congress,
the latter stated that he would not preempt the judgment of the Lower
House although, personally, be believes the veterans should be one of
the sectors to be recognized.

Thereafter, Mr. de Castro stated that the Committee was willing to accept the withdrawal of the amendment.

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF PARAGRAPH (C)

Thereupon, Mr. Garcia moved for a reconsideration of
the approval of paragraph (c) on the concept prohibiting the military
from engaging in partisan political activity, in order to add the phrase
NEITHER SHALL THEY DISCHARGE PUBLIC FUNCTIONS WHICH ARE CIVILIAN IN
NATURE EXCEPT IN PERIODS OF EMERGENCY.

Mr. de Castro pointed out, however, that said provision is already provided for in the Section on Civil Service.

Thereupon, Mr. Garcia did not insist on his proposal.

RESTATEMENT AND APPROVAL OF SUBPARAGRAPH (C)

Mr. Maambong restated subparagraph (c) of Section 18, to wit:

PROFESSIONALISM IN THE ARMED FORCES AND ADEQUATE
REMUNERATION AND BENEFITS OF ITS MEMBERS SHALL BE A PRIME CONCERN OF THE
STATE. THE ARMED FORCES SHALL BE INSULATED FROM PARTISAN POLITICS. NO
MEMBER OF THE MILITARY SHALL ENGAGE DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY IN ANY
PARTICULAR POLITICAL ACTIVITY, EXCEPT TO VOTE.

Submitted to a vote, and with 32 Members voting in
favor, none against and no abstention, the Body approved subparagraph
(c) of Section 18.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. MONSOD

On paragraph (d), Mr. Monsod proposed the reinstatement of the sentence which reads: THE LAWS ON RETIREMENT SHALL BE OBSERVED.

Mr. de Castro proposed to insert between the words
“retirement” and “shall” the words OF MILITARY OFFICERS, to which Mr.
Monsod replied that the subparagraph is part of the whole section on the
military.

Mr. de Castro pointed but that there are technical
men in the enlisted ranks who are normally extended in their service
even after reaching 56 years of age.

REMARKS OF MR. BERNAS

Mr. Bernas stated that any attempt to single out the
laws on retirement with a command that they must be observed would
suggest that the Body seemed not to care if other laws are not observed.
He stressed that any law shall be observed and there is no need to
provide in the Constitution that they must be observed.

Mr. Ople supported the position taken by Mr. Bernas.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. GUINGONA

Mr. Guingona proposed the adoption of the previous formulation contained in the original Committee Report, which reads:

ALL OFFICERS OF THE ARMED FORCES DUE FOR RETIREMENT
FROM THE SERVICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH EXISTING LAWS SHALL BE RETIRED
WITHOUT ANY EXCEPTION.

Mr. Guingona explained that this kind of provision
would give meaning and substance to professionalization of the military.
He stressed that the law should be applied uniformly to give assurance
that no future dictators could manipulate the officers of the Armed
Forces as what the former President did for the purpose of perpetuating
himself in power. He pointed out that the provision would minimize, if
not do away with, the possibility that officers of the Armed Forces who
have been extended would owe their loyalty to an individual and not to
the institution and people. He stated that this practice of extending
the tour of duty of retirable officers adversely affects the younger
officers, many of whom are capable and deserving of promotion.

REMARKS OF MR. MONSOD

Mr. Monsod opined that a detailed formulation
belongs to legislation and, if the intent is to go into details as an
alternative to a general principle, he would rather ask for the deletion
of the two sub-paragraphs. He then yielded to Mr. Bernas for an
anterior amendment.

MR. BERNAS’ AMENDMENT BY DELETION

Mr. Bernas proposed the deletion of subparagraph
(d). He pointed out that the President had made exceptions because the
law itself is loose, such that the remedy is for Congress to pass strict
laws.

Mr. Guingona pointed out that his amendment carried
the qualifying phrase “without exception” so that the law could not
provide exceptions, otherwise, it would be unconstitutional.

Reacting thereto, Mr. Bernas pointed out that the
problem is not with the President but with the law which allows him to
make exceptions. He stated that what should be provided is a mandate to
the legislature to pass retirement laws which do not allow exceptions,
although, he would still oppose such kind of a provision.

REMARKS OF MR. MONSOD

Mr. Monsod stated that it is not the task of the
Commission to put inflexible rules that would not admit certain
emergencies or situations. He stated that he would rather ask for the
deletion of the whole section instead of going into details.

