JOURNAL NO. 106

Sunday, October 12, 1986

CALL TO ORDER

At 10:30 a.m., the Honorable Alberto M. K. Jamir, called the session to order.

NATIONAL ANTHEM AND PRAYER

The National Anthem was sung followed by a prayer led by Mr. Ambrosio B. Padilla, to wit:

Almighty God, our Lord:

For more than four months, every morning before
starting the deliberations of this Constitutional Commission, we have
implored Your guidance, in the discharge of our far-reaching
responsibility in formulating the 1986 Constitution for our dear country
and beloved people.

Designated by our President from so many qualified
in the different sectors of our enlightened society, we have responded
to a call of duty and service — professional men and women, elder and
younger members, blending experiences and enthusiasm. Undertaking
further study and research on the Philippine Constitutions of 1935 and
1973, we have diligently attended public hearings, Committee meetings,
Commission caucuses and plenary sessions, where we expounded on our
views and opinions, our preferences and predilections, including our
prejudices, and we expressed our suggestions and amendments in
appropriate and precise terms. Some Commissioners, convinced of the
soundness of their own judgments and convictions, have debated and
argued with eloquence, sometimes with passionate or obstinate fervor, to
make them prevail over those of other Commissioners. But the common
objective of all was to exert our best efforts to attain the formulation
of a good Constitution, animated solely by patriotism, pro-country,
nationalism, pro-people, with principles, policies and aspirations for
us and our descendants to enjoy the blessings of democracy — truth,
justice, freedom, peace and prosperity.

The Constitution we have completed is far from
perfect due to our own imperfections and shortcomings. It has flaws and
defects, some of which could have been substantially improved without
resorting to the suspension of our Rules of Procedures. Many of us are
not fully satisfied with, and some are even disappointed at few approved
provisions, but in the exchange of views on the free market of ideas,
we have to respect and abide by the majority will.

Dear Lord, we praise and thank You for guiding us
during the preparation and completion of this 1986 Constitution. “All is
well that ends well”. We trust that our sovereign people will accept
and ratify our imperfect work and inadequate product. But we hope it
will serve as the constitutional foundation of our political stability,
economic reconstruction and national development, for the enduring
happiness of our long suffering people.

Amen.

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.

P.M.

Mr. Rosales was sick.

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 AND ARCHIVES 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 Archives and Committees hereunder
indicated:

Communication No. 1095 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Mr. Mauro P. Balingit of 37 Aldrin St.,
Doña Faustina Village, Culiat, Diliman, Quezon City, urging the
Constitutional Commission to allow both President Aquino and
Vice-President Laurel to complete their term of office because they were
the real winners in the presidential election

TO THE COMMITTEE ON AMENDMENTS AND TRANSITORY PROVISIONS

Communication No. 1096 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Mr. Felixberto M. Serrano, former
Secretary of Foreign Affairs, submitting an article “Constitutional
Commission Must Finally Remove Perplexities in Draft Constitution” in
which he discussed the two issues disturbing him

THE STEERING COMMITTEE

Communication No. 1097 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from one Antonio M. Clarion of 163 Punta
Tenement, Sta. Ana, Manila, urging the Constitutional Commission to
adopt a provision that would uplift the living condition of the ordinary
rice and corn farmers considering the fact that they are the people
that feed the nation

TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY

Communication No. 1098 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from one Jose E. Edang of 520-H Juan Luna
Street, Mandaluyong, Metro Manila, seeking a constitutional provision
calling for a referendum in which the people will be asked whether or
not they are in favor of the incumbent President and Vice-President to
continue in office up to six years reckoned from February 25, 1986

TO THE COMMITTEE ON AMENDMENTS AND TRANSITORY PROVISIONS

Communication No. 1099 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from one Consuelo Cuachon of 371 Grand
Avenue, BF Parañaque, Metro Manila, suggesting “Republica ng Bagumbayan”
as a name of our country

TO THE COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RESOURCES

Communication No. 1100 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from one Calculus Rufino Datingaling of
Nasugbu, Batangas, urging the Constitutional Commission to include in
the Constitution a provision prohibiting the enactment of a law that
will allow the dissolution of marriage

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

Communication No. 1101 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from one C.D. de Guzman of 1720-A A..Mabini
cor. Alonzo Streets, Malate, Manila, suggesting that in order that the
presidential appointees will not be beholden to politicians and for
purposes of checks and balances, appointments of said appointees should
be confirmed by the Supreme Court instead of Congress

TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE EXECUTIVE

Two letters expressing good wishes for the Filipino
people and urging them to draft a constitution which stands for justice,
peace, freedom, and solidarity, from:

Communication No. 1102 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

(1) Twenty-eight residents of 1081 HV Amsterdam, Netherlands

Communication No. 1103 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

(2) Thirty-two residents of 1156 BA Marken, Netherlands

TO THE ARCHIVES

UNFINISHED BUSINESS: REPORT OF THE COMMITTEES ON STYLE

On motion of Mr. Rama, there being no objection, the
Body resumed consideration of the report of the Committee on Style on
the matter of the one proposal was presented for consideration, which
title of the Constitution.

Thereupon, the Chair recognized Mr. Rodrigo, Chairman of the Committee on Style.

POINT OF INFORMATION OF MR. RODRIGO

Mr. Rodrigo informed that the unfinished item in the
Committee report is the title of the draft Constitution. He stated that
the 1973 Constitution was entitled “The Constitution of the Republic of
the Philippines” while the 1935 Constitution was known as the
“Constitution of the Philippines” and thereupon suggested that the
matter be decided by the Body.

PROPOSAL OF MR. DAVIDE

Mr. Davide stated that he had an earlier motion,
deferred until consideration of the Committee on Style’s report, that
the title of the draft Constitution should be “The New Constitution of
the Republic of the Philippines” to which Messrs. Ople and Guingona
introduced amendments.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. GUINGONA

Thereupon, Mr. Guingona proposed to add “1986” to
the title to mark the historic year when the Constitution was drafted
and, hopefully, approved.

REMARKS OF MR. CONCEPCION

In support for the addition of “1986” to the title,
Mr. Concepcion stated that the year would distinguish the new
Constitution from the other Constitutions before or after it. He
explained that the idea is to stress what happened in 1986 as a reminder
for the people to fight for democracy to preserve it.

REMARKS OF MR. GUINGONA

Additionally, Mr. Guingona stated that “1986” is a
truly historic year when the people won back their freedom from the
years of tyranny under Mr. Marcos.

Mr. Davide accepted the proposal to amend the title to read THE 1986 CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES.

REMARKS OF MR. NOLLEDO

Mr. Nolledo agreed with Mr. Concepcion that the year
is very important. He cited the fact that during the Commonwealth
regime the Constitution was referred to as the 1935 Constitution and
under the Marcos regime, as the 1973 Constitution.

SUGGESTION OF MR. RIGOS

Mr. Rigos suggested that the proposed titles be
written down to enable the Members to make a choice. However, Mr.
Guingona pointed out that only proposal was amended.

INQUIRY OF MR. RODRIGO

Mr. Rodrigo stated that he would have no objection
to the title, however, he inquired whether the proposal would be
appropriate considering that the plebiscite for ratification had been
set for January 23, 1987.

OBSERVATION OF MR. SUAREZ

Mr. Suarez stated that he would have raised the same
observation that although drafted and approved by the Commission in
1986, the Constitution would be subject to approval in the plebiscite
scheduled in January 1987. He observed that to be strict about it it
could be referred to as “The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the
Philippines” irrespective of the significance of 1986 as correctly
pointed out by Mr. Guingona.

MR. BENGZON’S PROPOSED TITLE

Mr. Bengzon observed that although the Commonwealth
Constitution was known as the 1935 Constitution and the Constitution
under the Marcos regime was referred to as the 1973 Constitution after
the years when they were supposedly ratified, their official titles do
not specify the years. He informed that the official title of the 1935
Constitution is the “Constitution of the Philippines” while the official
title of the 1973 Constitution does not specify the data. He
acknowledged that 1986 and 1987, when the Constitution shall hopefully
be ratified, will always be remembered. Thereupon, he proposed an
official title “The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines”
which shall not contain the year.

REMARKS OF MR. TINGSON

Mr. Tingson supported Mr. Davide’s original proposal
to call it “The New Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines” to
stress that it emanated from the peaceful revolution. He noted, with
apprehension, that the 1935 Constitution ended two decades later while
the 1973 Constitution was supplanted 14 years later. To refer to the
Constitution as the 1986 Constitution, he stated, might arouse
suspicions that it shall be changed, perhaps ten years from now.

REMARKS OF MR. ROMULO

Mr. Romulo supported the Bengzon proposal based on Section 27 of the final Article which states:

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

He noted that the title “The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines” would be proper.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

The Chair suspended the session.

It was 10:51 a.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 10:55 a.m., the session was resumed.

MANIFESTATION OF MR. GUINGONA

Mr. Guingona manifested that the word “new” is not
appropriate as it had been used to refer to the 1973 Constitution. He
observed that ten, twenty or fifty years later, the Constitution would
no longer be “new”.

REJOINDER OF MR. DAVIDE

Mr. Davide, by way of a rejoinder, remarked that the
newness of the Constitution is not reckoned in terms of time or the
lapse of years but in consideration of the fact that it would supplant
the previous Constitutions. He stressed that it would provide for a new
order, a new life, a new meaning to the Filipino people and growth being
dynamic, the Constitution would always stay “new”.

SUGGESTION OF MR. ROMULO

Mr. Romulo presented for the Body’s approval the three proposed titles offered by Mr. Davide, Mr. Bengzon and himself.

SUGGESTION OF MR. DAVIDE

Mr. Davide proposed three alternatives, namely:

1) Messrs. Romulo-Bengzon alternative to name the Constitution “The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines”;

2) Messrs. Guingona-Concepcion alternative to name it “The 1986 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines”; and

3) The original title “The New Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines”.

SUGGESTION OF MR. RODRIGO

Mr. Rodrigo suggested that the Body take a vote by
ballots and adopt the proposal that would obtain one-half plus one vote
of the quorum and, should none of the proposals obtain such vote, to
eliminate the last proposal and to vote on the remaining two.

Thereupon, Mr. Concepcion manifested support for the first proposal “The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines”.

Mr. Guingona withdrew his proposed amendment.

Mr. Davide, likewise, withdrew his proposal leaving only one proposal for the title of the new Constitution.

Thereupon, Mr. Rodrigo restated the remaining proposal, to wit: THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES.

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

MANIFESTATION OF MR. FOZ

At this juncture, Mr. Foz manifested that he would
present a simple recasting of Section 8, Article II on the Commission on
Elections to break up the long and repetitious words in the provision.

Reacting thereto, Mr. Rodrigo requested Mr. Foz to
discuss the matter with the ADAN Committee, composed of Messrs. Azcuna,
Davide and Nolledo. He suggested that the Body meanwhile proceed to
consider the report of the Committee on Sponsorship.

Mr. Foz stated that he had taken up his proposal
with Messrs. Nolledo and Davide who indicated willingness to consider
his suggestion. Mr. Rodrigo, however, suggested that he wait for Mr.
Azcuna, to which Mr. Foz agreed.

BUSINESS FOR THE DAY: REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SPONSORSHIP

On motion of Mr. Rama, there being no objection, the
Body proceeded to the Business for the Day: Report of the Committee on
Sponsorship on the final draft of the Constitution.

Thereupon, the Chair recognized the Chairman and members of the Committee on Sponsorship.

REMARKS OF MR. GUINGONA

Mr. Guingona stated that the Committee would present
three matters to the Body, the first of which has reference to the
report on repetitions, prepared by Ms. Aquino of the Subcommittee on
Review, which was circulated during the previous session.

Mr. Guingona explained that the Report does not recommend the deletion of any of the repetitions indicated in the report.

Thereupon, he moved that the Body should no longer consider the matter of repetitions.

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

Mr. Guingona then referred to the report on the sequencing of the sections in the 18 articles approved by the Body.

In this connection, he invited attention to the omission in the first page which should have read ARTICLE V — SUFFRAGE.

He then called on the Chairman of the various
Committees concerned to present their reactions, objections or suggested
modifications. He, likewise, moved that, unless there are any
objections, the sequencing of each article be considered approved.

MANIFESTATION OF MR. MAAMBONG

Mr. Maambong manifested that the Body would be
receiving a new report signed by the Chairman of the Committee on
Sponsorship and the Chairman of the Committee on Rubrics. He stated that
except for the signatures of the Chairmen and the sequencing to be made
after the last adjournment, the report would be the same as the one
distributed in the previous session.

Mr. Guingona then called on Mr. Tingson, the
Vice-Chairman of the Committee on National Territory and Declaration of
Principles, for a manifestation of any change his committee would wish
to make on the Article on National Territory.

At this juncture, Mr. Rigos recalled that the
Article on National Territory had already been approved on Third
Reading. He then inquired whether it is possible for the Committee to
make some changes, to which Mr. Guingona replied that the Committee was
not making any change except for the matter of sequencing of the
sections in logical order.

Mr. Maambong stated that there is nothing to sequence in the Article on National Territory because there is only one section.

In reply to Mr. de Castro’s query, Mr. Guingona
stated that the Body should concern itself not with the sequencing of
the article which had already been approved but with the sequencing of
the sections in each article.

MANIFESTATION OF MR. MAAMBONG

Mr. Maambong pointed out that the sequencing report
contains two columns: the section numbers without parentheses and the
section numbers in parentheses. He explained that a section number
without parentheses refers to the original section number of the Third
Reading copy but if it is followed by a number in parentheses, the one
in parentheses is the original number of the Third Reading copy, which
explanation is true with all articles, except for the Transitory
Provisions, because for one reason or another, the numbering in the
report of the Committee on Style did not tally with the numbering of the
Third Reading copy. He stated that the Committee has to use the
numbering sequence of the Committee on Style so that the Committee on
Sponsorship would not get lost. He manifested that there were only very
few changes in the Article on Declaration of Principles, specifically in
Sections 5, 6, 7 and 8. He then moved for approval of the sequence on
the Article on Declaration of Principles which he stated, is practically
the same as the sequence approved by the Body.

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

On the Bill of Rights, Mr. Bernas manifested that he
was accepting Mr. Maambong’s sequencing. Thereupon, on motion of Mr.
Guingona, there being no objection, the Body approved the sequencing of
the Article on the Bill of Rights.

On the Article on Citizenship, Mr. Maambong informed
the Body that the Committee had sequenced the Article on the basis of
the approved copy of the Committee on Style which contains three
sections. He pointed out, however, that the original Sections 4 and 5
which appeared in the Third Reading copy were restored and, therefore;
this Article would have two additional sections, Section 4 on citizens
who marry aliens and Section 5 on dual allegiance of citizens.

Mr. Maambong manifested that this was the original
sequence approved by the Body and, therefore, there was no need for the
Committee to re sequence it.

Thereafter, on motion of Mr. Maambong, there being
no objection, the Body approved the sequencing of the Article on
Citizenship.

On the Article on Suffrage, Mr. Guingona manifested that it requires no sequencing.

On motion of Mr. Guingona, there being no objection, the Body approved the sequencing of the Article on Suffrage.

On the Article on the Legislative, Mr. Davide
proposed that the Question Hour follow Legislative Inquiries instead of
putting it as Section 31.

Reacting thereto, Mr. Maambong pointed out that
whereas the Question Hour is not a power of Congress in terms of
lawmaking, legislative inquiry is a tool in aid of legislation.

Mr. Davide maintained, however, that the Question
Hour is closely related with the Legislative Power because it is a
necessary complement of Legislative Inquiry and that the appearance of
the Members of the Cabinet would be essential not only for purposes of
check and balance but also as an aid in legislation.

Mr. Maambong accepted Mr. Davide’s suggestion so
that Section 21 would be Section 22 with the succeeding numbers
renumbered accordingly.

Thereafter, on motion of Mr. Guingona, there being
no objection, the Body approved the sequencing of the Article on the
Legislative.

On the Article on the Executive, Mr. Sumulong
manifested that the Committee has no correction on the realignment of
the sections. He stated that the Committee had the cooperation of Mr.
Maambong on the matter of realignment when the Article was considered on
Second Reading.

Thereafter, on motion of Mr. Guingona, there being
no objection, the Body approved the sequencing of the Article on the
Executive.

At this Juncture, Mr. Maambong stated that the
Members of the Commission had just received the official copy of the
sequencing of Articles from I to XVIII. He then suggested that the Body
make use of such official copy.

On the Article on the Judiciary, Mr. Concepcion
stated that he found the sequencing in order but he would have some
suggestions with respect to Section 4 which had been renumbered as
Section 3 on the composition of the Supreme Court sitting en banc. He
explained that for cases to be heard en banc the required vote is no
longer majority of the members plus one vote but only a majority vote
and that subdivision No. 3 should now be part of subdivision No. 2.

In view thereof, Mr. Maambong stated that Committee will accordingly correct the sectional heading.

Thereafter, on motion of Mr. Guingona, there being
no objection, the Body approved the sequencing of the Article on the
Judiciary.

INQUIRY OF MR. REGALADO

Mr. Regalado observed that Section 10 of the Article
on the Judiciary, which used to be Section 13 mentions the interim
salary of the Chief Justice and Associate Justices. He stated that this
section does not provide for salaries which should actually be in the
Transitory Provisions.

Responding thereto, Mr. Maambong stated that it is
already indicated in the Transitory Provisions. He, however, referred
the matter to the Committee on Style.

Thereupon, in reply to the query whether the former
Section 13 of the Article on the Judiciary specifically indicated the
salaries of the Chief Justice and Associate Justices of the Supreme
Court, Mr. Azcuna stated that it is no longer in said Section which only
retains the provision that during their continuance in office their
salaries shall not be decreased.

On the Article on the Constitutional Commissions,
Mr. Foz manifested that Mr. Maambong had followed the suggestions of the
Committee.

Thereafter, on motion of Mr. Guingona, there being
no objection, the Body approved the sequencing of the Article on the
Constitutional Commissions.

