JOURNAL NO. 101

Monday, October 6, 1986

CALL TO ORDER

At 10:29 a.m., the President of the Constitutional Commission, The Honorable Cecilia Muñoz Palma, called the session to order.

NATIONAL ANTHEM AND PRAYER

The National Anthem was sung followed by a prayer led by Mr. Cirilo A. Rigos, to wit:

Almighty God, in whom we live and move and have
our being, we look back to the past four months with deep gratitude in
our hearts for the mysterious ways by which Thou hast guided us. Thou
hast enabled us to overcome not only the clashes of ideas and
philosophies each one of us possesses and passionately cherishes, but
also the aberrations in our personal relationships that rent our hearts
and disturbed our peace. We thank Thee for the miracle of Thy love which
enabled us to transcend all difficulties and to come up with a document
produced collectively.

As we look forward to the future, grant us the
faith to believe that our nation will enjoy a greater measure of freedom
and prosperity, the grace to honor the new Constitution, and the wisdom
to preserve it for as long as necessary. And for the present,
particularly today, all we need is the guidance of Thy Spirit and
humility on our part to obey the same.

We beg Thy special comforting grace upon Flerida
Ruth Romero, whose beloved mother, Juliana Pineda, passed away two days
ago. Give her the assurance of Thy divine companionship especially
during the period of bereavement.

We pray in Jesus’ name.

Amen.

ROLL CALL

The Roll Call was dispensed with and the Chair declared the presence of a quorum.

REFERENCE OF BUSINESS

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

REFERRAL TO COMMITTEES OF COMMUNICATIONS AND COMMITTEE REPORT

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

Communication No. 1053 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Communication from the participants of the LUSSA
regional consultation with the basic sectors, expressing appreciation of
the introduction and approval of several provisions which are believed
will promote the welfare and interests of the poor and underprivileged
sectors of society, at the same time, commenting on the various economic
concepts embodied in the proposed Constitution

TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE NATIONAL ECONOMY AND PATRIMONY

Communication No. 1054 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Mr. Noli Carbonel of 373 Quezon Avenue,
Quezon City, urging the continuance of the U.S. Military Bases in the
Philippines if the rental paid thereof is more or at par with what the
U.S. pays to Spain, Greece and Turkey; otherwise, the U.S. bases should
be dismantled.

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

Communication No. 1055 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Mr. Bienvenido Castillo of Pulilan,
Bulacan, reminding the Constitutional Commission not to rush the
Constitution, or else the country will be trailing the same path of most
dejected Filipinos in the past, saying that if it needs three hundred
sixty-five days to finish the draft which will give a more satisfying
outcome, then, the Commission should do so.

TO THE STEERING COMMITTEE

Communication No. 1056 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Mr. Joseph A. Cosente, OIC, Municipal
Mayor of Tublay, Benguet, transmitting Resolution No. 32 of the
Sangguniang Bayan of Tublay, indorsed by the OIC, Provincial Governor of
Benguet, opposing the proposal to create the Cordilleras as one
autonomous region like Muslim Mindanao; instead, favoring its creation
as one separate and distinct region from Regions I and II.

TO THE COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

Communication No. 1057 — Constitutional Commission of 1986

Letter from Mr. Enrique B. Inting, Provincial Fiscal
of Bohol, proposing amendment to Sec. 3, Art. IV of the 1973
Constitution, favoring “strong evidence of guilt” to “probable cause” in
the issuance of arrest and search warrants, and also submitting a copy
of his article, “Probable Cause: A Procedural Anathema in Our Criminal
Justice System”, printed in the Criminal Justice Journal, January-April
1985 issue.

TO THE COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP, BILL OF RIGHTS, POLITICAL RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS

COMMITTEE REPORT

Committee Report No. 41 on Petition No. 4, prepared by the Steering Committee, entitled:

AN URGENT PETITION TO REOPEN SECTIONS 3, 7, 10, 11, 13 AND 14 OF THE ARTICLE ON THE JUDICIARY,

recommending that the same be unanimously given due course.

Sponsors: Hon. Bengzon, Jr. and Concepcion

TO THE CALENDAR OF UNASSIGNED BUSINESS

UNFINISHED BUSINESS: COMMITTEE REPORT NO. 38 ON PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 540 ON THE ARTICLE ON TRANSITORY PROVISIONS

On motion of Mr. Rama, there being no objection, the
Body resumed consideration, on Second Reading, of the Proposed
Resolution No. 540 (Committee Report No. 38), entitled:

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

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

The Chair suspended the session.

It was 10:37 a.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 10 39 a.m., the session was resumed.

The Chair recognized Mr. Concepcion for His proposed provision.

AMENDMENT OF MR. CONCEPCION

Thereupon, Mr. Concepcion proposed the following as Section 21 of the Transitory Provisions:

THE LEGAL EFFECT OF THE LAPSE, BEFORE THE
RATIFICATION OF THIS CONSTITUTION, OF THE APPLICABLE PERIOD FOR THE
DECISION OR RESOLUTION OF THE CASES OR MATTERS SUBMITTED FOR
ADJUDICATION BY COURTS OF JUSTICE SHALL BE DETERMINED AND DECIDED OR
RESOLVED BY THE SUPREME COURT AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE AFTER SUCH
RATIFICATION.

He also informed that he proposes an additional
paragraph to provide for the means of disposal of cases after the
ratification of the new Constitution which shall read:

THE PROVISIONS OF PARAGRAPHS (3) AND (4) OF SECTION
14 OF THE MAIN TEXT OF THE ARTICLE ON THE JUDICIARY SHALL APPLY TO CASES
OR MATTERS FILED BEFORE THE RATIFICATION OF THIS CONSTITUTION WHEN THE
APPLICABLE PERIODS LAPSE AFTER SUCH RATIFICATION.

Mr. Concepcion remarked that the problem anticipated
by the Body refers to the number of cases that may have to be filed to
determine the status of the cases and the periods for which they lapse
before the adoption of the Constitution. He stated that the Committee
proposes an amendment which would require the Supreme Court to decide
the cases as soon as practicable, after the adoption of the new
Constitution, adding that instead of the courts waiting for parties to
take the initiative, the Supreme Court may, in one or a few cases, pass
upon the question as an incident of the cases or matters.

INQUIRY OF MR. PADILLA

Mr. Padilla stated that the Committee on the
Judiciary would propose an amendment to increase the membership of the
Supreme Court from 11 to 15 and in its discretion may divide into
divisions composed of 3, 5 or 7 members to enable them to dispose more
expeditiously the pending cases, whether those filed after the February
revolution or those pending prior thereto, including less important
cases such as those involving labor, workmen’s compensation cases or
appeals from the Sandiganbayan. Furthermore, he observed that Section 5
of the Transitory Provisions already approved by the Body gives the
Supreme Court one year after ratification of the Constitution to adopt a
systematic plan to expedite the decision or resolution or cases pending
before it and lower courts.

As to whether these two provisions would be
sufficient to expedite the disposal of cases, Mr. Concepcion replied
that the provisions were adopted to accomplish that purpose and that
there are other provisions, one being that in cases heard by the Court
en banc, a vote of the majority of all the members who took part in the
deliberations will be sufficient.

On whether the proposed additional section would
still be necessary considering that the legal effect will always be
subject to appropriate judicial proceedings in view of the adoption of
plans or measures by the Supreme Court and lower courts to dispose of
pending cases, Mr. Concepcion replied that the proposed section
contemplates something else than the disposal of backlog cases. He
explained that in connection with the disposal of backlog cases, there
might be a question as to whether there is already a vested right to the
affirmance of the appealed decisions or the dismissal of original cases
of petitions for certiorari, prohibition, etc. He clarified that the
plan, on the other hand, refers to the disposition of the cases on their
merits.