FURTHER REMARKS OF MR. GUINGONA

Mr. Guingona clarified that this provision is
applicable only during normal times and that in times of war or
emergency, this provision would not apply pursuant to Mr. de Castro’s
earlier manifestation.

RESTATEMENT OF MR. BERNAS’ AMENDMENT BY DELETION

Mr. Bernas restated his amendment to delete subparagraph (d) with prejudice to putting in any provision on this subject.

Mr. de Castro objected to the deletion, explaining
that it is the extension of retirable officers in the Armed Forces that
has caused so much demoralization among the officers corps. He stressed
that this provision would not apply in times of emergency because,
during a period of crisis, even retired officers may be called to active
duty. He cited the case of the Prime Minister of Thailand whose service
as a general was extended for one year, which extension almost caused a
revolt in the Armed Forces.

Upon inquiry of the Chair, Mr. de Castro affirmed that Mr. Guingona’s amendment is acceptable to the Committee.

REMARKS OF MR. NOLLEDO

Speaking against the deletion of Mr. Guingona’s
amendment, Mr. Nolledo stated that aside from the argument of Mr. de
Castro that in the absence of such a provision, there will be
demoralization in the Armed Forces of the Philippines, it would give the
President ‘the right to retain generals who are close to him. He opined
that this would amount to creating another dictator.

RESTATEMENT OF MR. GUINGONA’S AMENDMENT

Mr. Guingona restated his proposed amendment which was the original formulation of the Committee, to wit:

ALL OFFICERS OF THE ARMED FORCES DUE FOR RETIREMENT
FROM THE SERVICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EXISTING LAWS SHALL BE RETIRED
WITHOUT ANY EXCEPTION.

APPROVAL OF MR. BERNAS’ AMENDMENT BY DELETION

Mr. Bernas insisted on his amendment by deletion,
and submitted to a vote, with 16 Members voting in favor, 11 against and
one abstention, the Body approved to delete subparagraph (d) of Section
18.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. MONSOD

Mr. Monsod proposed the deletion of subparagraph (e)
by reason of the deletion of subparagraph (d), adding that this is a
matter of detail that should be left to legislation.

Mr. de Castro objected to the proposed deletion on
the ground that the absence of such provision might create another
dictator. He stressed the need of having a Chief of Staff every three
years so that there could be more reinvigoration in the Armed Forces of
the Philippines.

REMARKS OF MR. BERNAS

Mr. Bernas supported Mr. Monsod’s amendment to
delete the provision on the ground that it contains a built-in clause
for creating dictators, namely, the clause “subject to extension only
during national emergency”. He pointed out that all the instances cited
by Mr. de Castro precisely happened during national emergency.

Replying thereto, Mr. de Castro stated that he would
be amenable to the deletion of the clause “subject to extension only
during national emergency”. He stressed the need for the provision that
the Chief of Staff should not be extended by the President. He warned
that it is dangerous to have mutual attachment between a Chief of Staff,
who is the Commanding General of the Armed Forces, and the President,
who is the Commander-in-Chief.

REMARKS OF MR. OPLE

Mr. Ople manifested support for the retention of
subparagraph (e) with the amendment to delete the last clause which, Mr.
Bernas noted, constitutes a ready loophole for circumventing the first
part thereof.

Mr. Ople opined that this provision may look
innocent and mundane. However, he pointed out that the President, as
Commander-in-Chief might develop a kind of mutual attachment with the
Chief of Staff, which attachment usually constitutes a kind of
confabulation. He stated that there are many state secrets which are
mutually shared but which are actually denied even to the regular
military establishments, which is a circumvention of the legal structure
of the Armed Forces. He stated that this could even lead to
assassinations of political enemies through confabulations.

Finally, Mr. Ople opined that the Committee was
right in building a precaution in the provision on the Armed Forces and
that approval of such provision would supplement what was intended by
the previous provision that was deleted.