At this juncture, Mr. Foz proposed to recast Section
8 on the Article on the Commission on Elections, to which Mr. Rodrigo
replied that the ADAN Committee, had met with Mr. Foz, after which the
Committee unanimously decided to accept the amendment which was purely a
matter of phraseology without change. in substance or essence of the
provision.

On motion of Mr. Rodrigo, there being no objection,
the Body approved the recasting of Section 8 of the Article on the
Commission on Elections as indicated by Mr. Foz.

On the Article on Local Government, Mr. Nolledo
stated that the Committee had made drastic changes in the sequence of
the provisions. He pointed out, however, that the Committee had placed
on Section 3 the Local Government Code instead of in Section 6. He
stated that even in the Local Government Code, all the sections on the
General Provisions with the exceptions of the new provisions like the
Regional Development Councils are embodied in the Local Government Code
which, he believed, should be placed ahead. In view thereof, he
suggested that the third provision should appear in the General
Provisions.

Responding thereto, Mr. Maambong stated that the
flagship provision is the one which provides that local governments
shall be given autonomy, so that right after Section 1 on the
territorial and political subdivisions, the Committee placed in Section 2
the flagship provision on local autonomy.

Mr. Maambong pointed out that when the local
government units were given local autonomy, simultaneously, they were
given the power to create sources of revenue under Section 12; the power
to have a just share in national taxes in Section 13, and the power to
have a share in the proceeds of the national wealth. He then urged Mr.
Nolledo not to change this concept by placing the Local Government Code
ahead, otherwise, the sequence of the flagship provision and the three
provisions which follow would be utterly destroyed.

In reply thereto, Mr. Nolledo maintained that the
power of taxation is the basis of local autonomy. He stressed that the
structure of government has great pertinence to local autonomy and
following the argument of Mr. Maambong, he stated that Section 14 on the
Regional Development Councils should, likewise, appear in the upperside
because this would concern also local autonomy and the autonomous
regions involved in the implementation of the principle of local
autonomy. He stated that the thrust of the provisions of the Local
Government Code is local autonomy in all aspects of local governments
and it is for this reason, he stated, that his recommendation be
followed, otherwise, he would continue his objections.

Mr. Maambong asked Mr. Nolledo as to where would the
Local, Government Code be placed, to which Mr. Nolledo recommended that
it be placed after local autonomy because these provisions on taxes,
the power of supervision of the President, the term of office and
representation appear in the Local Government Code. He agreed that the
Local Government Code be placed after “local autonomy”, after which
would be the power of supervision of the President so that Section 6 and
7 would be transposed and inserted between Sections 2 and 3.

Finally, Mr. Nolledo apologized to Mr. Maambong for
what he had said during the four-month period which, he opined, are
wanting in civility, to which Mr. Maambong stated that those words never
entered his mind.

APPROVAL OF ARTICLE X ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT

On motion of Mr. Guingona, there being no objection, the Body approved Article X on Local Government.

ARTICLE XI ON ACCOUNTABILITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

Mr. Monsod agreed with the proposal of the Committee.

On motion of Mr. Guingona, there being no objection, the Body approved Article XI on Accountability of Public Officers.

ARTICLE XII ON NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY

Relative to Article XII on National Economy and
Patrimony, Mr. Villegas on behalf of the Committee on National Economy
and Patrimony expressed agreement and commended the Sponsorship
Committee for a more logical sequencing of the sections.

On motion of Mr. Guingona, there being no objection, the Body approved Article XII on National Economy and Patrimony.

ARTICLE XIII ON SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS

On Article XIII on Social Justice and Human Rights
Mrs. Nieva, on behalf of the Social Justice Committee, expressed
concurrence with the arrangement.

On motion of Mr. Guingona, there being no objection, the Body approved Article XIII on Social Justice and Human Rights.

ARTICLE XIV ON EDUCATION, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, ARTS, CULTURE AND SPORTS

The Body proceeded to Article IV on Education Science and Technology, Arts, Culture and Sports.

Mr. Maambong informed the Body that this Article had
been sequenced in advance and that the only change effected therein was
the deletion of the original Section 1 which was transferred to Section
17 of the Article on Declaration of Principles and State Policies.

Mr. Villacorta, on behalf of the Committee on Human Resources stated that the Committee interposes no objection thereto.

On Mr. Padilla’s inquiry whether this Article is not
entitled “Human Resources”, Mr. Maambong stated that the Committee that
prepared this Article is the Committee on Human Resources but that the
Article is not entitled “Human Resources”. Mr. Padilla stated that the
title should be “Human Resources” and that “Education, Science, etc.”
should be subheadings of Article XIV.

Mr. Azcuna opined that there should be a comma (,) after the word Culture which should also be placed in the table of contents.

Thereupon, on motion of Mr. Guingona, there being no
objection, the Body approved Article XIV on Education, Science and
Technology, Arts, Culture and Sports as sequenced.

ARTICLE XIV ON THE FAMILY

The Body proceeded to Article XV on the Family, with
Mrs. Nieva on behalf of the Committee on Social Justice, interposing no
objection.

On motion of Mr. Guingona, there being no objection, Article XV on the Family was approved, as sequenced.

ARTICLE XVI ON GENERAL PROVISIONS

The Body proceeded to Article XVI on General Provisions.

Mrs. Rosario Braid, on behalf of the Committee on
General Provisions, recommended the resequencing of Sections 9, 10 and
11 considering that Section 11 which refers to an advisory consultative
body on cultural communities is not related to communication such that
Section 11 should be assigned as Section 9.

Mr. Maambong, in turn, suggested that Section 11 be
placed at the end so that Section 12 would become Section 11 and there
would be a flow of communication and information, followed by mass
media, to which Mrs. Rosario Braid agreed.

Thereupon, on motion of Mr. Guingona, there being no
objection, the Body approved, as sequenced, Article XVI on General
Provisions.

ARTICLE XVII ON AMENDMENTS OR REVISIONS

The Body proceeded to Article XVII on Amendments or Revisions.

Mr. Suarez, on behalf of the Committee on Amendments
and Transitory Provisions, suggested that the Body take up the Article
on Amendments or Revisions and the Article on Transitory Provisions
together, to which the Committee agreed.

Mr. Maambong stated that with respect to the Article on Amendments or Revisions the Committee adopted the original sequence.

There being no objection, the Body approved, as sequenced, Article XVII on Amendments or Revisions.

ARTICLE XVII ON TRANSITORY PROVISIONS

The Body proceeded to Article XVIII on Transitory Provisions, to which Mr. Suarez interposed no objection.

Thereupon, on motion of Mr. Guingona, there being no
objection, the Body approved, as sequenced, Article XVIII on Transitory
Provisions.

MANIFESTATION OF MR. GUINGONA

Mr. Guingona commended the Subcommittee on Rubrics
for the job well done and he specifically commended Mr. Maambong who
spent a lot of working hours in the Computer Section for this particular
endeavor.

MANIFESTATION OF MR. MAAMBONG

Mr. Maambong commended all the staff and employees
of the Computer Unit under the Office of the Secretary-General for their
cooperation.

Mr. Guingona, on behalf of the Sponsorship Committee, commended all those who supported the Committee.

SPONSORSHIP SPEECH OF MR. GUINGONA

In his sponsorship remarks, Mr. Guingona stated that
the Constitutional Commission has finally completed its task of
drafting a Constitution which is reflective of the spirit of the time,
of nationalism, of liberation and of rising expectations.

He recalled that on June 2, 1986, forty-eight men
and women who came from different walks of life with diverse backgrounds
and orientations, even with conflicting convictions but all sharing the
same earnest desire to serve the people, met in the Plenary Hall of the
Batasan Building to draft a Constitution which will establish a
government that the people could trust and enthusiastically support, a
Constitution that guarantees individual rights and serves as a barrier
against excesses of those in authority.

He stated that the men and women who drafted the
1986 Constitution were moved by the same Spirit as that described by
Clinton Rossiter, who in writing about the framers of the 1787
Constitution of the United States, said:

The Spirit of the framers was a blend of prudence
and imagination, of caution and creativity, of principle and
practicality of idealism and realism about the governing and
self-governing of men.

Mr. Guingona stressed that a Constitution of the
people and for the people derives its authenticity and authority from
the sovereign will, and it should reflect the norms, the values, the
modes of thought of society, preserve its heritage, promote its
orderliness and security, protect its cherished liberties and guard
against the encroachments of would be dictators. These objectives, he
stated, had served as the framework in drafting the 1986 Constitution.

Mr. Guingona stated that the form and structure of
the government under the draft Constitution are built within the context
of the principle that the Philippines is a democratic and republican
state and as such the Constitution has provided for a presidential form
of government with a bicameral legislature where the President, the
Vice-President, the members of the two Houses of Congress as well as
certain local government officials are to be elected directly by the
people by a majority vote. He pointed out that this draft Constitution
has sought to broaden citizen participation by providing that the
disabled and the illiterates shall have the right to vote and that
Congress shall provide for a system of absentee voting by qualified
Filipinos abroad.

He stated that the concept of checks and balances
has been maintained but with modifications to the traditional provisions
with the end in view of making the three Departments as coordinate and
co-equal as possible.

He stated that the Executive power is vested in the
President of the Philippines who possesses similar broad powers given to
the Chief Executive under the 1935 Constitution but conscious of the
abuses perpetrated by the former President-turned-dictator, some of
these powers have been curbed like for instance, as commander-in-chief
of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, the President may suspend the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any
part thereof under martial law provided that there must be an actual
invasion and rebellion. He stated that although the President may
exercise these powers on his own authority, Congress may revoke the
proclamation or suspension. He said that martial law does not suspend
the operation of the Constitution nor supplant the functioning of the
civil courts or legislative assemblies nor does it automatically suspend
the privilege of the writ. He further stated that another restriction
on the powers of the President is contained in the provision that the
President may contract or guarantee foreign loans on behalf of the
Republic of the Philippines only with the concurrence of the Monetary
Board and subject to such limitations as may be provided by Congress.

Mr. Guingona stated that a significant innovation,
as far as the Legislative Department is concerned, refers to the broader
representation in the Lower House to embrace various sectors of
society, in effect enlarging the democratic base. He also cited as
another important innovation, the system of initiative and referendum
whereby the people could “directly propose and enact laws, or approve or
reject any act or law or part thereof passed by the Congress or local
legislative body”.

Furthermore, he stated that a high standard
Legislature should require its Members to make full disclosure of their
financial and business interests upon their assumption of office. He
stated that there are also safeguards built into the Constitution to
prevent the phenomenon of “juggling” appropriations for the benefit of
politicians of favored electoral districts.

With respect to the Judiciary, Mr. Guingona stated
that under the draft Constitution, it is vested with additional powers
to make it independent, immune from intrusions from the other branches
of government so that it could be an effective guardian and interpreter
of the Constitution and the protector of the people’s rights. He pointed
out that the President’s power to fill vacancies in the Judiciary shall
be confined only to the recommendees from the Judicial and Bar Council
created under the supervision of the Supreme Court.

Judicial power, he stated, includes the duty to
“determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the government”. He stressed that this duty has
far-reaching implication in the sense that the Supreme Court cannot,
like Pontius Pilate, wash its hands of its responsibility of reviewing
acts of public officials and offices. Furthermore, he pointed out that
Congress may not deprive the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction over
cases enumerated in the Constitution and neither shall any law be passed
reorganizing the Judiciary when it undermines security of tenure. He
stated that the Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over
all courts and the personnel thereof and it shall have the power to
appoint all officials and employees of the Judiciary. He further stated
that the Judiciary shall enjoy fiscal autonomy.

Mr. Guingona stated that like the Congress and the
Judiciary, the Constitutional Commissions, in order to protect their
independence, shall enjoy fiscal autonomy and shall appoint their
officials in accordance with law.

With respect to the Civil Service Commission, he
stated that it is charged with the task of adopting measures to promote
morale, efficiency, integrity, responsiveness, progressiveness and
courtesy in the Civil Service and restrictions are imposed on the
eligibility of elective officials for appointment to any public
position.

On the Commission on Elections, Mr. Guingona stated
that it would have the power to file petitions in court for inclusion or
exclusion of voters from the registry and to prosecute cases of
violations of election laws. He said that a free and open party shall be
allowed to evolve.

Mr. Guingona stated that the Commission on Audit is
given the exclusive authority to define the scope of its audit and
examination and that no law shall be passed exempting any entity of the
government or its subsidiary, or any investment of public funds, from
its jurisdiction.

Mr. Guingona stressed that the Constitution is not
just a written legal document which fleshes out the form of government
and engineers its structures but it also serves as a symbol to represent
the solidarity of a people in a pluralistic society.

Explaining further the highlights of the
Constitution, Mr. Guingona stated that the Constitution seeks to widen
the taxing powers of local governments to enable them to impose taxes,
fees and charges which shall accrue exclusively to them. These units, he
stated, shall have a just share in the national taxes which shall be
automatically released to them and that they are entitled to the
equitable share of the proceeds in the utilization and development of
the national wealth within their jurisdiction. Aside from local
autonomy, he stated that the proposed Charter would create two
autonomous regions, namely, Muslim Mindanao and the Cordilleras.

With respect to public officials, Mr. Guingona
stated that the philosophy underscored in the Constitution is that
“public office is a public trust and that public officers and employees
are accountable to the people”. Relative to this philosophy, it is
likewise provided that the State shall maintain honesty and integrity in
public service and take positive and effective measures against graft
and corruption.

Mr. Guingona stated that under the new Charter, it
is likewise provided as an additional ground for impeachment, betrayal
of public trust, which need not be an indictable offense. He stated that
the House of Representatives shall have the exclusive power to initiate
all cases of impeachment and the Committee to which the verified
complaint is referred cannot quash the same through non-referral to the
House as was done during the Marcos regime.

He stated that the present anti-graft court and
known as the Sandiganbayan shall continue to function under the new
Constitution although an independent Office of the Ombudsman has been
created, the principal function of which is to investigate on its own or
on complaint by any person any act or omission of any public official,
employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be
illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient.

Mr. Guingona underscored that the institutions
through which the sovereign people rule themselves are essential for the
effective operation of government, although these are not enough in
order that the body politic may evolve and progress. He stressed the
need for an underlying socio-economic philosophy which would direct
these political structures and serve as the mainspring for development
and it is for these reasons, he stated, that the proposed Charter
contains separate Articles on Social Justice and National Economy and
Patrimony.

He opined that any talk of people’s freedom and
legal equality would be empty rhetoric as long as they continue to live
in destitution and misery but in helping to bring about transformation,
in helping the common man break away from the bondage of traditional
society and in helping to restore to him his dignity and worth, the
right to individual initiative and to property shall be respected.

Mr. Guingona stated that the Article on Social
Justice and Human Rights which President Muñoz Palma referred to as the
“heart of the Constitution”, provides that Congress shall give highest
priority to the enactment of measures that would reduce social, economic
and political inequalities and at the same time address the problem of
1) labor, the rights of workers to self-organization, collective
bargaining and peaceful and concerted activities including the right to
strike in accordance with law; 2) farmers, farmworkers, subsistence
fishermen and the fishworkers through agrarian and natural resources
reform; 3) the underprivileged and homeless citizens in urban centers
and resettlement areas through an integrated and comprehensive approach
to health development; 4) the women by ensuring the fundamental
equality, before the law, of women and men; and 5) people’s
organizations by facilitating the establishment of adequate consultation
mechanisms.

Mr. Guingona stressed that the nation’s economic
policy must strike a healthy equilibrium between the need to spur growth
and the effective Filipino control of the economy such that the
nation’s patrimony should be protected without closing its doors
completely to those who wish to aid the country in its task of economic
recovery. Moreover, he stated that the Article on National Economy and
Patrimony mandates the State to recognize the indispensable role of the
private sector and encourage private enterprise and offer incentives to
needed investments. This Article, he stated, sets these objectives: 1)
economic self-reliance; 2) freedom from undue foreign control of the
national economy especially in strategic industries and 3) equitable
distribution of income and wealth thus reducing economic inequality. He
further stated that these objectives are sought to be attained through
such provisions as 1) the State shall promote the preferential use of
Filipino labor, domestic materials and locally-produced goods; 2) the
Congress shall enact measures that would encourage the formation and
operation of enterprises the capital of which is wholly-owned by
Filipinos; and 3) the State shall regulate and exercise authority over
foreign investment within its national jurisdiction in accordance with
its national goals and priorities.

Mr. Guingona stressed that socio-economic
development should depend in large measure on the existence of peace and
order and in this respect, the proposed Charter hews to the principle
that civilian authority, is, at all times, supreme over the military.
Furthermore, it establishes a national integrated police force which is
civilian in character and it provides for the professionalization of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines.

He pointed out that the Constitution enshrined human
rights to reflect the people’s growing concern to give legal
recognition and enforceability to their inherent and inalienable rights.
He added that to obviate the possibility of human rights violations
experienced during the tyrannical years of Marcos rule, the
Constitutional Commission adopted an expanded enumeration of these
rights which include the issuance of search warrant or warrant of arrest
only by a judge; right to bail which should not be impaired even when
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended; that no person
shall be detained merely by reason of his political beliefs and
aspirations and that no torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation
or any other means which vitiates the free will shall be used against
him. He further stated that secret detention places, solitary,
incommunicado or other similar forms of detention are prohibited.

Mr. Guingona further enumerated several merits of
the proposed Constitution, among them, the right to free public
education in the elementary and secondary levels and the maintenance of a
system of scholarship grants and other incentives including direct
subsidies to students; a separate Article on the Family; and the
creation of a Commission on Human Rights to reflect the government’s
commitment to champion the cause of man’s basic rights.

Finally, Mr. Guingona stated that those which he
articulated represent the ideas, values and institutions which would
serve as the key to national transformation and development and the
driving force for our irreversible march to progress. He described this
Constitution as one, which in the words of U.S. Supreme Court Chief
Justice John Marshall, is intended to endure for ages to come and
consequently to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.” He
hoped that the efforts exerted by the Members in drafting the
Constitution would pave the way towards the establishment of a reviewed
constitutional government.