Mr. Concepcion stated that the proposed section
discusses the legal effects of the lapse of the period, whether the
lapse creates in favor of the respondent in original petitions or the
appellee in appealed cases, a vested right to have the petitions
dismissed or the appeals affirmed.

On Mr. Padilla’s comment that this is a judicial
issue, Mr. Concepcion replied that precisely the Supreme Court shall be
asked to dispose of the issue once and for all.

On Mr. Padilla’s observation that the legal effect
of the lapse shall be determined in appropriate judicial proceedings in
accordance with the proposed section, Mr. Concepcion replied that with
the amendment it shall be determined by the Supreme Court as soon as
practicable after the ratification of the Constitution. He added that
the Supreme Court, by trying two or three cases, can settle the matter
and save the lower courts the task of determining what is the legal
effect of the lapse of the applicable periods.

Mr. Padilla stated that he has no objection to the
Supreme Court deciding the legal effects of the lapse which would
require either party to raise the issue for determination by the Supreme
Court. However, he manifested objection to the inclusion of the
proposal in the Transitory Provisions.

Mr. Concepcion replied that he precisely proposed
the amendment in view of said observation. He stated that inasmuch as
there may be a number of cases on the particular question, to avoid
multiplicity of such cases, the provision would state that the Supreme
Court shall decide the issue once and for all and as soon as
practicable.

On whether there can be one decision that will apply
to all pending cases, he stated that although there may be variations
in the facts and issues, in general, there would be guidelines as to the
appropriate steps the parties may take.

At this juncture, Mr. Suarez informed that the
Committee is thinking of blending the two sections together and that one
Section could include the lapses even before the adoption of the 1986
Constitution, to wit:

THE LEGAL EFFECT OF THE LAPSE, BEFORE THE RATIFICATION OF THIS CONSTITUTION, OF THE APPLICABLE PERIOD . . ..

Mr. Concepcion pointed out that the second paragraph
refers to cases for which the periods have lapsed after the
ratification, although these cases had been filed before such
ratification.

On Mr. Suarez’ suggestion to simply use the phrase
“before and after the ratification”, Mr. Concepcion explained that
should they lapse after the ratification, the provisions of the new
Constitution would apply.

On whether the proposal envisions two decisions or
rulings to be enunciated by the Supreme Court, Mr. Concepcion stated
that the ruling is requested only in connection with cases or matters
for which the period would lapse before the adoption of the
Constitution.

APPROVAL OF SECTION 21

Thereafter, Mr. Suarez proposed that the two Sections be voted upon separately, the first one, to read:

THE LEGAL EFFECT OF THE LAPSE, BEFORE THE
RATIFICATION OF THIS CONSTITUTION, OF THE APPLICABLE PERIODS FOR THE
DECISION OR RESOLUTION OF THE CASE OR MATTER SUBMITTED FOR ADJUDICATION
BY THE COURTS, SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE SUPREME COURT AS SOON AS
PRACTICABLE AFTER THE RATIFICATION OF THIS CONSTITUTION.

Submitted to a vote, and with 19 Members voting in favor and none against, the first section was approved by the Body.

CONSIDERATION OF SECTION 22

Thereafter, Mr. Suarez restated the succeeding section, denominated as Section 22, to wit:

THE PROVISIONS OF PARAGRAPHS (3) AND (4) OF SECTION
14, ARTICLE ON THE JUDICIARY, SHALL APPLY, ALSO, TO CASES FILED BEFORE
THE RATIFICATION OF THE PRESENT CONSTITUTION, WHEN THE APPLICABLE PERIOD
LAPSES AFTER SUCH RATIFICATION.

Mr. Regalado proposed to delete “also” and to insert
the words OR MATTERS after “cases” so that the line would read “shall
apply to cases or matters filed before the ratification.”

Mr. Suarez accepted the amendments to the amendment,
adding that OR MATTERS should accordingly be inserted after “cases” in
all other sections containing a similar provision.

Mr. Sarmiento suggested a reading of paragraphs 3
and 4 of Section 14 of the Article on the Judiciary for an intelligent
consideration of the proposed amendment. Thereupon Mr. Suarez read
paragraph 3, to wit:

Upon the expiration of the corresponding period, a
certification to this effect signed by the Chief Justice or Presiding
Judge shall forthwith be issued and a copy thereof attached to the
record of the case or matter, and served upon the parties.

At this juncture, Mr. Suarez observed that Section
14 of the Article on the Judiciary contains only three paragraphs to
which, he said, Mr. Concepcion indicated further amendment.

He then requested for a suspension of session to clarify the matter.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

The Chair suspended the session.

It was 11:03 a.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 11:07 a.m., the session was resumed.

Upon resumption of session, Mr. Suarez informed that
the Committee on the Judiciary intends to propose further amendments to
Section 14 of the Article on the Judiciary in the next session to
include paragraphs 3 and 4, to wit:

3) UPON THE EXPIRATION OF THE CORRESPONDING PERIOD, A
CERTIFICATION TO THIS EFFECT SIGNED BY THE CHIEF JUSTICE OR THE
PRESIDING JUDGE SHALL FORTHWITH BE ISSUED AND A COPY THEREOF ATTACHED TO
THE RECORD OF THE CASE OR MATTER, AND SERVED UPON THE PARTIES. THE
CERTIFICATION SHALL STATE WHY A DECISION OR RESOLUTION HAS NOT BEEN
RENDERED OR ISSUED WITHIN SAID PERIOD.

4) DESPITE THE EXPIRATION OF THE APPLICABLE
MANDATORY PERIOD, THE COURT, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO SUCH RESPONSIBILITY,
IF ANY, AS MAY HAVE BEEN INCURRED IN CONSEQUENCE THEREOF, SHALL DECIDE
OR RESOLVE THE CASE OR MATTER SUBMITTED THERETO FOR DETERMINATION,
WITHOUT FURTHER DELAY.

MANIFESTATION OF MR. SUAREZ

Mr. Suarez requested that since Section 22 of the
Article on Transitory Provisions may be affected by the proposed
amendments to Section 14 of the Article on the Judiciary, further
discussions on Section 22 be deferred.

He then requested the Members of the Commission to
study the wisdom and advisability of making adjustments in the salaries
of the President, the Vice-President, the Chief Justice, the Associate
Justices of the Supreme Court, Senators, and other constitutional
officers, including Members of the Constitutional Commissions. He
recalled that the figures suggested were P200,000 for the President;
P150,000 for the Vice-President and the Chief Justice; P120,000 for the
Associate Justices and the Senators; and P100,000 for all other
constitutional officers. He stated that according to the information
received by the Committee during the public hearings, the
representatives of the Ministry of the Budget informed that there are 23
Ministers, 36 Deputy Ministers, 61 Assistant Ministers and 302 Bureau
Directors. He then adverted to the figures suggested for, as well as the
present salaries of, the offices of the President, the Vice-President,
the Ministers, the Deputy Ministers, the Assistant Ministers, the Bureau
Directors, the Chief Justice, the Associate Justices, the Presiding
Justice of the Court of Appeals, the Associate Justices of the Court of
Appeals, the Commissioners of the Constitutional Commissions and their
Deputies, the Senators and the Congressmen.

Mr. Suarez pointed out, however, that the Committee
had received an official communication from the Minister of the Budget
informing that the position of the Ministry is that there should be no
adjustment in the salaries of the top officials of the land because of
the imperative to give top priority to the salaries of the government
employees who at the lowest level receive only P550.00 monthly.

INQUIRY OF MR. SARMIENTO

In reply to Mr. Sarmiento’s query whether the
Members of the Constitutional Commission are in a position to fix the
salaries of ranking government officials, Mr. Suarez stated that this
view is shared by the Committee Members, in view of which, he suggested
that the matter be referred to the proper committees — the Committee on
the Executive for the salaries of the President and the Vice-President
and the Committee on the Legislative for the salaries of Senators and
Congressmen.