INQUIRY OF MR. MAAMBONG

Mr. Maambong inquired from Mr. Bernas if he would
subscribe to the proposal if the term “national emergency” were defined
in the context of Section 24 of the Article on the Legislative, in reply
to which Mr. Bernas stated that he would go by the examples cited by
Mr. de Castro, among others, the examples of Chiefs of Staff during the
martial law period which was admittedly a period of national emergency.
He stated that expanding the provision to include labor and student
unrest or national calamity would amount to expanding the possibility of
more exceptions. He affirmed that the emergency as defined by Congress
would be an emergency lesser than a martial law situation. He further
affirmed that even if Congress declares a national emergency under
Section 24(2), this would not be a proper exception for the
Commander-in-Chief to extend the term of the Chief of Staff of the Armed
Forces. He agreed with Mr. Ople’s argument that this term should be
completely inextendible because the Chief of Staff and the
Commander-in-Chief could share secrets between themselves but if the
President anticipates the need to relieve the Chief of Staff and the
Chief of Staff knows it, they would share these secrets with possible
successors if at all they are both interested in the welfare of the
nation.

On the assumption that Congress declares a national
emergency at a time when the term of the Chief of Staff simultaneously
expires, Mr. Maambong inquired whether the President could not extend
such tour of duty in the absence of a provision allowing flexibility, to
which Mr. Bernas replied that the question should be addressed to Mr.
de Castro.

INQUIRY OF MR. SUAREZ

On Mr. Suarez’ query whether it is necessary to
constitutionalize the Office of the Chief of Staff, Mr. de Castro stated
that if the Armed Forces of the Philippines is constitutionalized, the
Office of the Chief of Staff is also automatically constitutionalized.
Mr. Suarez, however, contended that the position of Chief of Staff is
apart and distinct from the Armed Forces as an organization.

On the observation that under the proposal, the
Office of the Chief of Staff would be considered a constitutional
office, Mr. de Castro stated that it would only be to the extent
provided in the provision. He further stated that the constitutional
provision would be applicable to the Chief of Staff or the acting Chief
of Staff. He also affirmed that tour of duty means tenure of office.

Reacting thereto, Mr. Suarez stated that by
constitutionalizing the office of the Chief of Staff and his tour of
duty for three years, the President as Commander-in-Chief would be
prevented from terminating such tenure of office.

In view thereof, Mr. de Castro stated that he would
be amenable to changing the phrase “shall be for three years” to SHALL
NOT BE MORE THAN THREE YEARS

On whether the term of the Chief of Staff should not
be extended because of the effort to professionalize the military, Mr.
de Castro pointed out that the President could, in fact, extend such
term on that ground.

REMARKS OF MR. DAVIDE

Speaking in favor of the motion to delete Section
18(e), Mr. Davide stated that its retention is dangerous because
considering that the President would have a fixed term of six years
without re-election, he can appoint two Chiefs of Staff during his term,
and if the second appointee is soon retireable, he might appoint a
third Chief of Staff whose term could prevent the next President from
appointing a Chief of Staff of his choice.

He also opined that a fixed term of three years is
not conducive to professionalization and continuity in military policies
because two Chiefs of Staff may have different views on the matter.

In reply, Mr. de Castro pointed out that the
policies of the Armed Forces of the Philippines are established by the
General Staff and approved by the President of the Philippines. He
stated that the succeeding Chief of Staff cannot just change all the
policies of his predecessor, although he may change some policies which
are not consistent with professionalism in accordance with his
conscience or belief, or which may not be conducive to an efficient
military service. He cited a precedent during the Korean War when U.S.
President Truman relieved General Douglas MacArthur who was succeeded by
a general who successfully prosecuted the war similar to how General
MacArthur conducted it. He underscored that there is always an able
successor to the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces.

VOTING ON THE MOTION TO DELETE SECTION 18(e)

Thereafter, submitted to a vote, and with 13 Members
voting in favor and 17 against, the motion to delete Section 18(e) was
lost.

RESTATEMENT; OF SECTION 18(e)

Mr. de Castro restated Section 18(e) to read:

THE TOUR OF DUTY OF THE CHIEF OF STAFF SHALL NOT BE MORE THAN THREE YEARS.

AMENDMENT OF MR. DAVIDE

Mr. Davide proposed to delete the words “not be more
than”, and in lieu thereof to insert the words IN NO CASE EXCEED, so
that Section 18(e) would read:

THE TOUR OF DUTY OF THE CHIEF OF STAFF SHALL IN NO CASE EXCEED THREE YEARS.

Submitted to a vote, and with 20 Members voting in
favor, 5 against and 2 abstentions, Section 18(e), as amended, was
approved by the Body.

INQUIRY OF MR SUAREZ

On Mr. Suarez’ query whether Section 18(e), would
retroactively apply to the term of General Fidel Ramos, Mr. de Castro
opined General Ramos’ term would depend on President Aquino.