APPROVAL ON SECOND READING OF THE ENTIRE DRAFT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

Thereupon, on motion of Mr. Guingona, there being no
objection, the Body approved on Second Reading, the draft Constitution
of the Republic of the Philippines.

MOTION TO STRIKE OFF CERTAIN REMARKS FROM THE RECORD

On motion of Mr. Villacorta, there being no
objection, the Body approved the deletion from the record of the
previous day’s session, the exchange between him and Mr. Monsod which
was reflected on page 82 of the Journal of October 12, 1986 from the
second sentence of the paragraph entitled “Manifestation of Mr. Azcuna”
starting with the words “Mr. Monsod objected to the proposal . . .” to
the end of the paragraph.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

On motion of Mr. Romulo, the Chair suspended the session until two o’clock in the afternoon.

It was 12:07 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 2:54 p.m., the session was resumed with the
President of the Constitutional Commission, the Honorable Cecilia Muñoz
Palma, presiding.

APPROVAL ON THIRD READING OF THE FINAL DRAFT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

On motion of Mr. Rama, there being no objection, the
Body proceeded to vote, on Third reading, on the final draft of the
Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines.

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

EXPLANATION OF VOTES

The following Members explained their votes:

By Mr. Abubakar:

Mr. Abubakar, in voting in the affirmative, stated
that the final draft of the Constitution is imbued not only with the
spirit of patriotism of the Members but also their capacity, knowledge,
dedication and awareness that this document would be the Constitution of
the Filipino people upon its approval.

He stated that perusal of the Constitution would
reveal that the Members have assiduously studied every article and
provision therein especially those affecting the rights of the
individual Filipino as well as the growth of the nation. He expressed
confidence that the had arrived at a good decision in voting for a good
Constitution because he believes that the Members of the Commission had
done their best in drafting a Constitution which everyone could be proud
of.

By Mr. Alonto:

Mr. Alonto cast his affirmative vote with an accompanying prayer, to wit:

“I am casting my vote in Thy Holy Name God to firm
my unstinted vote for Thy mercy to grant the Filipino people by this
Constitution a nation that invites to good, enjoins what is right and
forbids what is wrong. And so, I vote Yes without any reservation
whatsoever for purposes evasion and so help us God.

Amen.”

By Mr. Azcuna:

Mr. Azcuna voted in favor of the Constitution
because it is predicated on experience in the sense that it is built on
the past but faces the future; articulates the ageless dreams and ideals
of the people and at the same time addresses the present necessities
for peace with justice and development with freedom. It is a document,
he stated, forged in the fires of debate and intellectual exchange and
in the age-old search of mankind to strike that delicate balance between
freedom and authority, between liberty and order.

At a time of choice and facing the final constraints
of drafting a Constitution for all the people, Mr. Azcuna quoted his
nine-year old daughter who said: “I wish that this country would be a
better country; that the Philippines would have grass that were cut and
streets that do not have holes and poor people would be rich; and that
this country would have no problems; and posters and notes would not be
put in the walls and no one will write on it; and that no jeepneys,
tricycles, buses, taxis would put smoke in the streets. That would be my
dream, for maybe someday all these will happen”. Mr. Azcuna stated that
he would not sign this Constitution with the blood of his children for
he has filled it with their dreams.

Explaining the salient features of the proposed
Charter, Mr. Azcuna cited the separation of powers in government with
the belief that the only way to protect freedom and liberty is to
separate and divide its awesome powers. He pointed out the restoration
to the people of their basic rights and freedoms and the recognition,
once more, that the nation has a democratic way of life. He further
stated that the Constitution provides for the enforcement of these
freedoms through the mechanism of a constitutional writ found in the
Article on the Judiciary so that the courts could truly safeguard the
liberties of the people. Furthermore, he stated that the Members tried
to make the people truly sovereign by giving them reserved powers of
legislation through initiative, referendum and recall.

On the social aspects of the Constitution, Mr.
Azcuna stated that the provisions are addressed to the poor, the
oppressed, the disadvantaged and those who have less in life. At the
same time, he pointed out that the Commission tried to push to the
farthest limits the dimensions of freedom and equality, opportunities of
learning, information, knowledge and communication.

On the economic aspects, Mr. Azcuna believed that
although some Members differed deeply in some provisions, the
Constitution is very flexible, dynamic and suited to the changes of the
times. He stated that this Constitution highlights the return of the
land to the tillers as well as industrialization in the countryside.

Finally, Mr. Azcuna stated that in the final
analysis, it is not the Constitution but the social forces behind the
Constitution that would determine the destiny of the country.

By Mr. Bacani:

Mr. Bacani voted in the affirmative because he
believes that the Constitution embodies the ideals, values and
aspirations of the post-Marcos Filipino generation that it possesses the
following characteristics:

1) It is pro-life for it renounces war as an
instrument of national policy; the death penalty was abolished; it
affirms in principle that the Philippines shall be free of nuclear
weapons; and it mandates the State to protect the life of the unborn
from conception;

2) It is pro-people in the sense that it affirms the
principle that sovereignty resides in the people and all government
authority emanates from them; that the Bill of Rights’ indicates that
the government should be at the service of the people; that in the
Article on the Legislative, a sizeable representation for marginalized
sector has been provided; and that the accountability of public officers
is stressed in one whole Article;

3) It is pro-poor because a whole Article is devoted
to social justice and there are many provisions therein that seek to
protect labor, the disadvantaged, the poor, the underprivileged and even
the paupers; and

4) It is pro-Filipino, in the sense that it mandates
an effective control of the economy by Filipinos; that the control and
administration of educational institutions shall be vested in citizens
of the Philippines; and that the paramount consideration in the
country’s foreign relations shall be national sovereignty; territorial
integrity, national interest and the right to self-determination.

Aside from the foregoing, Mr. Bacani believes that
there are other desirable features of this Constitution, among which are
the imploring of the aid of Almighty God; the aspiration for a regime
characterized by justice, truth, freedom, equality and by love; the
inclusion of family rights; and a totally new Article on Education.

Finally, Mr. Bacani admitted that he would have been
happier if fostering love of God had been put as one of the tasks of
educational institutions. He believes, however, that this shortcoming
has been more than compensated by the many positive aspects enshrined in
the Constitution. He stated that he was voting Yes for the sake of the
Filipino people, the stability of the government and for the glory of
God.

By Mr. Bengzon:

In casting his affirmative vote, Mr. Bengzon stated
that from the ashes of the nation’s ideals, democracy was once again
alive and that he was grateful for this rare chance to draft the new
Constitution because people’s dreams have become whole and their hopes
resurrected. This new Constitution, he stated, reflects the deep concern
of the leadership for the people’s needs and welfare; infuses life and
vigor into democracy; gives impetus to the social and economic rights of
the people; and most of all enshrines the family as the basic unit of
society.

Mr. Bengzon stated that the flexibility and dynamism
of this Constitution would be his opening salvo in his campaign for its
ratification. He stressed that this is a call to duty for those who
share his thoughts; an invitation to the curious and the skeptics; and
an offer of peaceful reconciliation to the Opposition.

To the young, Mr. Bengzon stated that the Body has
given its best to them through the Articles on Social Justice and
National Economy and Patrimony. But, he stressed that the most important
part of the Constitution is the Article on the Family which enshrines
the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation — a family that is
God-loving, law-abiding, self-disciplined, fair and concerned with its
fellowmen.

By Mr. Bernas:

Mr. Bernas stated that when the Body began its task
of writing the Constitution, his utmost concern was to hasten the return
to normal constitutional processes with a Constitution that is superior
to government and to an incumbent administration.

He stated that the Freedom Constitution is
unsatisfactory as a permanent anchor for nation-building because it is
inferior to government and must therefore be replaced, within the
shortest time possible, by a fundamental document which the presidency
may neither alter nor disregard.

Mr. Bernas stated that the draft Constitution seeks
to place law above government and deserves support as a basically strong
document which contains provisions for a fortified judiciary and a
liberal bill of rights and carefully articulates socio-economic growth
for a society plagued for centuries by inequitable distribution of
wealth and political power.

However, he expressed serious misgivings about
certain provisions thereof. He stated that he treasures personal
dignity, human worth and liberty of the children of God regardless of
their political affiliation or their past. He stressed that although he
is proud that the Body was able to draft the Bill of Rights which is a
monument to all these and superior to any document the country ever had,
yet he finds the document ambivalent about the values it purportedly
upholds because, by extending the license to sequester and freeze, it
proclaims the message that personal privacy and punctilious adherence to
time-honored legal processes have a dollar price. He pointed out that
the auctioning off of the search and seizure clause of the Bill of
Rights has been justified by appeal to the demands of national survival,
the same justification Mr. Marcos used for suspending fundamental
liberties.

Mr. Bernas recalled that during the previous
sessions the plenary hall reverberated with similar arguments laced with
language that tended to give substance to the accusation that the
present administration is driven by vindictiveness even as the Body
defended a Preamble that enshrines love and this was capped with a
provision which takes the administration of justice away from the
Judiciary because the Body trusted an administrative agency more than
the Judiciary. He stressed that all these bode ill not just for the Bill
of Rights but even for the nation.

On the socio-economic goals as formulated, Mr.
Bernas pointed out that these are not self-executory because to put them
into effect they have to depend on Congress. He opined that
unfortunately, the Body through a narrow vote of 23 to 22, opted to
entrust the attainment of these goals to a bicameral Congress,
structured in a manner that insulates its membership from the direct
pressures of the masses who cry for socio-economic relief. He opined
that the road ahead is long, perhaps even heavily mined and barricaded
by formidable obstacles, nevertheless, the country must begin and not
wait for a perfect Constitution which will never come. He stated that
what was drafted, aside form its verbosity, is substantially defective,
yet it is outstanding in many ways and satisfactory in others. For these
reasons and for the sake of constitutional normalization, Mr. Bernas
voted Yes.

By Mrs. Rosario Braid:

Mrs. Rosario Braid voted favorably for the
Constitution, stating that she is convinced that it is the best the
country ever had. She opined that the Body took a bold step towards
popular democracy; fully harmonized and balanced various interests;
reflected the commitment to the ideals of independence, social justice
and human rights; responded and reconciled the needs and demands of the
individuals and of society; recognized the need for preferential option
for the poor; broadened ownership; set mechanisms for interaction and
balance of power through initiative and referendum; encouraged the
participation of the various sectors through the party-list system;
opted for decentralization and autonomy; and strengthened people’s
institutions.

She added that although the Constitution has
deficiencies, the breakthrough is significant; the Commission had gone
beyond political rights and considered social, cultural and economic
rights which are equally significant. She pointed out that even the
American Constitution is not completely satisfactory to everyone but it
has successfully met the test of time for it favors no sector in the
country or portion of its population.

In conclusion, she expressed the hope that the
people would rally behind the Constitution as the country’s symbol of
hope in the establishment of a balanced social order and as the best
alternative during these times.

By Mr. Calderon:

Mr. Calderon voted in favor of the Constitution
stating that although not flawless, it is firm, sturdy and strong enough
to withstand the pressures and the tensions that nationhood can
produce. He opined that the Constitution is not faultless but it is the
utmost that the spirit of compromise and accommodation among men of
goodwill can devise. He added that the Constitution is not perfect but
it is the best that the genius of men in ail its frailty can forge. He
stressed that it is upon this constitutional rock that the Filipino
people can rebuild the house of the nation.

By Mr. de Castro:

Mr. de Castro voted in favor of the Constitution
because of its many innovations which have been included for the sake
and benefit of the people. He stated that the Body tried to perfect an
instrument to promote the general welfare and that he sincerely believes
that it had produced, though only theoretically, a perfect instrument.

He opined that the fate of the Constitution would
now be left in the hands of the men and women who shall be entrusted to
enforce it because if they violate, ignore or evade the Constitution. no
Constitution will work. He stressed that if the people themselves would
permit such leaders to remain in power instead of denouncing them, they
do not deserve a Constitution.

He urged that the people be made to realize that the
Constitution can only live in them, for them, through them and because
of them. He stressed that the Filipinos live as free men and that the
Constitution expresses their resolve to live and act as free men.

By Mr. Colayco:

In voting in favor of the Constitution, Mr. Colayco
stated despite its imperfections, it reflects the Body’s honest effort
to establish a form of government that will meet the economic, social,
and political problems of the country; provides for the needs of the
people; and defends the independence of the country in the years to
come.

He pointed out that the Constitution encourages
capital to share responsibility and profit with labor; instills social
conscience in those who have more material goods in life; and provides
more in law for those who have less in life. He stated that he considers
his participation in the Commission as the crowning event in his
service to the people, having been a member of the judiciary for 15
years.

By Mr. Concepcion:

Explaining his affirmative vote, Mr. Concepcion
stated that the new Constitution would be the first drafted by a free
Filipino people since the end of the 19th century, the 1935 Constitution
having been drafted under deep restraint and was subject to conditions
imposed by an alien sovereign; while the 1973 Constitution was made
under actual and almost material duress and was never ratified by the
people apart from the fact that from a legal and constitutional
viewpoint a Constitution cannot be ratified by the people through a
referendum but must be submitted to the people in a plebiscite.

He stated that the new Constitution is the
culmination of the February revolution and is, in fact, its necessary
consequence. He added that although there had been conflicts, the
Constitution is a labor of love — love for country, love for the family,
and love for the Filipino people.

By Mr. Davide:

Mr. Davide voted in favor of the Constitution as one
which lays the foundation of a new life and a new order for the people,
a life always worthy of human dignity, and an order which restores to
and preserves for them their rights and freedoms, and ensures their
political and economic stability, social and cultural equity and total
human liberation and development.

He added that the Constitution contains provisions
which ensure responsive, more representative, democratic, and
accountable government; preserves to the people through initiative,
referendum and recall, the right to amend the Constitution, enact laws,
disapprove legislative measures and recall of local officials; provides
for broader local autonomy, equal opportunity of access to public office
with the elimination of political dynasties, politics-free Armed Forces
of the Philippines; genuine social justice, agrarian reform and urban
land reform; guarantees the promotion and enhancement of respect for
human rights; enshrines the sanctity of life from the moment of
conception; and makes the family the foundation of the nation, aside
from the other provisions which make the new Constitution more
comprehensive than any of the previous Constitutions.

He added that even though the Constitution is not
perfect, it is the best Constitution for Filipinos. He opined that
perhaps God, the Supreme Lawgiver, was always with the Body as it
researched for, studied, discussed, debated, and voted upon the
provisions thereof. He added that it is his hope that the Constitution
would be loved by the people and that what the Body begun would be
pursued by the leadership and by the new Congress.

By Mr. Foz:

Mr. Foz voted affirmatively, despite some provisions
which did not completely satisfy his personal views, because of the
many others over which he could rejoice, one of which being the
provisions on labor which represents a major breakthrough in its long
struggle for a better deal.

He pointed out that the Body recognized in no
uncertain terms the right of government workers to unionize which, in
effect, sets them on equal footing with their private sector
counterparts, hence constitutionally, both have the same rights
although, in view of the nature and requirements of public service, the
right of government workers to strike as part of peaceful concerted
activities may be subject to certain restrictions to be determined by
Congress.

He added that the new Constitution is specially
pro-labor for the rights of workers and employees have acquired new
dimensions, while some concepts have been constitutionalized which may
provide new directions for employer – employee interactions, namely: 1)
“collective negotiation” which calls for consensual approach and
resolution to labor disputes rather than confrontational union politics;
2) the principle of “shared responsibility between workers and
employers” which underscores the truism that production is a joint
undertaking which, in turn, is back-stopped by a new provision that in
regulating their relations which is vested with public interests, the
State shall recognize the right of labor to its just share of the fruits
of production and the right of enterprises to reasonable returns of
investments for expansion and growth. For most of these ideas, he
thanked Ms. Aquino, Messrs. Colayco and Davide, Mrs. Nieva and Mrs.
Quesada, and Messrs. Monsod and Sarmiento among many others.

He stressed that the Constitution the Body drafted
reflects the aspirations of the Filipino for a government in which he
could take part more meaningfully; for an environment in which he could
live and work better with his family and fellowmen, and exercise his
rights and enjoy the liberty to achieve the fullness of his human being.

By Mr. Garcia:

Mr. Garcia stated that the significance of a
Constitution could be appreciated only in terms of the historical
context which gives it birth and it is in this light that the value of
the new Constitution must be seen. He pointed out that the historical
context he is referring to is the people’s long history of struggle to
be truly free from want and hunger and to determine and create their own
future. He added that this freedom implies the logic of the rule of the
majority who are truly empowered to make the economy productive and
self-reliant, with the fruits thereof equitably distributed to all in a
nation made fully sovereign. He stressed that the thrusts of this
freedom are popular democracy, economic justice and national
sovereignty.

He explained that the precise historical juncture in
which the new Constitution finds itself is the aftermath of the popular
revolution of 1986 that toppled a foreign-backed native dictatorship
characterized by an extremely corrupt and abusive rule. He stressed,
however, that the task of the popular revolution is not yet over since
the change must not only be political but should also be accompanied by
substantial social changes to make the people fully free. He opined that
the new Constitution, as the fundamental law of the land heralding the
creation of a new social order, has a crucial role to play in the
people’s continuing struggle for authentic liberation.

He pointed out that the new Constitution contains
provisions which make democracy more participatory and popular; the
Articles on the Bill of Rights, the Judiciary, and the Commission on
Human Rights which provide strong safeguards against encroachment by the
State of the people’s civil and political liberties; the provisions on
people’s organization which define their rights and role as a
significant vehicle towards the popular empowerment of the people; the
provisions on the system of initiative, referendum, and recall which
provide for concrete mechanisms that would institutionalize people
power; the Article on Local Government which provides for
decentralization and greater local autonomy; the provisions on
multiparty system and sectoral representation which provide, even if
inadequately, for the inclusion in Congress of representatives of
various persuasions and various sectors.