On whether the Members of the Commission would be in
a position to discuss the matter of salaries in the light of the
suggestion of the Minister of the Budget that the salaries of the
President and the Vice-President be deferred pending the discussion of
the salaries for government employees, Mr. Bengzon stated that if the
salaries of said officials would not be discussed, the amounts in the
present Constitution would continue to be in effect. He stated that this
could give rise to a question of propriety because salaries of said
officials were included previous Constitutions and it is imperative that
the Commission take up and consider the point inasmuch as a new
Constitution is being drafted. With respect to the suggestion of the
Minister of the Budget, Mr. Bengzon noted that the Minister has no
choice but to make said statement which is highly political. He stated
that it is nevertheless known that the salaries of the lower officials
all the way down to the lowest employee of the government are
categorized and based on the salary of the highest officer of the land,
the reason being that there is a constitutional ceiling to the salary of
the highest government official.

REMARKS OF MR. OPLE

Mr. Ople, supporting Mr. Bengzon’s stand, stated
that the Members of the Commission have an obligation to act on the
salaries of the President, the Vice-President and the Members of
Congress who would be elected in the first national elections on May 11,
1987. He pointed out that it would be unseemly and unbecoming, if not
constitutionally insufferable, for Members of Congress to fix their own
salaries and for the Constitutional Commission, in effect, to evade the
responsibility of fixing the salaries, because it is important to begin
at the top since the salaries of the Members of Congress are
interrelated with the salaries of the President, the Vice-President and
the Members of the Cabinet. He then adverted to the possibility of the
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court receiving a higher salary than the
President of the Philippines, which kind of asymmetry is too pronounced
for the Commission to overlook and which could be accused of mental and
intellectual sloth if it were not to pursue the matter after having
taken cognizance of it.

He maintained that Mr. Bengzon was right when he
contended that failure to fix the salary of the President would in
effect put a cap on upward salary standardization starting at the base
of the public service.

On the meeting of the Committee on Transitory
Provisions, Mr. Ople stated that the Minister of the Budget opined that
it would be politically unpalatable to fix the salary of the President
at a level higher than the existing one although this has not been
changed for a long time, because there must be a movement of salaries
for the lowest paid government employees, by applying the minimum wage
law.

SUGGESTION OF MR. DE CASTRO

At this juncture, Mr. de Castro suggested that the
Committee on Transitory Provisions meet immediately after lunch to
decide on the salaries for constitutional officers.

INQUIRY OF MRS. QUESADA

Mrs. Quesada observed that the 1935 and 1973
Constitutions provide for the salaries under the Article on National
Assembly, which is now being proposed in the Transitory Provisions. She
questioned the logic of introducing it in the Transitory Provisions
instead of placing it in a more appropriate article.

Responding thereto, Mr. Suarez explained the
parliamentary situation on the matter of fixing the salaries of the
constitutional officers. He pointed out that provisions on the salaries
of constitutional officers were left blank in order that they may be
considered in the Article on Transitory Provisions, and it is the duty
of the Committee on Transitory Provisions to fill up all the blanks in
the other Articles pertaining to salaries.

MANIFESTATION OF MR. BENGZON

Mr. Bengzon manifested that there was an anterior
motion by Mr. Sarmiento on whether or not the Body should discuss the
salaries of Constitutional officers. He suggested that the motion be
considered first and that only after the approval of Mr. Sarmiento’s
motion should the Body consider the suggestion of Mr. de Castro.

WITHDRAWAL OF MR. SARMIENTO’S MOTION

In view of Mr. Bengzon’s earlier explanation on the
need to include the salaries of constitutional officers as they were
included in the 1935 and 1973 Constitutions, Mr. Sarmiento did not
insist on his motion.

He affirmed the Chair’s observation that the
salaries would be determined by the respective Committees or by the
Committee on Transitory Provisions.

OBJECTION OF MR. LERUM

As Member of the Committee on Transitory Provisions,
Mr. Lerum objected to the inclusion of the salaries of public officials
in the Constitution, considering that the salaries fixed in the 1935
and 1973 Constitutions had not been followed because of subsequent
salary increases and it might frustrate the lowly government employees
who have been receiving compensations below the minimum wage. He stated
that the people would anyway monitor the salaries of said public
officials.

He moved that the salaries of constitutional officers be not included in the provisions of the Constitution.

REMARKS OF MR. FOZ

Mr. Foz seconded Mr. Lerum’s motion that Congress provide for the salaries of constitutional officers.

In reply to the Chair’s query, Mr. Foz stated that
in the meantime that Congress has not yet provided such salaries, public
officials would receive compensations under existing laws. He added
that the Office of Budget and Management could adjust the salaries
without the need of any constitutional provision.

REMARKS OF MR. BENGZON

Thereupon, Mr. Bengzon pointed out there would be no
basis for the salaries if they would not be provided in the new
Constitution because the 1973 Constitution had already been repealed, no
law could be passed because there is no basis.

REMARKS OF MR. TINGSON

Mr. Tingson opined that the fixed salaries of public
officials could be a ground for disapproval of the Constitution by the
people. He also cited the cases of Mexico and Indonesia where there had
been tremendous drop in money value. He stated that while he realized
the need to provide for adequate compensation, the Committee could come
up with a reasonable provision so that the people would not be surprised
and think that one could be a millionaire by being a Member of
Congress.

INQUIRY OF MR. GUINGONA

On Mr. Guingona’s observation that it would be
improper for Congress to provide for the salaries of its own Members,
Mr. Foz stated that Congress is the appropriating body but what worries
him is the proposed salary scale which involves millions of pesos for
one government position, whereas lowly government employees have been
complaining that their salaries could not make both ends meet.

At this juncture, the Chair noted that there was no
proposal yet to give millions of pesos for one government position, and
the question was whether or not the Commission should provide for such
salaries.

Moreover, Mr. Foz explained that under a memorandum
issued by the former President, the retirement benefits of the members
of the Judiciary are also extended to the members of the Constitutional
Commissions; and in addition to his basic salary, a member of the
Commission on Audit, for instance, would get some six million pesos upon
retirement.

Mr. Foz reiterated his support for Mr. Lerum’s
motion for the noninclusion of provisions on the salaries of
constitutional officers.

REMARKS OF MR. NOLLEDO

Mr. Nolledo, however, supported the stand of Mr.
Bengzon that there is no reason for not fixing the salaries of
constitutional officers, otherwise it would cause a hiatus. He pointed
out that the laws adverted to by Mr. Foz refer to retirement benefits of
government officials.

He opined that should the Body decide not to fix the
salaries of government officials, the Commission may still provide in
the Transitory Provisions that the President, Vice-President and other
constitutional officers shall have receive the same salaries as they now
receive, until Congress provides otherwise.

INQUIRY OF MR. GUINGONA

Mr. Guingona reiterated his inquiry whether it would
be more appropriate for the Constitutional Commission or for the
President, through an executive order, to provide for the salaries of
the Members of Congress, considering that, as pointed out by Mr. Ople,
it would be improper for Congress to provide for the salaries of its own
Members.

Mr. Foz affirmed that because there would be a new
Congress and there is nothing in the existing laws that provide for the
salary of its Members, the government would be competent enough to
provide therefor.

MANIFESTATION OF MR. BENGZON

Mr. Bengzon affirmed the Chair’s observation that
the issue was whether or not the Commission would fix the salaries of
the constitutional officers, as raised by Mr. Lerum.