In this connection, Mr. Ople stated that it would be
highly controversial to leave the interpretation of the intent of the
Constitutional Commission to a person no matter how trustworthy he or
she might be. He affirmed, however, that Section 18(e) would have
prospective application.

INQUIRY OF MR. MONSOD

In reply to Mr. Monsod’s query whether the term of
the Chief of Staff would strictly apply during a period of rebellion or
war time, Mr. de Castro reiterated that the term of the Chief of Staff
may be terminated as in the case of General Douglas MacArthur who was
relieved during the Korean War but was ably succeeded by another
general. He underscored that there is always an able officer who can
take over the position of a fallen or relieved official.

On whether the President may extend the services of
the Chief-of- Staff in case of war or actual rebellion, Mr. de Castro
replied in the negative. He stated that there is always somebody next in
rank.

Mr. Ople underscored that the intent of Section
18(e) is that the President, as Commander-in-Chief, can relieve the
Chief of Staff anytime during the latter’s term but during actual
invasion, rebellion or war, the President has the prerogative to extend
or not to extend the term of the Chief of Staff.

Mr. Monsod observed that Mr. Ople’s interpretation
is different from that of Mr. de Castro, and inquired on a definite
interpretation of Section 18(e).

Mr. de Castro reiterated that under Section 18(e),
the tour of duty of the Chief of-Staff shall in no case exceed three
years, although a more liberal interpretation may be made by the
President.

The Chair, however, stated that Section 18(e) is clear and there could be no doubt on its interpretation.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

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

It was 6:20 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 5:55 p.m., the session was resumed.

RESERVATION OF MR. UKA

Upon resumption of session, Mr. Uka registered a
reservation to seek reconsideration of the approval of Section 11 with
regard to the equity ratio.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. SARMIENTO JOINTLY WITH
MESSRS. NOLLEDO, COLAYCO, TINGSON, RAMA, GUINGONA, VILLACORTA, MS. TAN,
MESSRS. DAVIDE, SUAREZ AND MONSOD AND MRS. QUESADA

Thereupon, Mr. Sarmiento proposed the joint
amendment which reads as follows: THE OFFICERS AND MEN OF THE REGULAR
FORCE OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES SHALL BE RECRUITED
PROPORTIONATELY FROM ALL THE PROVINCES AND CITIES.

At this juncture, Mr. Maambong pointed out that
before the suspension, the Body was considering the matter of tour of
duty of the Chief of Staff. He requested that it be taken up first. He
then presented his proposed second sentence of Section 18(e) to read as
follows: HOWEVER, IN TIMES OF WAR OR OTHER NATIONAL EMERGENCY DECLARED
BY CONGRESS, THE PRESIDENT MAY EXTEND SUCH TOUR OF DUTY FOR THE DURATION
THEREOF.

Mr. de Castro explained that the reason for the
proposal is to obviate difficulties that may be encountered as a result
of sudden changes in the command structure in times of actual emergency.

In reply to Mr. Jamir’s query whether the extension
would continue for the duration of the emergency declared by Congress,
Mr. Maambong replied in the affirmative, stating that the concept of
national emergency is tied up with the declaration by Congress, as
provided for in the Article on the Legislative. He added that when the
emergency ceases, the Chief-of-Staff whose term has expired would have
to be replaced.

On whether the President could relieve him if his
performance during the emergency is not satisfactory, Mr. Maambong
stated that even without the emergency, the President as the
Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines could relieve
the Chief-of-Staff.

Mr. Jamir suggested that the last portion of the
proposal should be clarified so that there would be no doubt on the
right of the President to relieve the Chief of Staff in case he is
proven to be incompetent.

Mr. Maambong stated that that would be the interpretation.

Thereupon, Mr. Padilla manifested support for the
proposal but stated that the President should have the prerogative of
changing the Chief of Staff even within the three-year period of his
regular tour of duty which means that the Chief of Staff has no vested
right to his term. He suggested that the phrase “in no case” in the
first sentence be deleted and to simply state SHALL NOT EXCEED THREE
YEARS followed by the exception IN CASE OF WAR OR OTHER NATIONAL
EMERGENCY DECLARED BY CONGRESS.

Mr. Maambong pointed out that there could be a
procedural problem on the matter because the first sentence was already
approved by the Body.