On economic justice, he pointed out that the Article
on Social Justice which mandates Congress to give highest priority to
the enactment of measures to reduce economic, political and social
inequalities found among the people is subject to conflicting
interpretations on the degree and scope of its implementation specially
with regard to the provisions mandating agrarian reform. However, he
opined that there is less ambiguity in the provisions which pertain to
the other economic and social rights of the people such as those of
labor, the urban poor, the fishermen, women, cultural communities, the
right to health and free public education and among others.

He stressed that it is in the area of advancing
national sovereignty that the new Constitution is most wanting. He
pointed out that the Article on National Economy and Patrimony, despite
its lofty declarations, fails to provide measures to protect the
country’s economy from domination by foreign interests and to build a
truly self-reliant and progressive economy that would harness the full
productive capacity of the people to provide for their basic needs. He
added that the new Constitution also lacks a firm declaration of
principles prohibiting the presence of foreign military bases,
facilities and troops in Philippine territory which constitutes a clear
diminution of the people’s sovereignty and exposes the country to the
specter of the holocaust of nuclear war where there will be no victors,
no vanquished and no survivors. Nevertheless, he added that the
provision making the country nuclear-weapons-free is a unique
contribution to nuclear disarmament and the quest for world peace, if
only in this part of the world.

Finally, Mr. Garcia, stated that he is voting in
favor of the Constitution because of his faith in the people and in
their ability to forge a future and peace together and to achieve unity
in diversity. He added that his decision is also based on his conviction
that the people could make use even of an imperfect document to
determine their future and say yes to life.

By Mr. Gascon:

Mr. Gascon, prefaced his explanation by reading from the Bible Timothy, Chapter 4, verses 6 to 8, to wit:

For I am now ready to be offered and the time of my
departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight. I have finished my
course. I have kept my faith. Henceforth, there is laid up for me a
crown of righteousness which the Lord, the righteous Judge shall give me
on that day, and not to me only, but unto all of them also that love
His appearing.

Mr. Gascon reflected on the many events in the past
four months — the heated debates, the tensions, the pressures, the
simple joys and heartaches — which have contributed to his development
as a person and as a student of history. He noted that it had been a
great learning experience and thanked his fellow Members whom he called
his teachers, his mentors and his friends for having given him the
opportunity to work with and learn from them.

The historical moment in February, he observed, had
been continually mentioned during the deliberations and had been a
source of inspiration, and that inspiration should also be sought from
the farmers, the workers, the urban poor, the fishermen, the cultural
communities, the youth and students. They, he noted, continually live in
abject poverty and in search for justice, freedom, equality and with
very little means of empowering themselves, continue the struggle for
democracy-political, economic and social. He stressed that what is
sought is a popular democracy, one which cannot be assured by a piece of
paper but is achieved through constant education, organization and
empowerment of the masses.

Mr. Gascon manifested his reservations regarding
some crucial provisions which may limit the efforts in the declaration
of martial law without prior concurrence of Congress which, he felt does
not reflect the interest ‘of the people after 20 years of dictatorship;
2) the bicameralism which insulates an elite few from the cry of the
masses and, in the same Article on the Legislative Department, the lack
of representation for sectors which he had hoped and dreamed would be
asserted more clearly; 3) the limitations in the definition of “just
compensation” in the provisions on agrarian reform which may put
restrictions to the aspirations of the farmers for genuine social
justice as well as the provision providing for retention limits subject
to what Congress may provide, although he hopes that Congress will
fulfill its commitment to achieve genuine agrarian reform and recognize
the interest of the masses in determining retention limits; 4) the
Article on National Economy and Patrimony, specifically the provisions
on the exploitation of natural resources and public utilities for which
the equity ratio of 60:40 were set as well as the provision on service
contracts without the need of prior Congressional concurrence only for
its determination of a general law to guide in such matter; and 5) on
the provision limiting initiative in amending the Constitution every
five years.

He further noted that the Body was found lacking in
certain aspects, to wit: in asserting the country’s commitment towards
world peace by failing to provide in the Declaration of Principles a
commitment to a zone of peace, freedom and neutrality; in asserting
national sovereignty by failing to face head-on the issue of the U.S.
military bases and dismantling them; in asserting justice by not putting
in a provision abolishing the CHDF; and in asserting the effective
protection for Filipinos in the economy.

On the other hand, Mr. Gascon commended the Body
for: 1) the Article on Education which recognizes some of the basic
aspirations and ideals of the people and provides that education is a
right of the citizens and for a system of free public elementary and
secondary education; 2) the Article on Social Justice, which expresses
the aspirations of the masses and their continuing struggle for social
justice; 3) providing for a more responsive Judiciary and greater
accountability of public officers; 4) providing for a system of checks
and balances so that the government can become more responsive to the
interest of the people; 5) the provisions on Local Government which
grants autonomy for cultural communities of the Cordilleras and Muslim
Mindanao; 6) affirming a Bill of Rights and asserting the
constitutionalization of the Commission on Human Rights.

The Constitution, he believes, is a historical
document which reflects the dynamics of various social forces prevailing
in society and the spirit of commitment to democracy in line with
people power revolution against dictatorship and totalitarianism.

Mr. Gascon stated that the Constitution can only
serve as a guidepost towards a free tomorrow, a pillar of hope and a
torch reflecting the people’s aspirations for justice but it is not a
means to achieve social change nor a solution to the basic ills of
society which stem from foreign domination and social exploitation by
the present capitalist system. He manifested his faith in the people’s
commitment to continue the struggle for genuine emancipation and that
the call and challenge is for the people to advance the more important
phase for the continuing journey for justice, freedom and democracy.

Mr. Gascon voted Yes despite the many inadequacies
and deficiencies of the Constitution, recognizing that the Filipino
people themselves would be the decisive factor in the continuing
struggle for national sovereignty, popular democracy, genuine freedom,
justice and equality.

He stated in Filipino: Ang ating bagong nakamit na
demokrasiya’y hindi paganap sapagkat hindi sapat na ang demokrasiya’y sa
pulitika lamang Mahaba na rin ang landas na ating natahak sa pakikibaka
subalit higit na mahaba ang naghihintay na landas. Magiging makabulahan
ang ating pakikibaka sa pamamagitan ng ating pakikiisa sa mithiin ng
sambayanang lumaya nang lubusan.

In closing, he invited his colleagues, his mentors
and his friends to join the people and advance the Filipino social
revolution.

By Mr. Guingona:

Mr. Guingona stated that as the Commission complete
its task of constitution-making, it ushers in the beginning of an era of
truth, justice, equality, peace and love; a beginning of a hallowed
pilgrimage back to freedom and democracy commenced with the events which
culminated in the peaceful February revolution; a beginning of renewed
faith in institutions, faith in the capacity to bring about social
change and economic recovery and faith of the people in themselves.

The framers of the 1986 Constitution, he noted, were
moved by the same spirit as the framers of the 1787 Constitution of the
U.S. which spirit Clinton Rossiter described, to wit: “The spirit of
the framers was a blend of prudence and imagination, of caution and
creativity, of principles and practicality, of idealism and realism
about the governing and self-governing of men”.

He stated that it was in June this year that the
Members held their first session and thence 132 days have passed during
which time more than a hundred public hearings were held throughout the
country — from Laoag in the north to Basilan in the South; 1,103
communications were sent to the Commission which were duly recorded in
the Journals; oral and written advices, recommendations, comments and
suggestions were received and noted in the preparation of the proposed
resolutions during the deliberations of the 17 standing committees,
caucuses and considerations in plenary sessions. In the public hearings,
he said, as well as in many unofficial forums, the Members listened to
and heard the people’s voices from the farmers, the fishermen, the
itinerant vendors, the idealistic youth of the land, the intellectuals,
the Muslims and the Cordillera people and many others. He stated that
their voices, thinking, sentiments, aspirations, and visions find
reflection in the provisions of the draft Constitution.

He noted that the Commission completed the task of
drafting a constitution under the leadership of President Cecilia Muñoz
Palma, a Constitution which crystallizes the political, social, economic
and cultural beliefs and aspirations of the Filipinos of the 1980’s, a
Charter with breadth and elasticity which would allow future generations
to respond to challenges which the present generations could not
foretell.

Mr. Guingona expressed his trust that the ideals,
values and institutions which are incorporated in the Constitution would
serve as the foundation of society, the keystone of national
transformation and development, and the driving force of what is prayed
for as our irreversible march to progress.

Further, he noted that the Commission trusts that
its humble effort would pave the way towards the establishment of a
renewed constitutional government the country has been deprived of since
1972; that its efforts would ensure that the EDSA triumph of the people
shall continue to be enjoyed by them and their posterity; that its
efforts have resulted in the crafting of a truly democratic and
pro-people Constitution.

The new Constitution, he believes, is reflective of
the spirit of the time, of nationalism, of liberation, of dedication to
the democratic way of life, of rising expectations, and of confidence in
the Filipino.

For the aforestated reasons, Mr. Guingona voted Yes.

By Mr. Jamir:

Mr. Jamir voted Yes for the Constitution on which
the Members labored with utmost care and dedication that it may serve as
a common legacy of faith in the people’s march to a better and more
enduring future.

The members, he observed, came to the Hall with
different and at times clashing ideals and solutions for the country’s
ills although despite such differences, they strived to mold them into
one cohesive whole so that they may fit better into the Charter being
framed. More than that, he stated that they blended beautifully with
each other, resulting in the new Constitution which enshrines many
fundamental changes, to wit: 1) a president with lesser powers than
those provided in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, thereby diminishing
the possibility of another dictatorial and corrupt regime; 2) a
Judiciary with relatively greater powers and more independence from the
Legislative and the Executive branches of government, thereby enabling
it to take cognizance of cases political in character; 3) a greater
range of guarantees for individual freedom under the Bill of Rights; 4) a
more realistic assurances for achievement of social justice, and 5) a
better chance of the survival of Filipino entrepreneurs under the
provisions of the Article on National Economy and Patrimony.

These, he stated, constitute some of the
testimonials of the Members’ common desire and a few of the reasons why
he supports unequivocally the new Constitution.

He noted that it is not a perfect charter, but he
claimed with solemn pride, that the Members did their best to serve the
interests of the country and people without any extraneous
considerations.

Even before the last echo of their voices and
footsteps have died away, he stated that the Constitutional Commission
shall have passed on into history, and time will judge what the Members
did with complete impartiality.

Finally, he expressed his devout prayer that God, in
His infinite goodness and mercy, grant that under the Constitution, the
people may reap a rich harvest of peace, freedom and prosperity.

By Mr. Laurel:

Mr. Laurel recalled that when his late father was
taking Comparative Constitutional Law at the Yale Law School under
William Howard Taft, President and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of
the United States, the learned former Civil Governor of the
Philippines, asked his class the following question: “What is the best
form of government? “

Mr. Laurel recounted that many answered the question
although the Chief Justice dismissed the class, told his students to
reflect on the question individually and to return a week later. He
stated that after a long discussion seven days later, the Chief Justice
came out with the following answer: “The best form of government is an
absolute monarchy with an angel on the throne”.

This, Mr. Laurel remarked is an unattainable dream. He further noted that the poet Pope said:

“For forms of government let fools contest; Whatever is best ministered is best.”

He stated that whatever anyone, anywhere says
against the fundamental law which the Body had fashioned and formulated,
he can only hope and pray that the government sought to be established
shall be well-administered by those in government, now and in the
future, and thereby earn the support of a happy and united people.

He voted Yes.

By Mr. Lerum:

In voting Yes, Mr. Lerum noted that it is a good
Constitution made by good people. He expressed his satisfaction
specifically with the provisions in the Article on Social Justice which
contains many of the things he fought for

On the matter of profit-sharing, he recalled that
when he became a labor leader in 1938, it had been his obsession that
profits management made out of its business, must be shared with labor.

On the freedom of association and the right of
workers to organize and bargain collectively, he noted that although
such rights were given in 1975, government workers were no longer
allowed to form unions and supervisory employees and security guards
were likewise prohibited. He then adverted to the recent Supreme Court
decision denying supervisory workers and managerial employees the right
to form associations. This, he contended, is against the 1935 and 1973
Constitutions and the Freedom Constitution. He informed that the Bill of
Rights specially provides that the right to form associations not
contrary to law shall not be abridged and in spite of such a provision
the Supreme Court denied that right on the ground that the Labor Code
prohibits it. He stressed that in approving the Bill of Rights’
provision on freedom of association, the Labor Code provision is deemed
repealed.

He also commended the inclusion of the living wage
provision in the Social Justice Article as this should be a reminder to
the employers that the workers should be able to maintain themselves
adequately as well as a reminder to treat their workers in the manner
that they would want to be treated, if they happens to be the workers
themselves.

On the recognition of the right of workers and other
sectors to be represented in Congress, Mr. Lerum observed that the
Members saw justice in the demand of workers, which constitute 90% of
the population, for representation. He noted that although they are not
united, as these times, with sectoral representation they will at least
have a voice in Congress. If such sectoral representatives are truly
dedicated, he stated, they shall pursue the programs of their respective
sectors relentlessly.

Based on his experience in the interim Batasang
Pambansa, Mr. Lerum stated that despite the limited sectoral
representation, they were able to secure benefits for the workers.

He stated that it is not. What Members said or are
going to say in the future that would influence the workers in making
their decision to ratify the Constitution but what these workers would
see for themselves are provided for them in this fundamental law. He
then expressed his gratitude to all the Members of the Commission for
their interest in protecting the rights of the workers, especially the
Members of the Committee on the Judiciary for reversing themselves by
agreeing to his amendment of retaining the membership of the Supreme
Court to fifteen members. He stated that he was happy with this
provision, with the Constitution and with his fellow Members, expressing
the hope that all of them would fight hard for what they have worked
for so hard, so that this Constitution would be approved.

By Mr. Maambong:

Mr. Maambong stated that, in spite of his feeling
that he had miserably failed in his earnest efforts to convince the
Commission to allow the people, through the Constitution, to exercise
their right to choose their President and Vice-President in an election
or, at the very least, a referendum, he would still have his privilege
to cast his vote for approval of the Constitution.

He pointed out that the Constitution contains
provisions which give meaning to the principle that “sovereignty resides
in the people and all government authority emanates from them.” He
stressed that the Constitution provides the basic right of suffrage and
the new rights of recall, referendum and initiative, not to mention the
institution of the party-list system in the electoral process. He opined
that additional rights in other Articles also make the Constitution
“pro-people”. However, he found it unfortunate that the Commission had
denied the people the right of suffrage to participate in the choice of
the highest officials of the land in the coming elections. He expressed
his gratitude, however, to the Members of the Commission for giving him
an unlimited opportunity to ventilate his views on the matter and, in a
democratic spirit, he had accepted the decision of the Body without any
rancor in his heart.

Mr. Maambong recalled that, historically, this is
the fifth Constitution, but that this is unique, because it was drafted
in an atmosphere of a revolutionary government. He stated that the
duties of the Members of the Commission are almost over and whatever
contributions were individually made would soon be forgotten because
other than the Journal of the proceedings, the photographs, the new
files and the voluminous records, there would probably be no trace of
their being here except in their memory. He expressed the hope, however,
that the trees they have planted would endure better the test of time.

Mr. Maambong also stated that, above the din of
countless arguments on the floor, the Members had labored in sickness
and in health, so that they would live to see the success of their goal.

He then posed the questions of whether this
constitution, with its preamble, 18 articles, 321 long sections and
numerous subsections, is really worth the efforts exerted or the paper
it is written on; whether, taken as a whole, there is intrinsic
excellence in its scheme; whether there is simplicity, brevity and
precision in its language; whether it will address the immediate
problems of the present and adapt to the circumstances of the future;
whether there is a judicious mixture of definiteness in principle with
elasticity of details; and whether it is a mere parchment containing the
sentiments of a small group of Filipinos in their elaborate attempt to
reflect their love of country and what they perceive to be the desires
of the people.

Mr. Maambong opined that there are no answers here
and now for these questions, but this Charter, once approved would
become the property of the people and the nation, although the living
flesh of this structure would have to be added by the men who are to
make it work.

He stated that the Commission had gone through a
series of difficult, painful and nerve-wracking decisions; however, now
that the tension had subsided, the Members thereof are free to take
their time in examining the document laid bare before them. He pointed
out that by the nature of his assignment, it was his privilege to
examine it more closely ahead of the rest, and he is of the belief that
this Constitution, in the hands of capable administrators, would do the
work for which it is originally designed by them — to provide a
government strong enough to act for the Filipino people, at the same
time maintaining the subservience of the same government to the people
as the true sovereign.

Mr. Maambong then reiterated that his vote was in the affirmative.

By Mr. Monsod:

Mr. Monsod voted in the affirmative because he
believes that this Constitution is an honest reflection of what the
Filipinos are and hope to be as a country and as a people. He stressed
that every session was started with a prayer for guidance that God had
listened, so that this Constitution is an act of faith. He stated that
it was not easy to reconcile the principle of less government and more
freedom with the need for structural change, to institutionalize
safeguards against a repetition of the past and at the same time
preserve the capacity of the government to resolve the very real
problems of the economy, insurgency and and partisan politics, or to
attain a more open political system in the midst of poverty and
inequality.

Mr. Monsod pointed out that, on the whole, the
Commission was successful in making that difficult passage and had
charted a course that strikes a prudent balance among competing
interests, with a clear preference for self-reliance and equitable
distribution of wealth and power. He stressed that the Commission had
enacted a strong Social Justice article no matter how much its
detractors may criticize it, and that he is proud to be one of its
proponents. He underscored the new provisions on checks and balances in
government, public accountability, education, human resources,
communications, the national economy and patrimony, family rights; the
Judiciary and the Constitutional Commissions; the Office of the
Ombudsman and the Commission on Human Rights. He also stated that the
Constitution has enshrined people power through reserved powers of
legislation and Constitutional amendment, consultative mechanisms and
the greatest protection to the poorest of the poor. He stressed that the
introduction of the party-list representation in the Congress
constitutionalized sectoral representation and the Bill of Rights
contains new provisions that protect in the clearest terms individual
rights as against those of the State. He stated that constructive
autonomy has been provided to cultural communities because justice
demands it in pursuit of nationhood. He pointed out that the provisions
on the death penalty, illiterate voting, declaration of martial law,
policy on the bases and nuclear weapons, and many others have been
vested with enough flexibility to respond to circumstances still
unforeseen.