Mr. Rama took exception to Mr. Bengzon’s statements,
observing that aside from the issue raised by Mr. Lerum, the moral
issue before the Body is whether or not the salaries of constitutional
officers take a quantum leap from the present salary scales as provided
by the 1973 Constitution. He underscored that the Body take into account
the present economic difficulties, the low salaries of other government
employees, and the government’s policy on austerity.

REMARKS OF MR. LERUM

Mr. Lerum reiterated that his motion was based on
the fact that the fixed salaries as provided for in the 1935 and 1973
Constitutions were not followed because of economic changes. He stated
that to fix a high salary for the constitutional officers would make the
lowly government employees complain about their low salaries. He
pointed out that the matter should be left to Congress which would
provide the budget of the government.

REMARKS OF MR. PADILLA

Mr. Padilla, however, stated that the Transitory
Provisions should provide for the basic salaries of constitutional
officers without their allowances and other benefits, until Congress
determines the increase or decrease thereof, considering the economic
situation obtaining in the country. He opined that the Constitution may
also provide for P800.00 as minimum salary of government employees, and
other salaries to be determined by the Office of Budget and Management
according to the different position in the government. He underscored,
however, that the salary of the President should not be lower than the
salary of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court any other
Constitutional official.

At this juncture, the Chair requested Mr. Lerum to reformulate his motion so that the Body could vote on it.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

On request of Mr. Lerum, the Chair suspended the session.

It was 11:54 a.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 12:02 p.m., the session was resumed.

POINT OF INFORMATION OF MR. MONSOD

Upon resumption of session, Mr. Monsod informed that
the question of salaries had been approved by the Body when it approved
his motion to treat the salaries uniformly by not mentioning any figure
in the Constitution itself but merely stating that the salaries shall
be provided by law which may not be increased or decreased during the
tenure, and placing the starting salaries in the Transitory Provisions.

He then suggested that the Body implement the motion
so as to harmonize all references to salaries and to debate on how much
the starting salaries would be. He informed, moreover, that Mr. Bacani
supported the motion which had been duly approved.

In view thereof, Mr. Lerum temporarily withdrew his motion.

The Chair stated that consideration of the matter
would be deferred until confirmation of the motion adverted to by Mr.
Monsod which would then be referred to the Committee.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. REGALADO

Mr. Regalado proposed the following section with respect to lands of the public domain:

CONGRESS SHALL PROVIDE AN EFFICACIOUS PROCEDURE AND
ADEQUATE REMEDIES FOR THE REVERSION TO THE STATE OF ALL LANDS OF THE
PUBLIC DOMAIN AND REAL RIGHTS CONNECTED THEREWITH WHICH HAVE BEEN
ACQUIRED IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THE PUBLIC LAND LAWS OR
THROUGH CORRUPT PRACTICES. NO TRANSFER OR DISPOSITION OF SUCH LANDS OR
REAL RIGHTS SHALL BE ALLOWED UNTIL AFTER THE LAPSE OF ONE YEAR FROM THE
RATIFICATION OF THIS CONSTITUTION.

Mr. Regalado explained that he used the phrase
“efficacious procedure and adequate remedies” because “procedural cause”
refers to the steps to be taken, while the “remedies” will be the forms
or modes of action, which could even be by administrative or judicial
proceedings for the reason that there are only jurisprudential bases of
the meaning of “reversion”. He noted that although the Rules of Court
provides for the procedure for escheat and reversion, there is no
substantive provision on the remedy of reversion to the State of lands
which were illegally acquired. He pointed out that the cases decided by
the Supreme Court only involved violations of the Constitution or the
Public Land Law, and that there are no decisions with respect to those
acquired through corrupt means. He informed that the procedure in
recovering such property in favor of the State was through a pure accion
reinvindicatoria. He maintained that Congress should be given the
opportunity to provide by law for a remedy specifically stating the
substantive basis for reversion proceedings to the State of lands
acquired in violation of the Constitution and the Public Land Law.

Mr. Regalado observed that during the previous
regime there were some acquisitions within the Constitutional provision
or the Presidential Decrees which were tailored to make such
acquisitions lawful and had expanded the concept of reversion
proceedings through the use of the phrase “or through corrupt
practices”.

The second sentence, he informed, is a holding
sentence so that during the one-year period, such lands cannot be
disposed or transferred to other persons. He noted that it would be a
freeze on the possible transfer so that within the one-year period after
the ratification of the 1986 Constitution and before Congress shall
have passed the proposed reversion law, the State can already take steps
to recover and that even if the case is pending, at least a notice of
lis pendens can be annotated thereon.

INQUIRY OF MR. NOLLEDO

On Mr. Nolledo’s question which particular
Constitution the phrase “in violation of the Constitution” would refer
to, Mr. Regalado replied that it would be the Constitution at the time
of the acquisition inasmuch as the basis for determining the validity of
the acquisition would be the law in force at that time.

value and in good faith to a third person, the third
person acquires the land and holds the title thereto despite the fact
that the land was illegally acquired, which decision he is opposed to.

Mr. Nolledo stated that the Supreme Court rulings in
such cases are erroneous because under the circumstances, no title
could have passed on to a third person regardless of good faith.

In reply thereto, Mr. Regalado stated that insofar
as those cases decided by the Supreme Court are concerned, there is
nothing which can be done about them because of the doctrine of res
adjudicata and the rule of the law on the case. He underscored the need
to have Congress enact a specific law on reversion inasmuch as the
concept of reversion, as it is now, is on a case-to-case basis.

Mr. Regalado, moreover, noted that the Rules of
Court talks of escheat or reversion proceedings and that while escheat
has a substantive basis, meaning there are no heirs when a person dies,
reversion has no specific basis, but is only an accion reinvindicatoria
on the part of the State. He informed that it was first started when
there was an illegal expansion of land by table surveys in which an
8-hectare land was later, by subdivision on the table without actual
field inspections, expanded into several titles of a hundred or thousand
hectares. He stated that the government brought accion reinvindicatoria
on the mother title and that in Quezon City alone there are about 200
to 300 such cases.

On whether the provision can be minimized if the
Supreme Court ruling is respected inasmuch as such landholdings can be
transferred to third persons to circumvent the provision before the
ratification of the Constitution, Mr. Regalado pointed to the second
sentence in the provision.

(At this juncture, the President, the Honorable
Cecilia Muñoz Palma, relinquished the Chair to the Honorable Francisco
A. Rodrigo.)

Mr. Regalado maintained that within the one-year
period, the government, pending the law on reversion, can proceed on an
accion reinvindicatoria in favor of the State and at least annotate a
notice of lis pendens.

Mr. Nolledo manifested his apprehension of a
possible circumvention when an alien who illegally holds a piece of land
will apply for naturalization and perhaps, acquire the citizenship and
render the provision academic as a Supreme Court ruling states that the
individual’s acquisition of Filipino citizenship will validate the
possession of that land.

In reply, Mr. Regalado adverted to LOI 270 referring to naturalization by administrative proceedings.

Mr. Nolledo then inquired as to what would be the
effect of the provision on landholding acquired under the parity law
because the 1973 Constitution recognizes the validity as between the
private parties but does not prohibit the State from escheating the
property.

Mr. Regalado noted that with respect to properties
acquired under the 1973 Constitution and on which there have been
judicial decisions, the doctrine of res adjudicata would be binding. He
stressed that if the provision is applied retroactively, there would be
serious violation of vested rights. The second sentence, he opined,
would give the government the opportunity to review land transfers and
dispositions. He affirmed that his proposal would not cover lands that
are idle or abandoned.

Mr. Nolledo informed that Mr. Tadeo has a proposal
that such lands shall be forfeited in favor of the State under certain
conditions.

Mr. Regalado remarked that there is a difference
inasmuch as Mr. Tadeo’s proposal is with respect to idle or abandoned
lands wherein he contemplated the possibility of expropriation
proceedings for purposes of land reform while his own proposal is not an
expropriation proceedings which will involve government financial
outlay. He added that inasmuch as there was illegal acquisition,
reversion in favor of the State is justified.