Mr. Padilla stated that it should be considered as a
motion for reconsideration so that the phrase “in no case” in the first
sentence could be deleted.

Mr. Davide opined that with the exception. the
phrase had become impertinent and could be deleted. However, he added
that without the exception, the phrase is necessary.

Upon direction of the Chair, Mr. Maambong read the second sentence, to wit:

HOWEVER, IN TIMES OF WAR OR OTHER NATIONAL EMERGENCY
DECLARED BY CONGRESS THE PRESIDENT MAY EXTEND SUCH TOUR OF DUTY FOR THE
DURATION THEREOF.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. DAVIDE

Mr. Davide proposed to delete “for the duration thereof” such that the sentence, as amended, would read:

HOWEVER, IN TIMES OF WAR OR OTHER NATIONAL EMERGENCY AS DECLARED BY CONGRESS, THE TOUR OF DUTY MAY BE EXTENDED.

The Committee accepted the amendment.

VOTING ON THE SECOND SENTENCE

Mr. Maambong then restated the second sentence, as amended, to wit:

HOWEVER, IN TIMES OF WAR OR OTHER NATIONAL EMERGENCY DECLARED BY CONGRESS, THE PRESIDENT MAY EXTEND SUCH TOUR OF DUTY.

Submitted to a vote, and with 22 Members voting in favor and 2 against, the second sentence was approved by the Body.

INQUIRY OF MR. SUAREZ

Mr. Suarez inquired whether “national emergency”
would be an emergency which is military in nature and would not refer to
a catastrophe or calamity.

In reply, Mr. Maambong affirmed that it would be so,
although, he made a further clarification that the Committee interprets
“national emergency” in the context of Section 24(2) of the Article on
the Legislative which is clearly indicated by the sub-section.

As to whether national emergencies brought about by
calamities would be excluded, Mr. Maambong noted that as long as
Congress declares the situation a national emergency, it would be that
“national emergency”. He added that Section 24(2) of the Article on the
Legislative does not state whether or not it is military in nature but
Congress has the discretion to declare a nation emergency. He stressed
that the Committee would not want to limit the interpretation which
Congress may give.

On whether it is advisable to grant an extension
even when there is no military situation involved, Mr. Maambong stated
that from the Congress’ standpoint, such situation may be deemed a
nation emergency. He explained that the Committee view is that it should
be related to lawlessness violence, invasion, or situations with
military implications as far as they relate to the tour of duty of the
Chief of Staff who, by the very nature of his position, runs the
military establishment.

Mr. Suarez remarked that the interpretation of the
phrase “national emergency” should be limited, as Mr. Maambong stated,
to situations of lawless violence and imminent danger of rebellion or
insurrection but not to situations of natural calamities.

Mr. Maambong reminded the Body that it had not yet
voted on the whole subsection (e) of Section 18. Thereupon, Mr. Maambong
read subsection (e), as follows:

THE TOUR OF DUTY OF THE CHEF-OF-STAFF OF THE ARMED FORCES SHALL NOT EXCEED THREE YEARS.

HOWEVER, IN TIMES OF WAR OR OTHER NATIONAL EMERGENCY DECLARED BY CONGRESS, THE PRESIDENT MAY EXTEND SUCH TOUR OF DUTY.

Submitted to a vote and there being no Objection, Subsection (e) was approved by the Body.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. SARMIENTO

Mr. Sarmiento informed that Messrs. Ople and Romulo
were coauthors of the joint amendment. Mr. Sarmiento explained that the
purpose of the amendment is to prevent the formation of exclusive clubs
and enclaves within the military such as the Ilocano, the Bicol and the
Visayan blocs. He noted, moreover, that the provision is a self-checking
mechanism implanted in the army organization which shall be composed of
officers and men from all the provinces. He stated that the composite
army cannot be a threat to the government because it would be difficult,
if not impossible, for any group to control or manipulate the will of
the rest of the members of the organization. He noted that inasmuch as
each soldier or officer is loyal to the place of his birth, he could be
counted upon to be loyal to the nation. He observed that during the
February revolution, General Ramos complained of an army within an army,
referring to the troops loyal to General Ver and President Marcos.

AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT PROPOSED BY MESSRS. TINGSON, OPLE AND GUINGONA

Mr. Guingona, on behalf of Messrs. Ople and Tingson,
proposed to amend the amendment by adding the words AS FAR AS
PRACTICABLE, which amendment was accepted by Mr. Sarmiento.