Mr. Monsod stated that history would be the ultimate
judge of their performance and anyone who exerts reasonable effort to
study the Constitution and its proceedings would realize its unequivocal
preference for the Filipinos who are victims of the government or of
society and who continue to suffer indignity, inattention, impropriety
and injustice; that he would also discover the individual contributions
of the Members of the Commission and the pattern of their advocacies;
and, above all, the sincerity and integrity of each Member and of each
vote.

He pointed out that this Constitution is not a
perfect document because it only reflects the Members’ own
imperfectibility and that the vitality and ultimate reach of its vision
would be provided by future generations, but it is a document that
deserves an honest hearing and that it could stand on its own merit and
not what narrow interests many want to read into it so it could be
condemned for their purpose.

Mr. Monsod stated that the Members of the Commission
shall go back to their ordinary lives where they are only answerable to
their conscience. He stressed that that is when the commitment to
truth, justice and nationalism would truly be tested, for it is said
that every good life is a heroic life, no matter how ordinary it may be.
He stated that if democracy is based on the conviction that there are
extraordinary possibilities in ordinary people, then what is before the
Commission are endless opportunities to put into practice the noble
ideas and beautiful words of his Constitution in their everyday lives.
He was confident that all the Members would be equal to that challenge.

Having been involved in controversial debates in
this Body, Mr. Monsod took the opportunity to apologize to any Member
who he may have offended in the advocacy of his convictions. He then
expressed the hope that they would remain friends and colleagues in
their common aspirations.

Finally, he thanked the Secretariat and the staff
for the work that they had done these past four months, for they had
demonstrated to the Members what pursuit of excellence means in quiet
and dedicated service to the country. He wished them the best in their
future undertakings.

By Mr. Natividad:

Mr. Natividad stated that, in this historic and
great moment, it would be a thorn in his heart if he could not explain
his vote in the native language — the language he inherited from his
loving mother. He stated that the reason why he and thousands of
Filipinos who love their own language would vote Yes to this
Constitution is because what they have been waiting for would become a
reality.

He pointed out that a Constitution is worthless if
it could not erase the fears in the hearts of the people, but would only
add to their problems if it could not respond to the needs of the
country. He stressed that the constitution is worthless if it does not
give the common man freedom from fear and want. He stated that this
Constitution which the Commission had formulated for less than five
months answers those two needs.

Mr. Natividad pointed out that under the Bill of
Rights, only a judge could sign the warrant of arrest and that the
Arrest, Search and Seizure Order (ASSO), Presidential Commitment Order
(PCO) and Presidential Detention Action (PDA) are all prohibited,
including hamletting. He stated that in the past, when a suspect is
taken to a camp or a precinct, he would be forced to admit his guilt,
which practice, he added, is no longer possible under the new
Constitution because it provides that the suspect should have a lawyer
before he admits anything. He stated that 80% of those detained remain
in prison because they have no bail to pay, however, under the new
Constitution, they could be freed even without bail as long as they
promise to attend court hearings under the responsibility of their
parents or barangay captains.

Moreover, he stated that if the jail’s condition is
too deplorable, the Congress is mandated to improve it which was not
done in the past. He stated that this Commission cares for them because
the Bible according to St. Matthew says that “Whatever you do to the
least of my brethren, you have done it unto me.”

Mr. Natividad pointed out that the Constitution
would put an end to police abuses. He contended that the youth would
support the concept of a Philippine National Police which would be
civilian in character. He then expressed his gratitude to his colleagues
for approving this provision without amendment and without any turno en
contra.

He also stated that the Constitution respects and
protects the rights of every Filipino through the Commission on Human
Rights to help heal the wounds of past abuses. He stressed that even
political competitions would be minimized because there is a strict
limitation on the term of office of elective officials. The Commission,
he stated, has included all possible means to uplift the present
economic situation of the country with the Members having squeezed their
knowledge and experience to attain development for the country.

Finally, Mr. Natividad stated that the Constitution
would not only create a new government for the Filipinos but would also
erase all fears. He stressed that this Constitution would bring a new
dawn to the country and to the people.

Mr. Natividad then registered an affirmative vote.

By Mrs. Nieva:

Mrs. Nieva stated that it was with a deep sense of
joy and gratitude to God that she was giving her full assent to the
draft of the Constitution, a historic document marking a new beginning
in the life of the nation and a giant step towards total liberation,
freedom and peace. She pointed out that the completion of the Charter is
one more miracle in a year of miracles that saw the Filipino people
rise like a Phoenix from the ashes of its long years of captivity to
recapture its place in the sun as a free people through a lightning
revolution of faith and love, never before seen in human history.

She contended that this Charter is not the handiwork
of the 47 Members of the Commission alone, but a collaborative effort
with millions of Filipinos who manifested their views and
recommendations in public hearings and consultations, in a deluge of
proposals and letters from all sectors of society and through personal
lobbying on specific issues of concern.

Mrs. Nieva underscored that this document formulated
by imperfect men and women is necessarily imperfect and may fail the
expectations of certain groups and sectors which, while truly
regrettable, is perhaps inevitable in the context of the times. She
pointed out that the Members of the Commission who represent in
microcosm the wide spectrum of beliefs and ideologies of the pluralistic
society were motivated only by the highest sense of patriotism and
overriding desire to serve the greatest good of the greatest number.

She also stated that the Constitution is a
celebration of the dictum that “sovereignty resides in the people and
all authority emanates from them”, with the inclusion directly and
indirectly in many articles of the contemporary expression of “people
power”.

Adverting to her sponsorship remarks on the new
Article on Social Justice, Mrs. Nieva stated that it is her hope that
this Article would be the centerpiece of the new Constitution. She
pointed out that despite some modifications the Committee, with the
biggest number of 17 Members, confronted its task fully aware that its
decision would have far-reaching effects on the social, economic,
political, and cultural configuration in society.

Mrs. Nieva stated that after so many anxious moments
and prolonged debates, the Committee finally came out with a
comprehensive framework encompassing various philosophies which were
then incorporated in the new Constitution.

She stated that in voting Yes, she drew her greatest
fulfillment from the modest contribution she was privileged to make to
the Article on Social Justice and the realization that the fundamental
law of the land mandates the State to give the highest priority to the
protection and promotion of the well-being and the rights of workers,
landless farmers and farmworkers, subsistence fishermen, the urban poor,
the indigenous communities, the disabled, the sick and the poor and the
old — all those who have less in life shall therefore have more in law.

Finally, Mrs. Nieva stated that she was voting Yes
because the new Constitution, in a new Article on the Family, gives due
recognition and justice to the Filipino family as the foundation of the
nation. She expressed the view that the best laws and institutions will
all be for naught if the very cornerstone on which they are built does
not remain firm, strong and stable.

She concluded by extending her deep appreciation to
the Secretariat for their dedication and selfless service and to all her
colleagues for their inspirations and strength given her in the
all-demanding and all-absorbing task of writing the basic law of the
land.

By Mr. Nolledo:

In explaining his affirmative vote, Mr. Nolledo
stated that the 1986 Constitution constitutes a vital document that
would transform the government from a revolutionary to a constitutional
one. He stated that if given life after its effectivity, the new
Constitution would revitalize and invigorate the Filipino society. He
stressed that the provisions of the new Constitution were formulated
after exhaustive debates and discussions as well as public consultations
on thousands of proposals of citizens from all walks of life and of
different beliefs and persuasions. He pointed out that the Members of
the Constitutional Commission, just like judges, had to make a judgment
anchored on the democratic rule of the majority for after all, the
ultimate judges are the people themselves.

This 1986 Constitution, he stated, has successfully
balanced the varied interests of different groups because all the
provisions therein were designed to attain the common good, to fully
respect human rights and to raise the dignity of the human personality.
He described the new Constitution as far more superior than the previous
Constitutions and deserves the full support of the people.

Mr. Nolledo expressed his profound gratitude to the
Members of the Commission for their kind support of his favorite
proposals which form part of the 1986 Constitution, namely:

1. The words “aspirations”, “patrimony” and “freedom” in the Preamble.

2. The provision that no person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations;

3. The provision that a member of the Judiciary must be a person of proven competence, integrity, probity and independence.

4. The prohibition from appointment of certain persons to the Cabinet;

5. The provision that discretionary funds shall be
disbursed only for public purposes, to be supported by appropriate
vouchers and subject to such guidelines as may be provided by law;

6. The provision on non-prescriptibility of the
right of the State to recover properties unlawfully acquired by public
officials or employees;

7. The provision that the State shall endeavor to give free medical care to paupers;

8. The provision that in a grant of rights,
privileges, and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony,
preference shall be given to qualified Filipinos;

9. The provision that the Philippines is a democratic state aside from being a republican state;

10. The provision that the State values the dignity of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights;

11. The provision against political dynasties; and

12. The provision that the State shall inculcate in
the youth patriotism and nationalism and involvement in public and civic
affairs.

Mr. Nolledo acknowledged the support of the
Commission to the report of the Committee on Local Governments that
widened the taxing powers of local governments and opened the venue to
the creation of the autonomous regions in Muslim Mindanao and in the
Cordilleras. He recalled that during the entire proceedings of the
Commission, he had gone his way volunteering information and making
suggestions as his Christian way of extending assistance to his fellow
Members yet found to his dismay that when it was his turn to make a
report on local governments, he was subjected to rigorous
interpellations that almost resulted in his loss of sanity.

Mr. Nolledo stated that he was voting Yes to a
wonderful and beautifully written Constitution that could stand
profoundly in the annals and forefront of constitutional law.

Finally, he expressed the prayer that God make this
new Constitution an instrument by which He will shower abundant
blessings upon the Filipino people.

By Mr. Ople:

Mr. Ople, in explaining his affirmative vote, stated
that it is not yet a hundred years since some of the country’s
ancestors met in Malolos in 1898 to forge the first republican
constitution in the history of Asia and Africa. He pointed out that in
1934, the cream of another generation met again in Manila to frame
another Constitution under the auspices of the Commonwealth in
preparation for Philippine independence ten years later; another
convention met in 1971 in the hope of writing another Constitution freed
from any taint of colonial control.

Those earlier Constitutions, he stated, owed much to
the time and the circumstances that gave rise to the necessity of
drafting a fundamental law for the Filipino people. He opined that the
1986 draft Constitution is no different and while it is true that
everyone in the Commission tried his best to stand outside himself,
outside his time, to project a Constitution that would endure well into
the indefinite future, there is no need for the Commission to apologize
for being immersed in its place and time. He stressed that the
Commission could not have wished for a better springboard to the future
than the time which is not only replete with experience and the lessons
and traumas but also the indomitable will of a people seeking to
transform an unprecedented crisis into an opportunity for fuller
freedom, dignity and justice for themselves and their posterity.

Drawing from contemporary realities, Mr. Ople
pointed out that the Commission created a framework of government that
allocates the powers of the State more judiciously to three balances. He
stated that if the Executive is the sword, the legislative the purse,
and the Judiciary the least dangerous of the three. He added that the
draft Constitution strengthened the judicial power as well as the
legislative power as the branches directly representing the people.

Mr. Ople stated that the Constitution weakened the
Executive branch which the execution of laws and of the Constitution
itself depends. He stressed that the Body reduced the Executive and
strengthened the powers of the other two branches to remove the
possibility of non-accountable power, the existence of extraterritorial
spaces as islands of sanctity and privilege in an otherwise open and
accountable system of government which in the past gave rise to an
unprecedented abuse of power. He stressed that this accountability as
well as popular sovereignty became the pervasive theme of the new
Constitution.

Furthermore, Mr. Ople pointed out that the
Commission fortified the rights of the people not only in the Bill of
Rights but throughout the document. He cited the Articles on Social
Justice and Human Rights, the National Economy and Patrimony which are,
by themselves, complete charters of social and economic rights. He
pointed out that the people’s basic right to human development and their
cultural rights are asserted in the Article on Education, Science and
Technology, Arts and Culture and Sports. Likewise, the role of people’s
organizations in decision-making has been authorized and expanded for
after all, he opined, a true test of the Constitution is whether or not
it releases new and vital social forces. He further stated that the
Commission had successfully reserved to the people the power of
initiative for changing not only the laws but even the Constitution
itself and that it had settled with historic finality the nagging issue
of a national language. He pointed out that the Commission and
effectively decentralized power to the local governments and granted a
measure of self-determination to Muslim Mindanao and the Cordillera
peoples.

Mr. Ople stressed that even with its imperfections,
there are some solid accomplishments of the entire Commission that would
pass the severest test.

He expressed disappointment that an otherwise sound
and excellent Constitution is unfortunately flawed in its transitory
provisions by one reckless act of the Commission in adjudicating the
results of the February 7, 1986 elections as the basis for granting the
incumbent President and Vice-President a regular six-year term. He
opined that the Body could have at least agreed to put the question of
that term separately from the Constitution itself and, by doing so,
would have rescued the noble document from a doubt and a stigma that
would linger until the parchment turns yellow with age.

Having expressed his reservations, Mr. Ople stated
that he would vote in the affirmative for the Constitution which is a
charter that everyone could justly be proud of.

Mr. Ople bid good-bye to all the Members of the
Commission and thanked each and everyone for the privilege of working
with them and for the honor of contending with them on the floor,
sometimes in very animated exchanges consistent with his belief that the
power of the democratic dialogue is precisely the principal tool which
the Commission used in drafting a Constitution worthy of the people’s
mandate.

Finally, Mr. Ople thanked President Aquino who gave
the Opposition, in a spirit of reconciliation, the opportunity to serve
in the Commission. He said, they, who represent the Opposition, tried
their best to honor that appointment through hard work and nonpartisan
cooperation. He believed that destiny appointed them to be part of the
contemporary opposition to fulfill that role with honor and
responsibility, if not with grace, and always in the interest of the
people under the new Constitution. He likewise thanked President Cecilia
Muñoz Palma for her inspiring, unflappable and splendid leadership and
the Secretariat, headed by Secretary-General Flerida Ruth P. Romero for
the outstanding support it gave the Commission throughout its work.

By Mr. Padilla:

Mr. Padilla stated that the 1986 Constitution, after
its ratification by the sovereign people shall be the fundamental law
of the Republic of the Philippines as a democratic and republican state,
for it satisfies the basic philosophy of a good Constitution, namely:
1) the allocation of powers of government with checks and balances; and
2) the limitations on the exercise of governmental power for the
protection of individual liberties and the promotion of human rights.

Mr. Padilla prayed to Almighty God for a second
miracle after the February political miracle to prevent fratricidal
violence among brother Filipinos by having the Constitution restore
“peace and order”, throughout the country. He expressed confidence that
the rule of law would protect life, liberty, and property and promote
the general welfare by creating the proper atmosphere for more
productivity through private initiative and free enterprise, for the
production of additional wealth to be shared by, and benefit all the
people in one united nation.

Mr. Padilla stated that he had filed two
resolutions, namely, 1) the right of the State and the offended party to
appeal by petition for certiorari a judgment of acquittal rendered by a
trial judge in excess of jurisdiction; and 2) the right of a foreign
investor engaged in export to acquire an industrial lot with limited
areas necessary for the construction of its industrial plant. He
expressed disappointment that these two proposals had not merited the
approval of the Commission.

He reminded the Body of his opposition to the
abolition of the death penalty, the deletion of the phrase “imminent
danger of invasion or rebellion” as ground for the suspension of the
writ of habeas corpus and the non-retention of Spanish as the third
language. He likewise reminded everyone of his warning against so many
duties and obligations imposed by the new Constitution on the State,
among which, is free secondary education, which may not be implemented
due to lack of public funds and resources, for they may raise false
hopes, disappointment and disillusionment.

Mr. Padilla voted Yes to the Constitution because it
contains many good and creditable provisions which would make it the
foundation of political stability, economic reconstruction and national
development, peace, progress, prosperity and happiness for all the
people.

By Mrs. Quesada:

Mrs. Quesada stated that she was voting in favor of
the Constitution. She noted that it had been self-fulfilling to have
fought and supported a number of positions that, as adopted in this
Constitution, would provide space, leverage and opportunities for the
people to improve their well-being, among them, on health, labor,
education, science and technology, arts culture and sports, women,
agrarian reform, urban land reform, housing, human rights, environment,
communications, cultural communities, people’s organizations and many
others.

She stressed that with the constitutionalization of
people power through autonomous people’s organizations, the people could
look forward to active participation in national decision-making which,
hitherto, was left in the hands of a few who, very often, did not even
represent a broad constituency

She admitted that it was with extreme reluctance
that she reached the decision to vote in the affirmative because of what
she viewed as serious shortcomings.

Mrs. Quesada stressed that a Constitution cannot be
anything but an imperfect document. She opined, however, that its
imperfections bear upon such fundamental issues as national sovereignty,
economic independence, capacity to social governance and national and
human survival that one must ask who would truly benefit from the
Constitution, whose interest would be served and at whose expense. These
questions, she stated, were not sufficiently addressed by the
Constitutional Commission. She elucidated that the draft Constitution is
imperfect because:

1. it fails to remove institutional obstacles to genuine agrarian reform;

2. it places national industrialization in a subsidiary role;

3. it gives foreign business interest free access to
natural resources and public utilities and it does not protect the
interest of Filipino business and industry;

4. it gives any future President the power to unilaterally declare martial law and install another dictatorship;

5. there is no clear mandate to remove foreign military bases and make the country nuclear-free without any qualification; and

6. it does not respond to the genuine needs and aspirations of the greater masses of the people.

Despite all these reservations and flaws, Mrs.
Quesada stated that she was voting in the affirmative because the
Constitution would restore political stability and the freedoms which
the people could use to press for legislation and constitutional
reforms.