INQUIRY OF MR. TREÑAS

On the query of Mr. Treñas, Mr. Regalado replied
that the proposal refers to any acquisition as long as it is in
violation of the Constitution at the time of acquisition.

On the period specified when the alleged violation
took place, Mr. Regalado stated that the reversion proceedings have no
time basis because what is null and void ab initio is not subject to
prescription.

On how such lands which cannot be transferred shall
be identified, Mr. Regalado answered that the Ministry involved can look
into such properties. He explained that the reason he provided a freeze
period was that a number of persons whose properties are now being
looked into by authorities are divesting themselves of such properties
through sale to third persons.

On Mr. Treñas observation that unless a notice of
lis pendens is annotated on the title, such lands may be sold or
transferred to innocent purchasers, Mr. Regalado stated that within the
freeze period, the government having identified the properties in
question may already proceed to file the corresponding accion
reinvindicatoria and annotate a notice of lis pendens. He opined that
even if annotated, the property can still be sold or transferred
although the transferor receives or acquires the same subject to the
results of the pending case.

INQUIRY OF MR. OPLE

On the query of Mr. Ople, Mr. Regalado denied that
there is a color of an ex post facto law to the proposal. He likewise
denied that the amendment would disturb existing contracts inasmuch as
the test of applicability of the transitory provisions is the validity
or invalidity of the acquisition tested under the Constitutional
provision and the law in force at the time.

Mr. Ople inquired whether in situations where
reversion proceedings have not been completed or have been adjudicated
against the State, the amendment would foreclose the government option
to seek a reconsideration, to which Mr. Regalado replied that the
government could always seek reconsideration or appeal from the
decision. He affirmed that the government can always exercise that
option.

INQUIRY OF MR. NATIVIDAD

Upon inquiry of Mr. Natividad, Mr. Regalado affirmed
that there are three ways through which reversion can be achieved, to
wit: 1) violation of the Constitution; 2) violation of public land laws;
and 3) through corrupt practices. Mr. Regalado stated that it is an
expanded version of the “basis for reversion proceedings”.

On the matter of reversion because of corrupt
practices, Mr. Regalado stated that Congress, in providing for the law
on reversion proceedings for properties acquired through such practices,
can specifically mention that such is contrary to the Constitution,
contrary to the public land laws like C.A. No. 141 and even make a prima
facie presumption that such properties shall be subject to reversion
proceedings, thus shifting the burden to the party who claims otherwise
to prove that it was not acquired through corrupt practices.

Mr. Regalado denied that he was seeking prior
conviction of parties concerned and that the use of the phrase “adequate
remedies” could include administrative remedies. He informed that if
prior conviction is required, under Article 45 of the Revised Penal Code
there is the accessory penalty of confiscation and forfeiture of the
fruits and instruments of the crime.

As to what would be included in “real rights”, Mr.
Regalado pointed out that leasehold rights would be one where property
has been leased beyond the permissible areas or limits or not in
accordance with administrative regulations, and even such leasehold
rights executed by the Minister of Natural Resources.

Mr. Natividad inquired whether leaseholds or lease
contracts on the use of communal fishing grounds entered into between
wealthy fishpond owner and the Ministers concerned, in violation of the
provisions of the Public Land Law, would also be covered by the
proposal.

Responding thereto, Mr. Regalado stated that he is
not exactly sure what type of fishing grounds is referred to because
there are several types which are regulated by the Bureau of Fisheries.
However, as a guide, he stated that fish, while still in fishponds,
still considered real property and may be the basis of Congress in
taking into account the classification of fish and fishponds as real
property for incorporation in the projected Reversion Law. He pointed
out that it improves the situation in the sense that while formerly
there could be no reversion proceeding as long as a party says that he
obtained the property in accordance with the Constitution or the laws,
there is a further ground that while ostensibly it is in accordance with
the laws, if it were acquired through corrupt practices, then that
could still be a basis for reversion of the property.

Mr. Regalado explained that he used the word
“efficacious” instead of “effective” because whether it is effective or
not is tested by the results; but if the term “efficacious” is used, it
is an intent to make the procedure ultimately effective.

On the significance of the last sentence, Mr.
Regalado stated that during the one-year period from the ratification of
this Constitution, while the government authorities are still making a
catalogue and a review of these different properties which may have been
dubiously acquired, the ones in possession thereof would not be
permitted to transfer or dispose of the same and then later hide behind
the cloak of the Land Registration Law by saying that it is already in
the hands of a third party who acted in good faith. He stated that at
least within the one-year period, any transfer or disposition would not
bar the applicability of the laws on the property especially the
projected Reversion Law.

Mr. Regalado then restated his second sentence which he amended, to wit:

NO TRANSFER OR DISPOSITION OF SUCH LANDS OR REAL
RIGHTS SHALL BE ALLOWED UNTIL THE LAPSE OF ONE YEAR FROM THE
RATIFICATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

He pointed out that he decided to delete the previous sentence because it was not specific.

REMARKS OF MR. PADILLA

Mr. Padilla stated that he had serious doubts on the
necessity of including this provision in the Transitory Provisions. He
contended that, although he agrees that acquisition of property in
violation of the Constitution at the time of its acquisition is void,
the prohibition in the new Constitution would apply only to violations
before or during the previous Constitution.

Mr. Padilla, likewise, agreed that when there is a
transfer or conveyance, the transferee or buyer acquires by derivative
title no better rights than his predecessor, such that if the original
vendor has no right, then the transferee could acquire no better right.
He pointed, however, to two exceptions to this rule, namely, 1) the
“Negotiable Instruments Law” which protects a holder in due course, and
2) the “Torrens System” under which a purchaser in good faith for value
and without notice acquires good title. The two basic exceptions, he
stated, are based on some public policy to ensure the negotiability of a
negotiable instrument and the stability of the title acquired under the
Torrens System.

He observed that the provision would apply only to
violations before the 1986 Constitution. He opined that if the phrase
“corrupt practices” would refer to the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act, then the fault would be attributable to the Land Registration
Commission or the Register of Deeds, not necessarily to a third party
buyer. Moreover, he stated that the second sentence would grant one year
and, assuming that there is a defect in the title of one who acquired
such land, there may be many transactions rushed within the year,
especially because it would require an act of Congress to provide a
Reversion Law.

Mr. Padilla opined that while the purpose of Mr.
Regalado is laudable, it may not be necessary and it would be difficult
for this provision to be included in the Transitory Provisions, in view
of which, he would vote against it.

Responding thereto, Mr. Regalado stated that he used
the generic phrase “corrupt practices” to include the provisions of the
Anti-Graft Law or Republic Act 3019; the law on unlawfully acquired
property or Republic Act 1379; and any other corrupt practices by public
officers under Title 7 of the Revised Penal Code. He pointed out that
the second sentence would give the government a one-year period within
which to go over these questionable transactions, in effect, needing a
clearance within that one-year period before there could be transfers or
dispositions on the assumption that possibly by that time, Congress may
already have come up with an expanded Reversion law, the proceedings
under which may not necessarily be judicial but administrative because
there are administrative legalization of titles.

APPROVAL OF MR. REGALADO’S AMENDMENT

Submitted to a vote, and with 13 members voting in favor, 4 against and 1 abstention, the amendment was approved by the Body.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

On motion of Mr. Rama, the Chair suspended the session until two-thirty in the afternoon.

It was 12:42 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 3:01 p.m., the session was resumed.