INQUIRY OF MR. NATIVIDAD

Upon inquiry of Mr. Natividad, Mr. Sarmiento
affirmed that he is proposing an Armed Forces recruitment program that
would recruit members in proportion to the population of each province
and city.

Mr. Natividad pointed out that recruitment needs are
sometimes based on definite qualifications and that the recruits have
to pass some tests.

Mr. Sarmiento called attention to Mr. Guingona’s
amendment to insert the phrase AS FAR AS PRACTICABLE and that
qualifications and other relevant matters shall be considered.

Mr. Natividad then observed that it might be
impractical to recruit people from a province who would not qualify for
the technical jobs simply to fill up its quota. He further observed that
the Armed Forces does not offer attractive pay rates and that there are
few applicants. As to whether such recruitment would stop as soon as
the Armed Forces has filled up the quotas of the different provinces,
Mr. Sarmiento adverted to the saving clause “as far as practicable”.

Mr. Natividad informed that officers and those who
undertake the PMA training have to undergo extensive physical and mental
examinations which do not give any regard to the origin of the
individual and that even in the other branches of the Armed Forces, the
last question put to a recruit would be where he comes from. What is
important, he stressed, is the physical and mental ability of the
individual.

REMARKS OF MR. RAMA

Mr. Rama stated that the provision is not new and
that even before President Marcos came to power, there was already a
policy to recruit PMA students from all over the country. He noted that
at the time of President Marcos, 80% of such students came from
Ilocandia. The provision, he said, is necessary to address a very
serious problem.

REMARKS OF MR. DE CASTRO

Mr. de Castro clarified that the officers of the
Armed Forces principally come from the PMA, although, there are others
who come from colleges after finishing their ROTC training with
distinction. In the case of the PMA, he stated that anyone can apply and
that strict physical and competitive examinations are given. He noted
that there are sometimes 8,000 applicants, although, the Armed Forces
need only about 150 men and it is possible that all would come from
Metro Manila. He stated that this is the result of a selective process.

He recalled that before the war, the Members of
Congress were given quotas on the number of recommendees and that it is
possible for one region to have 10 candidates for the PMA who would have
to pass the various examinations.

With regard to officers who are graduates of ROTC
training, Mr. de Castro explained that all colleges have their own ROTC
training with a small cadre from the regular force. He noted that
officers who did not show distinction during the four-year training
period may not be selected for active duty training. He stated that it
would be difficult to give a proportionate share to such officers.

In the case of enlisted men, Mr. de Castro stated
that they are likewise given physical examinations in addition to
educational requirement.

He stated that the current policy of the armed
forces is to select soldiers from the province where they are expected
to serve. He underscored that it would be difficult to provide for this
even with the saving clause.

REMARKS OF MR. OPLE

Mr. Ople, a proponent of the amendment, stated that
in 1984 he looked at the regional distribution of generals and flag
officers of the AFP and found that of 100 generals 82 came from the
Ilocos region and that 80% of the AFP officers of flag rank were also
from Ilocos. He inquired whether such a distribution would be considered
equitable considering that the Ilocanos represent only 13% of the
population. Furthermore, he asked whether this was the result of a
natural evolution or whether there was an insidious intervention so that
80% of all the generals and flag officers came from only one region.

Mr. de Castro noted that it was for this reason that
the Body is putting in provisions on professionalism and
nonpartisanship in politics as well as on the tour of duty of the Chief
of Staff. He stated that the President has the discretion to appoint the
generals.

Mr. Ople inquired whether the Committee would agree
to his contention that 60 % of the armed forces, at the enlisted men’s
level, come from only one region, to which Mr. de Castro replied that he
does not have the data thereon. Mr. Ople admitted that although he had
not verified the data, it had been suggested to him by people who are
knowledgeable about the regional distribution of the armed forces.

The Presidential Security Command, he informed,
prior to the Aquino administration, consisted almost entirely of people
from one region and that a majority came from only one province.

Mr. Ople remarked that these are practices which the
proposed amendment seeks to address and that although it does not
precisely say how the Armed Forces can achieve a more optimal balance in
terms of regional representation, he pointed out that the ethnological
configuration is known. He observed that the population consists mainly
of 24% Cebuano-speaking; 23% Tagalog-speaking; 13% Ilocano-speaking; 11%
Hiligaynon-speaking and 3% Pampango-speaking Filipinos which could
serve as the basis of distribution in the composition of the Armed
Forces both at officer and enlisted men level. He stated that the
leadership of the Armed Forces, the President and maybe Congress, can
ensure a kind of equitable distribution.