By Mr. Rama:

Mr. Rama stated that there are those who demand to
have a few Constitution made in heaven but the limited time and the
democratic nature of the deliberative body have rendered unreachable the
ideal of an outstanding Constitution that would be applauded by all.

He opined that the new Constitution may not be as
great as the 1935 Constitution which was really outstanding during that
period. He pointed out that what came out is a good Constitution and
that oftentimes goodness is better than greatness. He described the new
Constitution as a hundred times better than the Marcos Constitution and
superior to the Constitution that it seeks to replace.

Mr. Rama stressed that the principal purpose of the
Commission is to restore democracy slain by a repressive and rapacious
regime; install a constitutional government; enshrine people power;
recapture the pride and human dignity of the Filipino; rev up the engine
of economic progress; and institute political stability. These goals,
he stated, went into the framing of the new Constitution and with a
little bit of luck could be achieved by any government faithful to the
new Charter.

He stated that one may question the wisdom of the
new Charter but none may question its integrity. For those who complain
about the tyranny of the majority in the passage of many provisions in
the new Constitution, he reminded them that tyranny of the majority in a
deliberative body is what democracy is all about. He pointed out that
the alternative to the tyranny of the majority is the tyranny of the
minority which is what dictatorship is all about and which was how the
Marcos martial law regime survived, to the grief of the nation.

Mr. Rama admitted that he also had many gripes
against the new Constitution, among others, the Preamble, which
generations to come would have to memorize, is too verbose, and the
provision which calls for 200 Congressmen, which the nation could ill
afford would make life miserable for President Aquino.

On the provision that requires Congressional
elections by district, Mr. Rama warned that this would ensure the
re-entry of old warlords, the Marcos loyalists and even the insurgents
in the new Congress because it would be easier for them to control or
terrorize a congressional district than a province. In the case of
illiterates who are allowed to vote, he pointed out that this is a
misplaced compassion which makes more effective vote-buying and massive
cheating in the elections. He stressed that any election reform, to be
meaningful, must start with the upgrading of the electorate.

Mr. Rama likewise cited the good features that far
outstrip the questionable ones, among them, that the President could no
longer declare martial law without reckoning with the Supreme Court or
Congress which could annul and revoke it; the President could no longer
appoint any Juan, Pedro or Pablo as Supreme Court Justice or judge whose
only qualification is canine devotion to him; and the President could
no longer seek reelection. He further pointed out that never before has
the tenet “those who have less in life shall have more in law” been
enshrined in a Constitution and that, erased from the Declaration of
Principles found in both the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, is the
simplistic anachronism left unexplained for half a century.

Mr. Rama stated that the new Charter addresses the
oldest and most brutalizing problem of the nation which is mass poverty.
He pointed out that all these and many more provisions echo ,in the new
Constitution the aspirations of the people in the sense that it is a
Constitution in which the people can hear their own voices, their hopes
and sentiments and even their fears and despairs.

He pointed out that there are those who snicker at
the pretensions that a Constitution is a formula for reforming man and
redeeming society. He stated that one is tempted to join the snickering
until one remembers that when the Lord wanted to save the world, He sent
His only Son and the first thing He did was to revise the old laws in
the Old Testament and write through His words and deeds a new
Constitution known as the New Testament.

In closing, Mr. Rama hoped that such divine formula
for reform and salvation would work for the country and that the new
Constitution would be the New Testament for the Filipino people. Buoyed
up by this hope, he voted Yes for the new Constitution.

By Mr. Regalado:

Mr. Regalado manifested his approval of the draft
Constitution with the cognition and humility borne of mortal
shortcomings but with the gratification and pride inspired by human
achievement. This, he stated, is without pretension that the
Constitutional Commission, despite the collective merits of its
dedicated and altruistic membership, had crafted a fundamental law for
all political seasons, a consummation which may be devoutly wished but
it is only a proposition which could be devotionally espoused.

He recalled that from the inception of the
Commission’s concerted effort in the task of drafting the organic law,
everyone prayed for Divine Guidance and intervention, aware that their
mundane credentials could only resuscitate the past in order to
appreciate the present and project the future. Thus, the Members
canopied the constitutional pillars which they erected with a mosaic of
fundamental mandates so that the panoply of governmental powers shall
always be for the protection, and never for the desecration, of the
sovereign will. He pointed out that the Commission labored on provisions
where the endowed shall not be too high as to be beyond proscriptions
for the common will but the underprivileged shall not be too low as to
be beyond retrieval into the mainstream of the common good.

Mr. Regalado pointed out that the Almighty God knows
very well how the Commission had worked, albeit with the differences of
perceptions and convictions due to the diversity of the Members’
respective backgrounds and affiliations, to frame a Charter which each
and everyone hopes would yield an adequate response to what the people
have never had since governments were instituted among them.

Mr. Regalado averred that he was not aware of
criticisms, either well-intentioned or ill-motivated, both of the
completed handiwork as well as the Members’ individual and respective
participations but he advised that everyone take heart in the truism
that be one as pure as ice or as chaste as snow, one shall never escape
the stain of calumny. It is for this reason, he stated, that he would no
longer belabor the dissensions from or the merits of the constitutional
provisions already approved nor will he digress into reminiscences
because the events that would have to be thought of have just been of
the recent past and the need for time and age which would have to
produce the virtue of hindsight would still have to wait.

Mr. Regalado stressed that no one could claim that
what has been drafted is the best that this Commission can contrive but
he expressed the view that this is one that could rise equal to the
imperatives of the present times and the uncertainties of tomorrow for
just as a country would grow and the people would change, this will be a
living Constitution which will correspondingly grow and change with
them. He stressed that this will be as strong as their resolve and as
lasting as their faith, for a Constitution cannot but be a calibration
of the people that it serves and a testament of the ideals that they
embrace.

In closing, Mr. Regalado prayed that the parerga et
parliapomena that is left behind shall be a continuing challenge and a
stabilizing legacy to those who will follow and further pray that they,
in the words of the poet, shall “take up, where the passing we leave
off, and fathom more.” He ended by saying “May the Supreme
Constitutionalist left those events come to pass”.

By Mr. de los Reyes:

Mr. de los Reyes stated that nobody denies that a
Constitution is the reflection of the dreams and aspirations of the
people. He pointed out that the Constitutional Commission was tasked to
draft a Constitution and everyone expects that in the future, this would
give fulfillment to the hope and dreams of the entire Filipino nation.
He hoped that the Constitution would bring unity, heal the wounds of the
past, discard those bitter memories and bring stability to the
government already saddled with problems. He then asked whether the
Commission was able to draft a Constitution that would build a strong
foundation which would benefit the Filipino people.

On the Preamble, Mr. de los Reyes stated that love
is enshrined while in the Article on Social Justice, the rights of
workers, the farmers, the subsistence fishermen, the landless and the
homeless are amply protected. He hails the Commission for recognizing
and listening to the demands of the people of Muslim Mindanao and the
Cordilleras by giving them autonomy. He stated that the Commission
showed to the world that it treasures the survival of the nation and the
world as a whole by adopting a provision which declares the Philippines
a nuclear weapons-free zone.

On the Article on Education and Culture, Mr. de los
Reyes pointed out that the Commission demonstrated its concern for the
teachers and the students as well as the development of culture,
distinct from that of the Western World. He stressed that through this
Article, the Commission adheres to the principle that the knowledge and
the kind of education which schools should try to inculcate to the
students is that which would transform them to become creative,
productive and nationalist and at the same time impart upon them
technical knowledge which they could use to uplift their lives.

Mr. de los Reyes also cited the provision which
recognizes the heroic deeds of soldiers who participated in military
campaigns and the provision enshrining the Filipino language as the
national language of the country with the belief that a national
language is the key to independence.

On the Bill of Rights, Mr. de los Reyes pointed out
that the rights of the citizens are strengthened in the same manner that
the Judiciary as the protector of rights, is likewise strengthened.
Furthermore, he pointed out that Congress is mandated to revoke or annul
the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the writ of habeas
corpus and this, he stated, would be a safeguard against possible abuse
on the part of the President.

Mr. de los Reyes stated that the natural resources
are amply protected for the exclusive use of the Filipinos with
foreigners allowed to exploit them to a certain extent, but management
and control should be in the hands of Filipino citizens. He pointed out
that the Commission likewise adheres to the concept of stewardship and
concern for the welfare of man and society.

With respect to the Article on National Economy and
Patrimony, he stated that the aim of economic development is directed to
the welfare of all, specially to those who have less in life. He
pointed out that industrialization has been set on the basis of sound
agricultural development and even if this is one of those in which the
Commission was divided, protection of the Filipino business industry
against unfair foreign competition is assured.

Mr. de los Reyes pointed out that there are many
good provisions incorporated in the new Constitution but he could not
understand why the Article on Population found in the 1973 Constitution
was removed when it does no harm and is not inconsistent with the
protection of the life of the unborn. He expressed disappointment on the
incorporation of a provision fixing the term of the incumbent President
and Vice-President without benefit of consultation with the people. He
pointed out that inclusion of a political question in the body of the
Constitution could serve as the sword of Damocles which might become a
reason for the rejection of the new Constitution.

He stated, however, that the good provisions far
outweigh the questionable provisions and that it is an honor for the
Members of the Opposition to have participated in the drafting of a new
Constitution despite the criticisms they received when they accepted
their appointments to the Constitutional Commission.

Finally, Mr. de los Reyes stated that it is sad to
note that a “rider” was included and this, he pointed, almost destroyed
the beauty and the goodness of the new Constitution but be that as it
may, he stated that he was voting Yes to the new Charter.

By Mr. Rigos:

Mr. Rigos stated that he was voting Yes with a
prayer that the Good Lord may use the Constitution as a channel of His
grace and an instrument of His peace to contribute to the healing of the
nation and the building of a new world where love and justice reign.

By Mr. Rodrigo:

Mr. Rodrigo stated that this Constitution might not
be the best but the Commission could proudly tell the world that in
framing it, it had tried its best in accordance with the honest dictates
of its judgment and conscience. This, he stated, is the prime source of
his gratification.

He stated that the draft Constitution is the product
of the joint effort of all Commissioners who adhere to democracy and
those who believe in the superiority of collective decision over a
one-man dictation. He further stated that the Members believe in
pluralism and unity in diversity.

Finally, he stressed that the Members believe in one
omnipotent loving God Who guides the lives of men and the destiny of
nations and it is for this reason, he stated, that his vote is in the
affirmative.

By Mr. Romulo:

Mr. Romulo stated that he was voting in favor of the
draft Constitution because he is convinced that the Commission has done
its best to produce one worthy of the people.

He recalled that on June 2 when he left his private
practice to perform a public duty, he knew from the start that from then
on it would not be easy, and true to his forecast, he witnessed the
clash of ideas and spirited debates but he did not anticipate
encountering the rhetoric of hate, certainly not the personal attacks in
the media but all of which is receding from memory.

Mr. Romulo compared himself to a runner, seeing
before him the joy of breasting the tape, no longer the pain of the last
26 miles. He stated that he sees a new Charter which the nation could
be proud of, a new Charter that is both a hope and a guide, a statement
of conviction as well as a commitment of purpose.

Mr. Romulo pointed four salutary features in this
Constitution, namely: 1) the restoration in the system of government of
the principle of checks and balances would fetter the evil of despotism;
2) the Commission has paved the way for a strong, independent and
competent Judiciary by insulating the processes of choosing,
compensating, correcting and even castigating Members of the Judiciary
from the influence of partisan politics; 3) the institutionalization of
people power; and 4) that sovereignty of the people has become an
operative principle.

He confessed that there are parts of the proposed
Constitution which he believed could stand some improvement but as Dr.
Benjamin Franklin once said, “When you assemble a number of men to have
advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with them all
their prejudices, their passions, their errors, their local interests
and their selfish views.”

In closing, Mr. Romulo opined that the Constitution
which the Commission had so carefully and laboriously crafted, is
neither conservative nor radical, but rather it is progressive in the
sense that, while it addresses contemporary problems, it also lays the
seeds for a significant breakthrough in the areas of poverty, human
rights, people power, government reform and economic progress.

He stated that as a whole, the Members had drafted
the only Constitution possible at this time of transition taking into
consideration the multifarious political and economic problems of
society.

In the last analysis, he stated that the
Constitution is what the people make of it and he appealed that for
their own sake and for the sake of future generations, to ratify the
Constitution, urging his colleagues to campaign for its ratification. He
exhorted everyone to begin the task of implementing the Constitution
with the experience of the past, the hope of the future, and the
confidence in the present.

In closing he thanked the Secretariat for their
dedication and paid special tribute to President Cecilia Muñoz Palma for
her steadfast leadership and unfailing fairness in presiding over the
Commission.

By Mr. Sarmiento:

Speaking in favor of the Constitution, Mr. Sarmiento
stated that the Members’ daily prayers for more than four months,
imploring the aid and guidance of the Almighty God, have borne fruit. He
stated that the Members had produced, after animated discussions
punctuated with occasional laughter and dissension, a Constitution that
could be called a Charter pronouncing life and a document proclaiming
hope to all the people. In it, he stated, are ennobling provisions and
lofty principles well designed to improve and enhance the lives of the
people; fortify their cherished individual and collective rights;
democratize their participation in the governance of local and national
affairs; and thwart the rise of another dictator. He stressed that in
the Constitution, the anguished, the injured, the offended and the
harassed will find refuge.

He stated, however, that the Constitution is far
from perfect as it has its share of flaws, stressing with all candor,
that he has his own reservations with regard to some provisions, namely:
1) on the Presidential proclamation of martial law without the
concurrence of Congress; 2) on Civilian Home Defense Forces and private
armies; 3) on equity ratio for public utilities; 4) on agrarian reform
which invites discordant interpretations; and 5) on the foreign military
bases in the Article on Transitory Provisions.

Notwithstanding its flaws he stated that the
Constitution framed by forty-seven honorable and worthy men and women
under the leadership of a venerable lady jurist, is admirable. In all,
he stated that it deserves full commitment and support.

By Mr. Suarez:

Casting a negative vote, Mr. Suarez stated that long
before the scheduled voting on the Charter as a whole, he already
studied it. Without making any premature judgment, he stated that he
nevertheless could not dismiss or even soothe his many misgivings about
the proposed Charter.

He stated that he finds the Constitution verbose,
studded with declarations of noble intentions. He agreed the verbosity
of the Charter has made the fundamental law ambiguous, distorting the
essence and proper meanings thereof, leaving the doors open for
erroneous interpretations. He stated that a Constitution ought to be
broad, brief and definite and as Justice Malcolm wisely observed, any
vagueness may lead to opposing interpretations that may cause
incalculable harm and chaos to the nation.

He stressed that he finds the Constitution
constrictingly legislative in character, contrary to President Aquino’s
instructions to the Members at the outset of their task on June 2, 1986
to come up with a Constitution that allows future generations to follow a
path suitable to the prevailing peculiarities that could not be
accurately predicted and yet, there are close to a hundred provisions
that are left to Congress to promulgate. He underscored that it was
unfortunate that the Commission had drafted a Constitution by
accommodation, leaving the matter to Congress in the final analysis.
Moreover, he stated that the provisions already prescribed solutions to
problems still unthinkable that fail to come to grips with the real
needs of the country. He pointed out that the Body had come up with
ninety-nine provisions containing phrases “as may be provided by law” or
“as Congress may provide”, but they have failed to address squarely and
decisively the gut issue of the people: 1) why 1.4% of the Philippine
population controls 21.1% of the national wealth; 2) why 70% of today’s
Filipinos live below the poverty line; 3) why 22 million Filipinos are
homeless; 4) why 2.2 million live in the slums; and 5) why millions are
unemployed and under-employed.

He stressed that he finds the Constitution
dangerously promising too much to the people, promises that the poor and
the underprivileged would be clinging to. He stated that the Body
almost succeeded in producing an epistle of love, and yet, where the
Constitution needed to be unequivocal about its pledges of economic,
social and political liberation to pave the way for their fulfillment,
it falters, and in faltering, it almost condones their subversion.

So that his misgivings would not be scoffed at for
having no justifiable grounds, he reiterated the specific provisions
that are fraught with perils; among others:

1) On Section 4 of the Article on Citizenship,
allowing offsprings born to Filipino mothers and foreign fathers before
January 17, 1973 and who elect Philippine citizenship to be deemed
natural-born citizens, stating that the bestowal on them of the
privilege to be regarded as natural-born citizens make them eligible for
high, sensitive and responsible positions of the land;

2) On the Article on Accountability of Public
Officers, creating the Office of Ombudsman but limiting the functions
and powers thereof to merely investigating complaints against erring
public officials, he stated that this appears to be a toothless position
because it is open to abuse. He underscored that the failure to grant
the Ombudsman prosecutorial powers takes away from him the
responsibility over his investigations and renders the exalted position
not merely duplicitous but totally useless;

3) On Section 1 of the Article on the Legislative
Department establishing a bicameral legislature, he stated that it is
exacerbated by Section 5 of the same Article, not only limiting the
number of reserved seats for sectoral representatives but refusing to
make permanent sectoral representation in the Legislature. The past few
years, he stated, there has been an emergence of a new wave in politics,
zeroing in on issues, addressed to the roots of the many evils hounding
the country and drawing its strength and sustenance from the collective
political awareness and will of the people. He stated that the Members
themselves are aware of this and establishing a unicameral legislature
could have nurtured this goal, because it would be more responsive to
the people’s needs. In lieu thereof, he stated that the Body had
established a bicameral legislature which in all probability, would
assure the continuance of traditional politics that merely builds
personalities that feeds on patronage. He stressed that political
elitism works against the people’s interests.

4) On Section 18 of the Article on the Executive
which grants the Commander-in-Chief vast powers to declare martial law
without legislative concurrence, he stated that the Members know fully
well that tyranny of martial law and the wounds inflicted by the
dictatorship have not been healed, but ironically, the Body seemed to
have dropped its guard all too soon and not only turned oblivious to the
danger of this tyranny coming back, but, in the final analysis, has
made it easy for it to return.