MANIFESTATION OF MR. SUAREZ

Upon resumption of session, Mr. Suarez informed the
Body that the Committee on Transitory Provisions had met and proposed to
fix only the salaries of the President, Vice-President, Speaker of the
House of Representatives, Senate President, Senators and Congressmen,
while the other constitutional officers would be receiving the salaries
they are receiving under the existing laws, copies of which proposal
were distributed to the Members of the Commission. He proposed that
these salaries be received by the constitutional officers until Congress
otherwise provides, to wit:

President — P200,000; Vice-President — P150,000;
Senate President — P150,000; Speaker of the House of Representatives—
P150,000; Senators — P120,000; and Congressmen — P120,000.

On the Chair’s inquiry whether he had verified from
the Secretariat the alleged approval of Mr. Monsod’s motion that the
question of salaries would be provided in the Transitory Provisions, Mr.
Suarez affirmed that the transcript of July 23, 1986 showed that the
salaries for the positions of the President and the Vice-President under
the Article on the Executive Power, and the legislative positions under
the Article on the Legislative, would be determined in the Article on
Transitory Provisions, for which reason the Committee was constrained to
make such proposal.

AMENDMENT OF MR. BENGZON

Mr. Bengzon observed that the proposed P200,000
salary of the President is equivalent to P16,666.00 a month which is
below the salary of an ordinary vice-president of a bank.

In view thereof, together with Mr. Natividad, Mr.
Bengzon proposed the following annual salaries for the different
government officials: President — P300,000; Vice-President-P240,000;
Senate President — P240,000; Speaker of the House of Representatives —
P240,000; Senators — P204,000; and Congressmen — P204,000.

He also suggested that the Body specify the salaries
of the Chief Justice and the members of the Judiciary as stipulated in
the 1973 Constitution, and that the Chairmen of the constitutional
offices be ranked equivalent to the Chief Justice, and the members of
the Constitutional Commissions be ranked equivalent to Associate
Justices.

Mr. Suarez stated that the Constitution should fix
only the salaries of the six positions in the Executive and Legislative
departments considering certain misproportions like the P110,000 annual
salary of the President as against the P131,000 annual salary of the
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

He opined that while it would not be necessary to
provide for the salaries of the other constitutional offices, it is
necessary to provide for the salaries of the Members of Congress because
there is no existing provision therefor with the abolition of the
Batasang Pambansa, and with the adoption of a bicameral legislature.

In reply to Mr. Bengzon’s query, Mr. Suarez affirmed
that the members of the Judiciary and other constitutional officers
would get the salaries they are presently receiving.

Thereupon, Mr. Bengzon reiterated his proposed
amendment on the salaries of the President, Vice-President, Senate
President, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Senators and
Congressmen.

INQUIRY OF MR. GUINGONA

In reply to Mr. Guingona’s query, Mr. Suarez
affirmed that the proposed amendment refers only to basic salaries
excluding allowances and other benefits.

He also stated that the Committee took into account
the suggestion of the Minister of Budget that the salaries of the
President and other top government officials be not unduly increased, in
view of the President’s desire to first upgrade the salaries of the
rank and, file in government service.

INQUIRY OF MR. SARMIENTO

Mr. Sarmiento informed that the Committee proposal
was based on the premise that government officials should be motivated
not by monetary considerations but by the desire to serve.

In reply to Mr. Sarmiento’s query on the reason for
Mr. Bengzon’s proposal, the latter explained that although public
service would mean some sacrifice, public servants also have their
material needs.

On the misproportion of the salary of the President
as against that of the Chief Justice, Mr. Bengzon opined that even the
salary of the Chief Justice should be adjusted to compensate for the
high cost of living. He maintained that the P300,000 annual salary of
the President would not be unreasonable in view of the great
responsibilities attached to the position.

On whether the phrase “until Congress otherwise
provides” would cover this concern, Mr. Bengzon stated that the
implementation of said phrase would not apply to the Members of Congress
who provide for such salaries but to the succeeding Members of
Congress. He added that if the salaries of government officials and
legislative representatives should be provided, the people would have
every reason to expect better service, more honesty and integrity from
said officials.

INQUIRY OF MRS. QUESADA

On Mrs. Quesada’s observation that the increase in
salary of the President from P200,000 to P300,000 would give lowly
government employees a glimmer of hope, Mr. Bengzon explained that, on
the contrary, it would give the various government agencies much elbow
room to seek for the increase of their salaries based on the salaries of
top officials.

He underscored that if the government would always
have deficit spending, he would prefer that it be on the salaries of
government employees and officials in order to give them the incentives
to serve better.

In view thereof, Mrs. Quesada expressed support of
Mr. Bengzon’s proposal to raise the salaries of Government officials to
reasonable levels.

Mr. Bengzon pointed out that the salaries of lowly
government employees could not just be increased because of certain
ceilings in higher positions, and with the proposal, the salaries of the
rank and file could be properly adjusted.

PROPOSAL OF MR. MONSOD

Thereafter, Mr. Monsod proposed that the salaries of
the Members of the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Commissions be
also provided in the Constitution. He suggested that the Chief Justice
be equally ranked with the Senate President; and the Associate Justices
at par with the Senators and Congressmen as provided in the 1973
Constitution. He opined that the Chairman of the Constitutional
Commissions should be equally ranked with the Congressmen and the
Commissioners be given 5/6 of the former’s salary.

Mr. Bengzon accepted Mr. Monsod’s proposal as an amendment to his amendment.

INQUIRY OF MR. GUINGONA

In reply to Mr. Guingona’s query, Mr. Bengzon
affirmed that one of the reasons for his proposal is to effect possible
salary increases for the rank and file employees.

On Mr. Guingona’s suggestion to also provide for a
minimum salary for the rank and file so that the original intent would
not be a false hope as far as the lowly government employees are
concerned, Mr. Bengzon stated that it is sufficient that the Body has
expressed its intent and it is for the Executive Department or Congress,
whichever has jurisdiction, to take up the matter and implement it. He
stressed that the minimum wage of government employees is not a matter
to be stated in the Constitution.

Reacting thereto, Mr. Guingona stated that an
increase in the salaries of the highest officials would not necessarily
mean that there would be corresponding increase in the salaries of the
rank and file employees, in reply to which Mr. Bengzon stressed that
there is more leeway in increasing the salaries, except when the
government does not have the money, although, it may go on deficit
spending if necessary.

AMENDMENT OF MR. FOZ

Mr. Foz proposed and the Committee accepted an
amendment by way of an additional clause at the end of the Committee
proposal to read as follows:

AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE PERIOD, CONGRESS SHALL
INCREASE THE SALARY SCALES OF THE RANK AND FILE EMPLOYEES OF THE
NATIONAL GOVERNMENT.

OBJECTION OF MR. MONSOD

Mr. Monsod objected to the amendment of Mr. Foz on
the ground that these salary scales would need a thorough study of
government structure and that the task of the Commission is primarily to
decide on the salaries of the constitutional officers.

In response thereto, Mr. Foz clarified that the purpose is to balance the provision.

At this juncture, the Chair noted that the amendment
of Mr. Foz would take care of the reservations of Mr. Guingona on the
increase of salaries of government employees.

Mr. Foz pointed out that in the General Provisions
involving the Armed Forces, there is a provision that the members should
receive adequate remuneration.

Upon request of the Chair, Mr. Foz restated his proposed amendment, to wit:

AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE PERIOD, CONGRESS SHALL
INCREASE THE SALARY SCALES OF THE RANK AND FILE EMPLOYEES OF THE
NATIONAL GOVERNMENT.

Mr. Bengzon proposed that “rank and file” be deleted
and the words OF THE OTHER GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES be used
instead, which proposal was accepted by Mr. Foz.

Reacting thereto, Mr. Monsod adverted to a section
on the Civil Service where a reference in the Journal was made relative
to a review of salary structure, job classification and other matters
pertaining thereto. He opined that the proposal is a surplusage.