In India, he noted that the Sikh population in
Punjab constitutes 3% of the Indian nation but accounts for 12% of the
armed forces of India. The amendment, he reiterated, would rectify the
imbalance in the composition of the Armed Forces.

SUGGESTION OF MR. UKA

Mr. Uka observed that with 87 major languages, the
country is a modern Tower of Babel. He suggested that each province or
each region can have a quota. He stated that tribal dissension cannot be
avoided.

INQUIRY OF MR. TINGSON

Upon inquiry of Mr. Tingson, Mr. Sarmiento affirmed
that the idea of professionalizing the Armed Forces had been approved by
the Body and that “professionalism” connotes the best officers and men.
Further, Mr. Sarmiento affirmed that only those who are eligible and
well-trained shall be accepted.

As to the meaning of “from all provinces”, Mr.
Sarmiento replied that it would be difficult to provide for “all
regions” inasmuch as a region consists of many provinces. He observed
that it would be more practical to provide by provinces and cities.

On whether the provision would solve the problem of
clannishness, Mr. Sarmiento replied that it would prevent factionalism
and clannishness because Congress would implement programs through which
soldiers would interact with each other.

REMARKS OF MR. NOLLEDO

Mr. Nolledo stated that each province or city would
never run out of qualified men for the armed forces considering the
innate intelligence of Filipinos. He supported the amendment which, he
informed was based on the proposal of a concerned citizen Atty. Florante
Yambot, for the following reasons:

1. the proposed recruitment system would prevent the organization of different blocs in the armed forces;

2. the amendment would bring about equality and
opportunities to Filipinos in different provinces and cities in their
aspiration to serve the armed forces;

3. it will promote national unity because Filipinos
from different regions and of different idiosyncrasies will come
together united in their goal to protect the people and the State;

4. it lays down a basic rule in the formation of the
structure of the Armed Forces and its details shall be provided by
Congress it will also prevent the practices adverted to by Messrs. de
Castro and Natividad; and

5. it will be difficult for a President, who is the Commander-in-Chief, to control a bloc within the army.

He stressed that it would prevent the existence of an army within the army.

The Committee did not accept the amendment.

Mr. Bacani stated that he personally cannot accept
the amendment and that a constitutional provision for the purpose is not
needed.

Upon direction of the Chair, Mr. Sarmiento restated his amendment, to wit:

THE OFFICERS AND MEN OF THE REGULAR FORCE OF THE
ARMED FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES SHALL BE RECRUITED PROPORTIONATELY FROM
ALL PROVINCES AND CITIES AS FAR AS PRACTICABLE.

On Mr. Maambong’s insistence, the phrase “of the Philippines” was deleted.

Submitted to a vote, and with 17 Members voting in
favor and 4 against, Mr. Sarmiento’s amendment as amended was approved
by the Body.

Upon request of Mr. Sarmiento, Messrs. Nolledo,
Colayco, Tingson, Rama, Guingona, Ms. Tan, Messrs. Villacorta, Davide,
Suarez, Monsod, Mrs. Quesada, Messrs. Ople and Romulo were included as
coauthors of his amendment.

APPROVAL OF SECTION 18, AS AMENDED

Mr. Maambong restated Section 18, as amended to wit:

SECTION 18(1) ALL MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES SHALL TAKE A SOLEMN OATH OR AFFIRMATION TO UPHOLD AND DEFEND THIS CONSTITUTION.

(2) THE STATE SHALL STRENGTHEN THE MILITARY’S
PATRIOTIC SPIRIT AND NATIONALIST CONSCIOUSNESS, INCLUDING RESPECT FOR
PEOPLE’S RIGHTS IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR DUTY.

(3) PROFESSIONALISM IN THE ARMED FORCES AND ADEQUATE
REMUNERATION AND BENEFITS OF ITS MEMBERS SHALL BE A PRIME CONCERN OF
THE STATE.

THE ARMED FORCES SHALL BE INSULATED FROM PARTISAN
POLITICS. NO MEMBER OF THE MILITARY SHALL ENGAGE DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
IN ANY PARTISAN POLITICAL ACTIVITY, EXCEPT TO VOTE.