He stressed shocked with the manner by which this particular provision had been approved.

At this juncture, he requested that his position
paper entitled Clearing the Ground for New Dictatorships be inserted
into the records for purposes of brevity.

5) On Section 4 of the Article on Social Justice
relative to agrarian land reform, he stated that the implementation
hinges on a number of constraints, which may render this promise of land
reform empty as in the past administration. He stressed that genuine
land reform is the key to turn the tide of insurgency. He stated that
with their lands grabbed from them and their labor unrewarded, many of
the poor peasants have been driven to take up arms in desperation. He
pointed out that it is imperative to silence this agitation.

6) On Sections 1, 3 and 15 of the Article on
National Economy and Patrimony which virtually offers the control of the
economy to foreign investors and not to Filipinos, he stated that
instead of securing unto the Filipino the “patrimony of the nation”, the
Article entrenches foreign control thereof. On allowing free trade;
giving Filipino entrepreneurs insufficient protection; granting the
President the power to enter into so-called service contracts
practically unchecked and allowing 40% foreign equity in critical areas
of investments; the operation of public utilities and commercial
telecommunications, negating the essence of providing for a self-reliant
and independent national economy, he stressed that history shall bear
the Members out. He underscored that this Article ought to hold the key
to the achievement of political stability and the satisfaction of the
basic demands for social justice which it fails to do.

7) On Section 24 of the Article on Transitory
Provisions which not only legalizes the existing RP-US Military Bases
Agreement but secures the continued presence of foreign military bases
and facilities in the country, he stated that despite the introduction
of constraints, some Members had sought to make the Body understand that
the existing Military Bases Agreement is null and void from the very
beginning, and that for as long as these bases are allowed to stay, the
country could not rightfully claim to exercise true sovereignty. He
opined that the country’s survival should not be traded, bargained with,
nor compromised, because it is not only an imagined fear when
anti-bases proponents warned that the U.S. Bases invite, rather than
deter, attacks on the country by enemies of the United States, drawing
the Philippines into a war not of its own making, He stressed that in
this age of nuclear weapons, with more devastating effects that those
dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the country would have no chance to
strike back in the event of a nuclear attack.

8) On Section 9 of the same Article, he stated that
it does not state in clear terms the disbandment of the notorious
Civilian Home Defense Forces (CHDF), thus, increasing human rights
violations and citing the horrors of the Escalante Massacre, the ghastly
murder of Fr. Tulio Favali and the countless and well-documented
violations in Central Luzon.

9) Finally, he stated that the Body should vote on
what is written in the Constitution and not on what is not written,
citing the proposal to make the country a part of a zone of peace,
freedom and neutrality which could have contributed to the worldwide
effort for peace and also gain some degree of protection for the
country.

Admitting that many breakthrough provisions had been
entered into the Constitution, he stated that a number of provisions
that he believed would not redound to the common good outweighs the
former.

He stated that he realized that this would be the
only instance in the history of Philippine constitution-making where
extraneous political exigencies seem as important as the merits of the
Constitution itself. He explained that he had spent sleepless nights
pondering on whether his vote should be influenced by the urgent call to
complete the constitutional normalization of the government and coming
to a conclusion that the present political exigencies are ephemeral and
that the Constitution should provide the framework for a longer lasting
political stability. He stressed that this could have been achieved had
the Members shown the resolve and the political will to decisively
address the fundamental issues where all the instability in the
country’s history are rooted. In resolving this dilemma, he stated that
he chose to give more importance to the objective merits of the
Constitution than to the present short-time considerations.

In the end, he pointed out that the Body failed to
uphold and define the fundamental rights of every Filipino which the
Members were mandated to do. He stressed that these rights belong to the
Filipinos even without the document they have framed and that the
Members took it upon themselves not to give the Filipino all of his
rights but only parts thereof. He stressed that the present and future
generations of farmers would be begging Congress for the rights which
naturally belong to them.

He pointed out that at the root of all these is the
classic misconception that places no trust in the people despite the
historic example shown during the February revolution.

He stated that he had no qualms in saying that he
had worked as hard, as conscientiously and as diligently as his
Colleagues and that he came into the Commission with an open mind.
Despite the breakthrough provisions embodied in the Constitution, he
underscored that it is with deep regret and anguish that he had to vote
against the draft Constitution.

Finally, he paid tribute to his Colleagues who, with
great dedication and honesty of judgment had shared in the drafting of
the Charter, to whom he extended his warm embrace of affection.

By Mr. Sumulong:

Casting a vote of Yes for the draft Constitution,
Mr. Sumulong stated that it would restore the principle of separation of
powers in the government, since under the 1935 Constitution, the powers
of government were divided into three classes: legislative power,
executive power and judicial power which were reposed exclusively on the
three branches of government.

He stated that each department is independent within
its own sphere which is coordinate and coequal with the other
departments, which however, does not allow encroachment by one
department on the powers of the other departments.

Adverting to the remarks of Montesquieu who stated
“that concentration of powers in the hands of one man or one group of
men will inevitably lead to arbitrary rule, to abuses and excesses of
power, to graft and corruption and to the plundering of the people’s
money,” he stressed that the purpose of the principle of separation of
powers is to prevent any person or any group of persons from exercising
all the powers of government.

He stated that it was President Marcos who
desecrated and violated this principle when he declared martial law in
September 1972, abolishing the Congress of the Philippines, beginning to
exercise a one-man rule by not convening the interim National Assembly,
controlling the Judiciary by appointing justices and judges without
confirmation by the Commission on Appointments.

In the new Constitution, he stated that the
principle has been restored to prevent another misuse and abuse of the
power to declare martial law by providing for effective restrictions and
safeguards thereto.

On the power of the president to contract and
guaranty foreign loans, he stated that during the one-rule of President
Marcos, he contracted and guaranteed foreign loans without any check
because he exercised both executive and legislative powers, incurring
foreign debts amounting to twenty-six billion dollars which may exceed
thirty billion dollars due to the interest accruing thereto. He stated
that for this reason, the President under the new Constitution would be
required to get the concurrence of the Monetary Board, a majority of the
Members of which, should come from the private sector, thus, subjecting
them to no undue influence or dictation by the President. He pointed
out that on the other hand, the Monetary Board is required to report its
action on application for foreign loans to the Congress.

In the 1935 Constitution, he stated that a Bill of
Rights had been provided enumerating the political and civil rights of
the people and which the government could not transgress or abridge. In
the new Constitution, he stated that a Bill of Rights has, likewise,
been provided to protect and provide political and civil injustices, but
more so, to protect the people against economic and social injustices.

He explained that under the 1935 Constitution, the
Article on Declaration of Principles provided a section for the
promotion of social justice to ensure the economic well-being and
security of all the people, while under the new Constitution, two new
articles have been added, the Article on Social Justice and Human Rights
which contain more specific provisions on the protection of the people
against economic and social injustices and bring about a more equitable
distribution of wealth.

On the conservation of the patrimony of the nation,
he pointed out that the new Constitution expresses the concern for the
preservation of the natural resources, particularly the forest resources
which have been so shamelessly despoiled and destroyed causing floods
and inundations during the rainy season. As in the 1935 Constitution, he
stated that the exploitation and development of the natural resources
and the operation of public utilities have been reserved for the
Filipino people and that it is committed to protect domestic producers
and industries against unfair foreign competition and trade practices.

He also pointed out that under the new Constitution,
a land reform program has been provided to give to the tenant-farmer
not only the ownership of the land he tills but also the credit
facilities, irrigation, fertilizers and equipment necessary to enable
him to obtain utmost production and income from the land. He stated that
the tenant-farmers are encouraged to form cooperatives so that they may
be paid a just price for their products instead of exposing them to
preying alien traders who pay low prices thereto and who charge
exorbitant prices for the finished products that are sold to them.

Finally, he stated that it is not enough that the
Constitution be ratified by the people as to breathe life to it, the
provisions should be respected and enforced. He stressed that the
Members should be ready to lend every possible assistance to all those
who would be victimized by the high and the mighty who would violate and
trample upon the fundamental tenets and principles contained therein.

By Mr. Tadeo:

Voting against the Constitution, Mr. Tadeo stated that “all progress has resulted from those who took unpopular positions.”

He recalled that when the Body convened, the Members
took their oath of office promising to create a Constitution that would
embody the ideals and aspirations of the Filipino people by
establishing a just and humane society imbued with love.

Adverting to “love”, as an act of giving, he stated
that the ruling elite which constitutes only 5% should share political
power with the marginalized sector which constitutes 75% of the total
population.

In framing the Constitution, he took into
consideration three basic foundations, namely: 1) the grant of political
power to the poor and impoverished; 2) to grant them economic power;
and 3) to ensure that the Philippines would be a sovereign nation. He
stressed that these are his guides in arriving at his decision on the
Constitution.

Adverting to the results of the deliberations, he
stated that only about 10% of political power has been granted the poor
and the oppressed. He then posed the query of whether this is the
meaning of the ideals and aspirations of the people, that those who
control political power also control economic power. He stated that
despite his pleas to make the 10% representation perpetual, he was voted
down by the Body.

On the legislative structure, he pointed out that
the establishment of a bicameral legislative body would only enhance
elite democracy. He stated that with this kind of structure, love for
the poor and the underprivileged is nowhere to be found.

Adverting to Corinthians, Chapter 13, Verse 1, he
stated that “love” in the Preamble without substance in reality, is like
a brass bell that merely echoes, as in the apportionment of political
power, it is clear that love does not exist.

On the economic power of the poor and the
underprivileged, he stated that the crisis left by the dictator was so
grave that the problem could not be solved by mere cosmetic crisis and
the insurgency problem is the implementation of a genuine land reform
program and national industrialization which are embodied in the
Articles on Social Justice, and on National Economy and Patrimony.

On the Article on Social Justice, he stated that
Social Justice per se means genuine agrarian reform program. Since the
farmers constitute the biggest sector, the Committee endeavored to
establish a forceful program despite the reservations of some Committee
Members. He stated that when the Committee Report was deliberated in
plenary session, the Article became ambiguous and susceptible to diverse
interpretations.

On the Article on the National Economy and
Patrimony, he stated that history shows that free trade since 1909 had
caused the economic plunge of the country since the Philippines was the
producer of raw products and at the same time, the consumer of finished
products. He stated that despite this anomalous arrangement, the same
was provided for in Section 1 of the new Constitution through
industrialization based on agricultural development. He pointed out that
this prevents the liberation of the country from the slavery of its own
economy.

He stated that the spirit of the parity rights has
been included in the Constitution by providing for service contracts and
by allowing a 60:40 equity ratio for foreign investments. He stated
that while the Filipinos are languishing in poverty, the aliens are
ravishing the natural resources of the country.

On public utilities, he stated that the Committee
originally provided for a two-third, one-third ratio but it later opted
for a 60:40 ratio. He stated that telecommunication is essential for
national security because it exposes into the open the strength of the
nation.

If these two essential factors, as the key solutions
to the country’s nagging problems would fail, the principle championing
the right of the unborn would be negated because at birth, the child
would surely die due to hunger; family rights would, likewise, be
negated because the problems of hunger remains unsolved; and the Bill of
Rights would be meaningless since the concentration of land ownership
would still be maintained in the hands of a few.

On the Judiciary, he stated that the provision was
wrought with beautiful phrases but the poor farmers would just be the
same, take the law into their hands because of hunger.

On the sovereignty of the nation, he stated that the
country should have been liberated from foreign control with the
abrogation of the Military Bases Agreement. He pointed out, however,
that the result was merely freedom from nuclear weapons which failed to
vest sovereignty to the Philippines. He stressed that the new
Constitution fails to solve the three basic problems of imperialism,
bureaucratic capitalism and feudalism which would retain the problems of
poverty and hunger.

He stressed that a just and humane society could
only be established with a strong economic and political foundation by a
sovereign nation. Adverting to Matthew 23:23 of the Holy Scriptures, he
stated that the most important thing to establish is justice which
could be attained only by implementing a genuine land reform program and
industrialization.

Adverting to the teachings of Rizal, he stated that the new Constitution failed to liberate the nation from the past.

He stressed that as a member of the Commission, he
had worked with his Colleagues for four months and it was painful for
him to reject the same. He stated, however, that the interest of the
Filipino nation outweighs his sentiments on the camaraderie with the
other Members, for which reason, he cast his negative vote.

By Ms. Tan:

Ms. Tan stated that she had prepared a speech but
had decided to discard the same. She explained that she had many
reservations about the Constitution and she was not too happy about it,
but she was voting Yes with great faith and courage.

By Mr. Tingson:

Voting in favor of the Constitution, Mr. Tingson
stated that at these trying times, when the country faces the greatest
crucial test of its political life among the free nations of the world,
each Member had the sacred duty to contribute his share that freedom,
justice and democracy, for which the country’s heroes had given their
lives, would forever be established.

He stressed that the political morass, economic
deterioration, moral decadence, the erosion of the spiritual fiber of
the people and the rise of insurgency cannot just be ignored.

He pointed out that all of these were brought about
by the two decades of misrule by the deposed dictator but the people’s
eyes could not just be closed, with arms folded in cold indifference.

He expressed gladness for having been given the
opportunity and distinct privilege to serve the country by being a
Member of the Constitutional Commission. He stated that much was
expected by the people from the Members of the Commission who carne from
different sectors of society, religious persuasions and beliefs, varied
educational and professional backgrounds and political affiliations. He
stressed that the Members contributed their time, talent and effort to
frame the new basic law of the land which would pass the test of time
for the good not only of the present generation but for the future
generations to come.

He expressed confidence that the people would
succeed with the new Constitution because the Members had solemnly
covenanted with Almighty God in the framing of the fundamental law of
the land, as expressed in the Preamble.

He pointed out that the stabilizing effect of the
new Constitution is a basic ingredient for establishing normalcy in the
country that would strengthen the shaky government which resulted from
the February revolution.

He stated that the Commission’s task was not an easy
one as it had to race against time, facing all odds and criticisms.
While a great majority of the people hailed the appointment of the
Members to the Commission and sincerely prayed for their success, he
stated that there were those who wished that it would fail in its
endeavor. He pointed out that these were the political sadists who did
not want political stability in the country and who therefore did not
want anything better than what they had taken advantage of during the
previous regime.

He stated that after four and a half months of
deliberations, heated discussions, friendly and antagonistic persuasions
and sometimes intellectual snobbery punctuated by walkouts, give and
take, and the eventual meeting of the minds, a historic political
document had been produced which could be proudly shown to the people
and to the world for their indorsement.

He stated that everybody is aware of the fact that
no imposition, threat or cajole to accept or reject any of the proposals
ever occurred as the deliberations were a voluntary exchange in the
free market of ideas in an atmosphere of true freedom and democracy.

He stated that all of the Members are part and
parcel of the Constitution and that the air that is breathed and the
blood that flows into their veins were made part of the collective
effort to frame the Constitution. He clarified, however, that the
Members were not alone in this effort as they were guided and inspired
by thousands of their countrymen, who in one way or another, had
inspired them to produce a Constitution that truly embodies the dreams
and aspirations of the Filipino people.

He stressed that the Commission had enshrined in the
1986 Constitution the most humane provisions which uphold and guarantee
individual freedom, equal opportunity for all and promote total
development of man under an atmosphere of true freedom and democracy. He
underscored that there is not one aspect in the promotion of man’s
welfare which has not been taken into consideration in framing the
Constitution.

He stated that today, national and world attention
is focused on the Commission with utmost scrutiny and the document which
had been framed is looked upon with awe and great expectations.

He stressed that history will judge the Members for what they had done and hoped that the judgment would be kind and fair.

He underscored that whatever the judgment would be,
the Members find consolation in the words of the Lord found in the Holy
Scriptures that stated.

“Well done my good and faithful servant, . . . in as
much as you have done these to the least of my brethren, you have done
it unto me.

“Be ye strong therefore and let not your hands be weak, for your work shall be rewarded”.

He stated that he was casting an affirmative vote
because of the inspiring fellowship of his 46 colleagues who represented
and reflected the best in the Filipino, and because of the pervasive
moral leadership of President Corazon Aquino who is beloved by her
people and deeply respected by the Commission.

He stated that he is casting an affirmative vote for
the heartfelt daily prayers that will continue to provide wings to the
Constitution.

By Mr. Treñas:

Voting in the affirmative, Mr. Treñas stated that he
takes immense pride in the thought that he is among the first group of
Filipinos who have been given the rare opportunity to cast their votes
in approving the Constitution. He stated that he is firmly convinced
that the Constitution is the final answer to the people’s struggle for a
better and brighter future through political stability and economic
recovery.

He expressed strong confidence that through the
Constitution, the people can rest assure that never again shall a ruler
as ruthless and vicious as the past regime would trample and violate the
rights of the people for the purpose of perpetuation in power and whose
corruption would practically bankrupt the economy.

In the Constitution, he stated that the Judiciary
has been strengthened, its independence assured, and has effectively
curtailed to some extent, the dreaded presidential power to declare
martial law or to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. He
stated that in no uncertain terms have the rights of the people been
reinforced, providing them with more protection and more guarantees to
stand up against abuse of authority on the part of those who wield
power. He stressed that it has been ensured that the people shall have a
clean and honest government.

He pointed out that emphasis is placed on social
justice to provide protection to workers and employees, farmers and
farmworkers, subsistence fishermen, the underprivileged and the
homeless.

To institutionalize people power, he stated that the
Legislature has been mandated to enact laws which shall allow the
people to directly propose amendments to the Constitution as well as to
directly propose and enact laws or approve or reject any act or law
passed by Congress.

He pointed out that there are also directives in the
Constitution for the State to promote and enhance the interest and
welfare of the people in the field of education, health, science and
technology, arts, culture and sports designed to improve and uplift the
political and economic conditions of the People.

He stated that it is a rare honor and privilege to
work with the Members, specially under the able leadership of President
Cecilia Muñoz Palma.