REMARKS OF MR. GUINGONA

Mr. Guingona expressed support for Mr. Foz’
amendment, stating that he could not see the leeway which Mr. Bengzon
mentioned because if the lowest paid government employee receives only
P500.00 and the Body speaks of a P240,000 monthly salary, the difference
is so big that the leeway is out of proportion.

He reiterated that his main concern is for the lowly government employees.

AMENDMENT OF MR. RODRIGO

Mr. Rodrigo stated that while he agrees with the
objectives of Mr. Foz’ amendment, he does not agree that Congress should
set the salary scales of all government employees. He stressed that
while Congress appropriates the money, it is not Congress that
determines the salary scales so that he suggested that the sentence
start with THE GOVERNMENT . . .instead of “Congress . . .”.

Mr. Foz accepted the amendment of Mr. Rodrigo.

On the query of the Chair as to who fixes the
salaries if not Congress, Mr. Rodrigo stated that each bureau, ministry
and department submits to the Budget Minister the salary plans which the
President incorporates in his budget message when he submits the
general appropriations bill for approval by Congress.

REMARKS OF MR. MONSOD

Mr. Monsod informed the Body that during the
discussions on the Civil Service, Minister Romulo had made
representations that the Ministry of the Budget is working with the
Civil Service Commission on the preparation of plantillas, rankings and
job classifications of the entire government machinery with view to
aligning salary increases and other related matters. He expressed
apprehension that the proposal might, in fact, complicate the matter.

In reply thereto, Mr. Foz stated that the idea is
precisely for the government to review because it could not possibly
provide for salary increases without a study. He explained that “at the
earliest possible time” is some kind of a directive to the government to
go into the study right away so that if salary increases could be
accommodated, it should be done right away.

At this juncture, the Chair inquired on the reaction
of the Committee, to which Mr. Suarez stated that the Committee feels
that it would maintain its original position and submit the matter to
the wisdom of the Commission.

INQUIRY OF MR. GUINGONA

On whether Mr. Foz would be precluded from adding
his proposal to the Committee formulation in case of disapproval of Mr.
Bengzon’s proposed amendment, the Chair answered in the negative,
stating that Mr. Foz’ proposal is distinct and separate.

REMARKS OF MR. CONCEPCION

Adverting to the amount of compensation proposed by
the Committee, Mr. Concepcion stated that the omission of the Supreme
Court would seem to suggest that the officials representing the
Executive and the Legislative departments are higher in rank than the
Justices of the Supreme Court. He stated that under the principle of
co-equality, at least the heads of the three major departments should be
included in the provision. He recalled that in the past there seemed to
be a tendency for Members of the Legislative department to consider
themselves superior to those of the Judiciary and he appealed to the
Body to consider the psychological impression by making the Judiciary at
par with the Legislative department.

In response, Mr. Bengzon stated that he had accepted
Mr. Monsod’s amendment to include the Chief Justice and Associate
Justices of the Supreme Court.

REMARKS OF MR. DE LOS REYES

In connection with the proposal of Mr. Foz, Mr. de
los Reyes stated that the same is already covered by the provisions on
the Civil Service, adding that he proposed the section standardizing the
compensation of government officials and employees, including those in
government-owned or controlled corporations, taking into account the
nature of the responsibilities pertaining thereto and the qualifications
required for the different positions.

SUGGESTION OF MR. BENGZON

Mr. Bengzon suggested that to simplify matters, the
Body first vote on his amendment with respect to the salaries of
constitutional officers and then on the proposal of Mr. Foz.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. PADILLA

On the proposed annual salaries of the President and
Vice-President, Mr. Padilla observed that the Committee proposals have
so much disparity between the Legislative and Judiciary in relation to
the Executive. He suggested a compromise making the President’s salary
P240,000 and the Vice-President P180,000; the Senate President and
Speaker P150,000; the Senators and Congressmen P120,000; the Chief
Justice P150,000 and the Associate Justices P120,000.

Mr. Bengzon did not accept the proposed amendments.

RESTATEMENT OF MR. BENGZON’S PROPOSED AMENDMENT

Mr. Bengzon restated his amendment, to wit:

UNTIL CONGRESS PROVIDES OTHERWISE, THE PRESIDENT
SHALL RECEIVE AN ANNUAL SALARY OF THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND, THE
VICE-PRESIDENT — TWO HUNDRED FORTY THOUSAND; THE SENATE PRESIDENT — TWO
HUNDRED FORTY THOUSAND; THE SPEAKER — TWO HUNDRED FORTY THOUSAND; THE
CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT —TWO HUNDRED FORTY THOUSAND; THE
ASSOCIATE JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT — TWO HUNDRED FOUR THOUSAND: THE
SENATORS — TWO HUNDRED FOUR THOUSAND; THE CONGRESSMEN — TWO HUNDRED
FOUR THOUSAND; THE CHAIRMEN OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS — TWO
HUNDRED FOUR THOUSAND; AND THE ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONERS OF THE
CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS — ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY THOUSAND.

INQUIRY OF MR. RODRIGO

In reply to the query of Mr. Rodrigo as to whether
the phrase “Constitutional Commissions” mentioned in the proposal refers
only to the three Constitutional Commissions — the Civil Service
Commission, Commission on Audit and Commission on Elections — or would
it include also the newly created Commission on Human Rights and the
Tanodbayan, Mr. Monsod stated that it would refer only to the CSC, COA
and COMELEC. Mr. Monsod clarified that during the deliberations on the
Commission on Human Rights, it was resolved that the agency should not
be placed at par with the three Constitutional Commissions.

VOTING ON MR. BENGZON’S AMENDMENT

The Chair submitted Mr. Bengzon’s proposal to a
vote, and with 20 Members voting in favor, 6 against and no abstention,
the same was approved by the Body.

At this juncture, Mr. Suarez suggested that inasmuch
as a number of positions are allocated the same salary, its rephrasing
be left to the Committee on Style.

RESTATEMENT OF MR. FOZ’ AMENDMENT

Mr. Foz restated his amendment to read:

AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE PERIOD, THE GOVERNMENT
SHALL INCREASE THE SALARY SCALES OF THE OTHER OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES OF
THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT.

He then requested for a vote on the proposal.

REMARKS OF MR. RIGOS

Mr. Rigos called attention to Section 9 on the Civil
Service approved on July 22, 1986, which states that the Legislative
shall provide for the standardization of salaries of government
employees and inquired whether the proposal of Mr. Foz is not covered by
this section.

In reply thereto, Mr. Foz stated that Section 9
speaks of standardization of salaries of government officials and
employees, but the proposal has in mind the increase of salaries in
connection with the salary increases that the Commission is providing
for top national officials.

AMENDMENT OF MRS. QUESADA

Mrs. Quesada proposed to change the word “increase” to UPGRADE, which proposal was accepted by Mr. Foz.

Mr. Suarez, on behalf of the Committee, stated that
in view of the observation of Mr. Rigos, he would leave the matter to
the decision of the Body.

VOTING ON MR. FOZ’ AMENDMENT, AS AMENDED

Mr. Foz restated his amendment, as amended, to wit:

AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE PERIOD, THE GOVERNMENT
SHALL UPGRADE THE SALARY SCALES OF OTHER OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE
NATIONAL GOVERNMENT.

Submitted to a vote, and with 26 Members voting in favor, none against and no abstention, the same was approved by the Body.

MANIFESTATION OF MR. FOZ

Mr. Foz manifested that his cosponsors of the amendment were Mrs. Quesada, Messrs. Sarmiento, Villacorta and Guingona.

In reply to the Chair’s query, Mr. Suarez stated that this new section is denominated as Section 23.