(4) THE TOUR OF DUTY OF THE CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE
ARMED FORCES SHALL NOT EXCEED THREE YEARS. HOWEVER, IN TIMES OF WAR OR
OTHER NATIONAL EMERGENCY DECLARED BY CONGRESS, THE PRESIDENT MAY EXTEND
SUCH TOUR OF DUTY.

(5) THE OFFICERS AND MEN OF THE REGULAR FORCE OF THE
ARMED FORCES SHALL BE RECRUITED PROPORTIONATELY FROM ALL THE PROVINCES
AND CITIES AS FAR AS PRACTICABLE.

Submitted to a vote, and with 23 Members voting in favor and none against, Section 18, as amended, was approved by the Body.

AMENDMENT OF MESSRS. RIGOS, ROMULO, MS. AQUINO AND MRS. ROSARIO BRAID

Mrs. Rosario Braid read the following substitute amendment to the provision that was voted down on population policy, to wit:

THE STATE SHALL PROMOTE THROUGH EDUCATION A POLICY OF RESPONSIBLE PARENTHOOD.

Mr. Romulo explained that “responsible parenthood”
is not population control or family planning but an enlightenment to
prospective parents on their responsibility in child-rearing in the
context of their own family limitations, health and resources.

Mr. Uka pointed out that “responsible parenthood” is
already covered by Section 3(a) of the Article on Family Rights and
putting it in the substitute amendment would be a redundancy, to which
Mr. Romulo replied that the provision lays stress on education as having
something to do with responsible parenthood.

REMARKS OF MR. BACANI

Mr. Bacani pointed out that the deleted portion
rejected the formulation of population policies by the State, therefore,
the substitute amendment would amount to a reconsideration of the
rejected formulation. He also stated that while Mr. Romulo correctly
stated that responsible parenthood does not mean population control,
said phrase is closely associated with family planning. He then read
into the record portion of a brochure on responsible parenthood which,
he opined, shows a policy bias towards a small family. In view thereof,
he suggested that the proposal leave out any mention of responsible
parenthood which would be taken care of in the Article on Education.

Mr. Uka reiterated that the proposal would be a redundancy. He suggested that the matter be left to the Legislature.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. OPLE

Mr. Ople recalled that at the beginning of the
consideration of the Article on General Provisions, after Section 1 was
reformulated, Messrs. de Castro, Nolledo and himself sought the
Committee’s approval to present later on a separate amendment on
government retirees.

Thereupon, he proposed the following amendment,
subject to proper placement by the Committee in the Article on General
Provisions, to wit:

THE STATE SHALL FROM TIME TO TIME REVIEW AND UPGRADE
THE PENSIONS AND OTHER BENEFITS DUE TO RETIREES OF BOTH THE GOVERNMENT
AND THE PRIVATE SECTORS.

Explaining his amendment, Mr. Ople stated that there
are 2 million government employees who are either in active service or
are retired and 8 million members of the Social Security System for the
private sector. He pointed out that these people, either through the
GSIS or the SSS, contributed premiums during their employment to the
retirement fund. He observed that, unfortunately, many of the retirees
feel that they only receive a pittance compared to what they had
enslaved for during their working lives. He then asked the Committee to
consider his amendment.

Mrs. Rosario Braid accepted the amendment on behalf of the Committee.

MR. DAVIDE’S AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT

Mr. Davide proposed to amend the amendment by changing the word “and” between “review” and “upgrade” to TO.

Mrs. Rosario Braid accepted the amendment.

Submitted to a vote, and with 21 Members voting in favor and none against, the amendment was approved by the Body.

REMARKS OF MR. SARMIENTO

Speaking against the amendment, Mr. Sarmiento stated
that the term “responsible parenthood”, in its strict sense, denotes a
virtue to be observed by those tasked with procreation, education and
material support of children; however, when associated with population
issues in the current context, it assumes unpopular meanings like
contraception, in view of which, constitutionally mandating the State to
educate the citizenry on responsible parenthood could pave the way for
abuse of family rights by the State.

MANIFESTATION OF MR. OPLE

Mr. Ople supported the amendment on the ground that it represents population policy.

ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION

In view of the lateness of the hour, Mrs. Rosario Braid moved to adjourn.

There being no objection, the Chair declared the
session adjourned until nine-thirty in the morning of the following day.

It was 6:56 p.m.

I hereby certify to the correctness of the foregoing.

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

ATTESTED:

(SGD.) CECILIA MUÑOZ PALMA
President

Approved on October 1, 1986