He admitted that the Constitution is not perfect as
all persons are not, but it is the best that he and the Members could do
and offer to the people.

By Mr. Uka:

Mr. Uka stated that the new Constitution drafted by
retired Justice Cecilia Muñoz Palma, is a fundamental law which is
pro-God, pro-democracy, pro-poor, pro-labor and pro-life for the unborn
and the aged.

The new fundamental law, he manifested, will
establish a government which shall embody the ideals and aspirations of
the people, promote common good, conserve and develop national patrimony
for the benefit of all the people and the generations yet to come. He
observed that the new Constitution gives the highest priority to
education; the right of teachers and employees in both the public and
the private sectors; promotes unity and brotherhood, freedom, truth,
justice, equality, tolerance and peace. Although it is not perfect, he
stated that it is better than good, the product of long and varied
experience in government through the years.

For these characteristics of the new Charter, he voted Yes.

By Mr. Villacorta:

Mr. Villacorta stated that it had not been easy for
him to arrive at a decision concerning his vote although the new
Constitution is admittedly better than the previous ones. He observed
that the new Constitution has tightened the safeguards for the
protection of human rights and the accountability of public officials;
recognizes the role of people’s organizations and the need for sectoral
representation in Congress; mandates the State to give the highest
priority to education and social justice and affirms the equality of
women and the rights of children and the family as well as the rights of
teachers and civil servants to professional advancement and adequate
compensation.

Furthermore, he noted that the Charter gives
importance to the development of science and technology, the national
language and culture. The system of recall and initiative, he stated,
facilitates the articulation of the people’s will, their ability to
change erring officials and amend the Constitution. The
constitutionalization of autonomy for Muslim Mindanao and the
Cordilleras, he maintained, is a recognition that democracy is not the
tyranny of the majority, but a rule of the majority that respects the
right of the minority. Any form of tyranny, he opined, even the tyranny
of the majority which is mobocracy smacks of dictatorships and has no
place in any democratic, pluralist and civilized assembly of persons.

Mr. Villacorta observed that in spite of its
strengths, many Members believe that the Charter does not adequately
address the fundamental problems of the Filipino people; their
compromised sovereignty; their economic independence; and their tenuous
freedoms — problems which the people ventilated during the public
hearings the Commission conducted. With the nation hardly recovering
from the trauma of the recent dictatorship, he stated that the
Commission still allowed the unilateral declaration of martial law by
the President, provided a mechanism for the resurgence of a political
aristocracy and reinstituted a protracted legislative process by
establishing a bicameral system of lawmaking.

The Body, he observed, failed to see the urgency of
the basic issues and contended itself with a toothless provision banning
nuclear weapons. He opined that it has also abdicated the Filipinos’
right to have full control of public utilities and natural resources.
Congressional prerogative, he noted, circumscribed the implementation of
the aspirations for genuine land reform, the Filipinization of schools
and free public high school education.

In moments of introspection, he stated, he asked
himself what would be the alternative if the Constitution is
rejected-and if the government is destabilized and queried whether a
more progressive fundamental law shall take effect and what shall take
the place of government. Already, he stated, anti-democratic forces are
rearing their ugly heads.

He stated that he consulted his fellow educators,
friends, students and family and he prayed hard. He then adverted to a
conversation with his 15-year old son who went with him to EDSA last
February who asked “Why are you so hard on yourself, Daddy? Why don’t
you leave some of the burden to the young like me? Just give us
something that we can hang on to. Well take care of the rest.” Only
then, he stated, was he able to reach a decision.

Thereupon, Mr. Villacorta voted Yes with the
reservation on the basic weaknesses of the proposed Constitution which
he had enumerated. He manifested that he had come to the decision with
the deepest respect for his colleagues who voted against the
Constitution and with the hope that it will not be the end but just the
beginning of a process, a stimulus towards greater vigilance among the
newly awakened people to ardently fight for their rights and dignity. He
expressed his certainty that someday they will usher in a truly
liberative Constitution which shall be more reflective of the Filipino
dream.

By Mr. Villegas:

Mr. Villegas stated that the Constitution just
drafted is true to its fundamental commitment to promote the common
good. He observed that in every article there is the effective concern
not so much to attain the greatest good for the greatest number but to
build a social order which shall enable every single member of society
to attain his fullest development economically, politically, culturally
and spiritually.

The Constitution, he noted, mandates the State to
promote social justice but above all, obliges all citizens to build a
just and humane society. He cited that for the first time in Philippine
Constitutional history, there is an explicit statement that private
property is not an absolute right but must be used to serve the common
good. In Constitution, he stated, the principle of solidarity has been
enshrined through the declaration that all economic agents shall
contribute to the common good. He stated that in many of the articles,
the preferential option for the poor is the guiding principle, the poor
including not only those who are economically destitute but all those
who are weak and defenseless especially the unborn child whom the
Commission decided to protect from the moment of conception.

Mr. Villegas pointed out that although the
Constitution is not a perfect document as it is too verbose, this minor
defect does not detract from the exemplary manner in which it has amply
articulated the deepest aspirations of the Filipino people for truth,
justice, freedom, love, equality and peace.

The inclusion of the word “love”, he noted, has
provided the nation with the strongest foundation for a human society
because justice alone cannot lead to a humane society. “Love”, he
opined, which in its highest form is an act of the human will to seek
the good of another, whether friend or foe, is the surest antidote to
violence and class struggle, if he stated that the Commission had
written a Constitution that is completely faithful to the tradition set
by the peaceful revolution of February for which reason he voted Yes.

By Ms. Aquino:

Ms. Aquino remarked that the day marked for all a
day of generous enthusiasm and innocent faith and that to many people,
the new Constitution seems like a new roof, a new remedy, perhaps even a
miracle. She stated that what the people are about to have is like a
child just born, a marriage just solemnized. She noted that the
Constitution has to be lived by the people, their children and the
future generations and that it will be worshipped and hated, fought over
in courts and maybe even in civil wars, and altered as the changing
years bring unforeseen political circumstances into being.

The new Constitution, she stated, will hopefully
become the rule of life for a country larger than any ever imagined and
would last longer than anyone dared to hope. In the ratification of the
Constitution, she stated that the people will celebrate not the end of
the struggle but the beginning, and then it becomes the dramatic epitome
of the life and work of a people, a symbolic faith and confidence in
the future.

Ms. Aquino admitted that there are several parts of
the Constitution which she does not approve of, although having worked
in the Commission, she has experienced many instances of being obliged
by better information or full consideration, to change opinions even on
important subjects which at once she thought right but found later, to
be otherwise. Many persons, she observed, think highly of their own
infallibility and that in the Commission, many expressed it so
naturally.

With these sentiments, Ms. Aquino voted in favor of
the new Constitution with all its faults as in the first place, she
doubted whether under similar circumstances, any other convention could
have produced a better Constitution. She stated that admittedly it is
not the best package but it is definitely the best that the situation
will admit.

She noted that it had been asked “From an assembly
of men with fixed biases, passions, and prejudice can a perfect product
be expected?” and observed that it had surprised her to find the system
approaching so near to perfection as it did since the Members had
managed to transcend the limited framework of their own moral crusades.

She consented to the Constitution as, under the
circumstances, she expected no better and because she was not even sure
that this was not the best. She prayed, for the sake of the Members, the
people and posterity, that the Members act heartily and unanimously in
recommending the Constitution wherever their influence may extend, and
turn their future thoughts and endeavors to the means of having it well
implemented.

Finally, she stated that she is certain that those who believed will be proven more right than those who doubted.

By Mr. Bennagen:

Mr. Bennagen stated that society constitutionalizes
only such ideas and objectives as the dominant forces would allow, with a
few concessions to the dissenting masses; that society
constitutionalizes values that could serve either as ideologies,
understood as justificatory statements or as guidelines for concrete
action directed at expanding the frontiers of justice and freedom.

He noted that the Preamble says it all as it
expresses the aspirations for utopia on earth. Still and all, he
observed that the Constitution does nothing more than inscribe the
contradictions of Philippine society along with the tensions between law
and experience, between ideals and realities.

The Constitution, he stated, in spite of his fondest
hopes borne out of the euphoria of February, cannot lay the basis for a
comprehensive but peaceful solution of fundamental problems arising
from inequituous social structures and the neo-colonial present.

The Constitution, he observed, has the potential for
setting into motion a revolution of rising expectations because of the
numerous provisions that mandate the State to provide material and other
benefits to the people, at a time when its capability to do so is
severely impaired. He observed that it would have been more realistic
had the Body added to the provisions the warning “subject to the
availability of funds”.

The Constitution, he remarked, carries the potential
for the resurgence of constitutional dictatorship by granting the
President the sole power to declare martial law. He stated that this is a
real possibility in a Third World country caught in the grip of
superpowers’ rivalry and must not be discounted in the Philippines.

The Constitution, he observed, carries the potential
for the restoration of the old inequituous social order by restoring
the bicameral legislature which, dispute the salutary impact of token
sectoral representation, could concentrate the legal power in the hands
of the propertied classes and their allies, to the detriment of the
broad masses of the people and especially the peasants and workers. It
would, he stated, doom to failure past and future efforts of social
reforms, particularly, agrarian reform.

The Constitution, he stated, carries the potential
for more sophisticated and therefore, more insidious foreign
intervention in various aspects of national life by 1) allowing service
contracts and the controlling share by transnational corporations in the
exploitation of the land, natural resources, public utilities and
telecommunications; 2) equivocating on the ban on foreign military bases
and nuclear weapons on Philippine territory; 3) rejecting a state
policy of participating in the movement towards a zone of peace, freedom
and neutrality; and 4) being less than decisive in the areas of
communications and educational efforts, towards social responsibility
and national cultural identity.

All told, he observed, the contradictory tendencies
of the Constitution could generate and exacerbate the tension between
and among the social forces of Philippine society.

The attainment of a Philippine utopia envisioned in
the Preamble and in relevant sections, he averred, would finally depend
on how the masses of the Filipino people participate in the struggle,
for the social and historical fact is that utopias are not achieved
without a struggle.

He noted that as the provisions are translated into
laws, policies, programs and projects, with all the contradictory
tendencies and given the coalition of governing forces, there will be
successes and failures, triumphs and defeats.

Should there be more failures and defeats, he
observed, it can be foreseen that people shall take to the streets, man
the picket lines with greater vigor and in greater numbers and to be
sure they will draw lessons and inspirations from earlier struggles,
including the February revolution.

He stated that in the struggle for a prosperous,
just and humane society, the people would need a modicum of guarantee of
their civil and political and human rights and would also need all the
protection against state abuses as well as from forces who would not
willingly give up positions of power and privilege.

The Constitution, he stated, has a comprehensive and
much strengthened Bill of Rights to name some: provisions against the
death penalty, torture, hamletting and detention for reason of political
belief; the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus could be suspended
only in case of actual invasion or rebellion; guarantees freedom of
expression, in addition to the usual freedom of speech and of the press;
and the right to peaceably assemble and to organize.

Supportive of the Bill of Rights, he noted, is the
Commission on Human Rights and the provisions respecting and protecting
the right of people’s organizations to participate in decision-making.
Additionally, he noted that there is a strong independent judiciary and
provisions on initiative, plebiscite, referenda and recall.

He stated that in the volatile context of Philippine
society, which is characterized by chronic economic crisis and
political instability, as in most of the Third World countries, the Bill
of Rights provides a strong counterpoint to the weak provisions of the
other Articles. The Bill of Rights, and other sections supportive of
democratic actions, he maintained, should provide a measure of
protection for people and people’s organization in, the struggle for
human development and liberation. For this reason alone, he votes Yes.

By President Muñoz Palma:

On the outset, the President stated that the
negative votes had greatly saddened her, although she respected the
opinions expressed in the judgment of the Members and admired the
courage displayed by the strength of their convictions. she manifested
the hope that someday these Members will be able to achieve the goals
which they failed to attain in the Constitution for the lasting benefit
and welfare of the people.

She stated that with all humility but with profound
pride she votes in favor of the draft Constitution inasmuch as the
document is a worthy, inspiring legacy which can be handed down to the
Filipino people of today, tomorrow and posterity.

Thereupon, she stated the reasons why she voted in
favor of the draft Constitution. The Commission had set forth in clear
and positive terms in the Preamble which is the beacon light of the new
Charter, the noble goal to establish a just and humane society. She
noted that it must be so, as it must be admitted that there are so few
with so much and so many with so little. She stated that the Commission
upheld the rule of law where no man is above the law, adhered to the
principles of truth, justice, freedom, equality, love and peace. For the
first time and possibly the first Constitution ever, she observed that
“love” is enshrined. She stated that it is significant at this period in
the national life when the nation is bleeding under the forces of
hatred and violence, when brothers are fighting brothers and Filipinos
are torturing and killing their own countrymen. She opined that without
love, there can be no peace.

The new Charter, she averred, establishes a
republican democratic form of government with three branches, each
independent and co-equal of each other, affording a check and balance of
powers and that sovereignty resides in the people.

For the first time too, she observed, there is an
all-embracing expanded Bill of Rights which constitutes the cornerstone
of the structure of government and that aside from the traditional
guarantees of the rights to life, liberty, property, due process, equal
protection under the law; freedom of speech, the press, assembly,
freedom of travel and abode are strengthened and fortified. She noted
that under the provisions, practices of the military described as
hamletting, forced evacuations, relocations of civilians can no longer
be undertaken without lawful orders from the courts. She pointed out
that to uphold the dignity of the human person, the use of torture,
secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado and similar forms of
detention, imposition of degrading, psychological and bodily punishment
and subhuman conditions of penitentiaries and places of detention, are
condemned.

Mrs. Muñoz Palma also stated that for the first
time, the scope and extent of the exercise of the awesome power of the
Chief Executive to suspend the privileges of the writ of habeas corpus
or proclaim martial law is curtailed, made subject to judicial review,
and effective safeguards are established with the hope that never again
would the Filipino people suffer from a dictatorial and authoritarian
regime.

She underscored that for the first time, this is the
only Constitution which provides for the creation of a Commission on
Human Rights entrusted with the grave responsibility of investigating
violations of civil and political rights by any party or group and
recommending remedies therefor. She stated that the new Charter also
sets forth quite lengthily provisions on economic, social and cultural
rights spread out in separate articles such as the Articles on Social
Justice, Education, and Declaration of Principles. She stressed that it
is a document which in clear and in unmistakable terms reaches out to
the underprivileged, the paupers, the sick, the elderly, the disabled,
the veterans and other sectors of society as well as a document which
opens an expanded and improved way of life for the farmers, workers,
fishermen and the rank-and-file in government service.

Mrs. Muñoz Palma emphasized that for the first time,
the Constitution devotes a separate article on the family thereby
giving due recognition to the fact that the family is a basic,
autonomous, social institution and, therefore, the State shall uphold
the sanctity of family life, protect the stability of marriage, and the
right to found a family in accordance with one’s religious beliefs,
convictions and responsible parenthood.

She pointed out that for the first time, the new
Charter upholds the right to life of the unborn from the moment of
conception, the right of the youth to free elementary and secondary
levels and to a quality education that would instill in them the virtues
of patriotism, nationalism, morality and service to one’s fellowmen.

Mrs. Muñoz Palma stressed that for the first time,
there is a declaration against nuclear weapons in the country subject,
however, to the demands of national interest, and a prohibition of
military bases after 1991 unless it is with the consent of the elected
representatives of the people and of the Filipinos themselves expressed
in a referendum if necessary.

She underscored that for the first time, the
Judiciary is placed beyond the reach of politics and politicians; and
the reelection of the elective national public officials is either
prohibited or regulated to prevent political dynasties and perpetuation
of the few in power.

Finally, Mrs. Muñoz Palma stated that for the first
time, people power is enshrined in the Constitution culminating in the
right of the people, through their own initiative, to propose amendments
to the fundamental law.

She stated that it is her honor to vote in favor of
the proposed Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines on the
Feast of our Lady of the Pillar and she prayed that the document would
be a pillar of strength that would uphold a pro-Filipino, pro-people and
a pro-God nation.

RESULTS OF THE VOTING

The result of the voting was as follows:

In favor:

Abubakar	Monsod
Alonto	Natividad
Aquino	Nieva
Azcuna	Nolledo
Bacani	Ople
Bengzon	Padilla
Bennagen	Muñoz Palma
Bernas	Quesada
Rosario Braid	Rama
Calderon	Ragalado
De Castro	De los Reyes
Colayco	Rigos
Concepcion	Rodrigo
Davide	Romulo
Foz	Sarmiento
Garcia	Sumulong
Gascon	Tan
Guingona	Tingson
Jamir	Treñas
Laurel	Uka
Lerum	Villacorta
Maambong	Villegas

Against

Suarez

Tadeo

With 44 Members voting in favor and 2 against, the final draft of
the Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines was approved by the
Body.

PRAYER OF THANKS

Thereupon, Mr. Bengzon led the following prayer, to wit:

Almighty God, on November 30, 1972, I stood before You in the
presence of the 1971 delegates to the Constitutional Convention. It was
National Heroes Day, it was the day we signed the Constitution.

On that occasion, I entrusted our hopes, offered our lives and
commended our future in Your hands. I prayed for Your infinite guidance
and wisdom for our leaders then that they may bring to our nation the
dawn of a new day.

But You have chosen to allow man to exercise his free will without
Your interference until You felt in Your own time to do so. We have
suffered, we have died, we have resurrected.

But we have heretofore viewed the events of the recent past with
negative and passionate reactions. Little did we realize that by Your
noninterference then, we have awakened, we have been purified, we were
born again. For all these trials and tribulations, we thank You, for
without them we would not have been able to draft this Constitution the
way we did. We would have been unable to give the life and vigor to this
Constitution so much needed by our people. We would have lacked the
understanding and patience among ourselves.

For all of these, O God, we thank You. Now we look to the future.
Grant us then your fullest grace, wisdom and strength to continue this
task of nation-building in the role You wish each of us to play for Your
greater glory.

Amen.

ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION

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

It was 7:53 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 15, 1986