MANIFESTATION OF MR. SUAREZ

Mr. Suarez manifested that the following matters have still to be considered by the Body:

a) Mr. Davide’s amendments consisting of three new sections;

b) Mr. de los Reyes’ proposed transitory provision;

c) pending deliberations on Sections 7 and 8; and

d) the provision that was transposed from the Article on the Declaration of Principles governing foreign military bases.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. DE LOS REYES

Thereafter, the Chair recognized Mr. de los Reyes to present his proposed amendment, to wit:

THE PRESIDENT IN THE EXERCISE OF HIS LAW-MAKING
POWER UNDER SECTION 2, ARTICLE ____ OF THIS CONSTITUTION, AND BEFORE THE
HOLDING OF THE LOCAL ELECTIONS, . SHALL MERGE DEPRESSED AND FINANCIALLY
DISTRESSED MUNICIPALITIES WITH ADJACENT CITIES IN ORDER THAT THE NEW
LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS THUS FORMED CAN ELECT THEIR OFFICIALS
ACCORDINGLY.

Mr. de los Reyes recalled that Mr. Maambong had
previously made a proposal to the effort that depressed and financially
distressed municipalities adjacent to highly urbanized or component
cities shall form part of the latter. He stated that Mr. Nolledo, as
Chairman of the Committee on Local Governments, vigorously objected to
the proposal for not being transitory in nature, and to satisfy the
objection, a reformulation had been made. Mr. de los Reyes noted that
this Commission is not merging at once the depressed and financially
distressed municipalities with the adjacent cities but such power is
given to the President in the exercise of her lawmaking power under
Section 2 of the Article on Transitory Provisions and it is within the
discretion of the President whether to merge them or not and if she
does, such leeway and discretion would only be for the first local
elections after the ratification of the new Constitution.

INQUIRY OF MR. GUINGONA

Mr. Guingona observed that there is nothing in the
proposal that speaks of the first local elections. Thereafter, he
suggested that it be clearly specified that the officials be elected
during the first election after the ratification of the Constitution, to
which Mr. de los Reyes acceded.

On the meaning of the phrase “depressed and
financially distressed municipalities”, Mr. de los Reyes stated that
“depressed municipalities” are those municipalities, the earnings of
which could not even pay for the salaries of its mayor and employees and
have to depend on the aid of the national government in order to
survive. He noted that the provincial governments do not attend to the
municipalities and it is the city governments with which they can better
survive if they are made part thereof.

INQUIRY OF MRS. QUESADA

In reply to Mrs. Quesada’s query on how the people
in the depressed municipalities could be involved in the decision that
would merge them with the adjacent cities in the event they have some
reservations about the merger, Mr. de los Reyes stated that the
objections could be met by the fact that this provision is only
transitory in nature, because the merger would be for the purpose of the
first local elections after the ratification of the Constitution, the
merger being covered by the provisions on the Article on Local
Government where the creation or cessation of any municipality would be
dependent on the votes cast in a plebiscite.

On the possibility that some confusion brought about
by the merger may arise, Mr. de los Reyes explained that the Commission
would merely empower the President to effect the merger in the exercise
of her sound discretion.

INQUIRY OF MR. MONSOD

In reply to Mr. Monsod’s suggestion to change “shall
merge” to “may merge” considering that the power vested in the
President is discretionary, Mr. De los Reyes stated that he has no
objection.

Mr. Monsod observed that the merger of the depressed
and financially distressed municipalities with adjacent cities for the
purpose stated would be class legislation. He also expressed doubt
whether it is a proper subject for the Transitory Provisions considering
that; firstly, it is discretionary, and secondly it is for the purpose
of forming political units to serve specific ends.

Responding thereto, Mr. de los Reyes disagreed that
the provision is class legislation since it would apply to all depressed
municipalities similarly situated. He maintained that the prerogative
of Congress to legislate on certain matters and to refuse to legislate
on others does not mean class legislation but simply that Congress is
given enough leeway and discretion to do what it thinks is best for the
inhabitants of the said municipalities.

Mr. Monsod pointed out that the provision seems too
specific and too limited that even the criteria for what is depressed or
financially distressed could be overridden by the political
considerations of merging areas for purposes of the elections. In reply,
Mr. de los Reyes stressed that the contemplation is that this would be
subject to the recommendations of the Commission on Elections to the
President.

SUSPENSION OF SESSION

At this juncture, the Chair suspended the session.

It was 4:09 p.m.

RESUMPTION OF SESSION

At 4:38 p.m., the session was resumed.

WITHDRAWAL OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT

Upon resumption of session, after hearing the views
of some Members of the Commission and the possible misinterpretation
that it might cause, Mr. de los Reyes withdrew his proposed amendment.

PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF MR. VILLACORTA

Thereafter, Mr. Villacorta, jointly with Messrs.
Romulo, Treñas, Uka, Calderon, Sarmiento, Foz, Monsod, Azcuna, Rama,
Rigos, Guingona, Bengzon, Abubakar, Garcia, Tadeo, Tingson, Nolledo,
Bennagen, Suarez, Rodrigo and de Castro, and Mrs Quesada, Rosario Braid,
Ms. Tan and Mrs. Nieva; proposed to amend Section 8 to read:

ANY WRIT OF SEQUESTRATION AND FREEZE ORDER ISSUED OR
WHICH MAY BE ISSUED IN RELATION TO THE RECOVERY OF ILL-GOTTEN WEALTH
SHALL CONTINUE TO BE OPERATIVE FOR ONE YEAR AFTER THE CONVENING OF THE
FIRST CONGRESS; PROVIDED THAT CONGRESS IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST, AS
CERTIFIED BY THE PRESIDENT, MAY EXTEND SAID PERIOD.

Explaining the proposed amendment, Mr. Villacorta
pointed out that if a person is to live sixty years, it would take him
nine lifetimes to spend the $10 billion looted by Mr. Marcos, which is
three times the national budget for 1986 and nineteen times the
allocation for education and sports.

He stated that the money stashed away by Mr. Marcos
and his cronies could fund a seven-year free elementary education and a
four-year free secondary education in addition to 6.6 billion textbooks
to be purchased 4 million classrooms and 8,000 school buildings built
throughout the country, and could have saved the fate of some 56 state
colleges and universities. He added that it could also have been
appropriated for social services, health services, the payment of
salaries of government employees, members of the Armed Forces and the
police forces.

He stressed that six months would be too short a
period for the Presidential Commission on Good Government to recover the
ill-gotten wealth of the former President. He noted the time involved
in securing court orders and investigating other property and assets in
different parts of the world.

He stressed that although sequestration as a remedy
may be considered harsh, the acquisition of ill-gotten wealth deserves
an extraordinary process which, however, does not leave the innocent
without any legal remedy since he can invoke judicial process to have
his property released. He underscored, however, that it is important
that the guilty should not be allowed to run away with the ill-gotten
wealth to the great prejudice of the Filipino people who rightly own
said wealth.

REMARKS OF MR. GUINGONA

As cosponsor of the proposed amendment, Mr. Guingona
pointed out that firstly, the ill-gotten wealth acquired represents not
only simple cases of malversation of public funds bribery, extortion,
theft and graft, but a grand larceny that plundered the national
economy. Secondly, he stated that what would be recovered would surely
benefit the Filipino people. Thirdly, he noted the need for action
because the ill-gotten wealth which are sought to be recovered would
probably disappear before the scheduled date of court hearings, since
bank accounts, shares of stocks, expensive jewelries and other personal
properties could easily be removed or transferred to inaccessible places
beyond the reach of the Philippine Government. Finally, he stated that
the parties adversely affected can still challenge the legality of
whatever freeze or sequestration order may be issued before
administrative bodies or courts of justice.

MR. REGALADO’S PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT

Mr. Regalado proposed to delete the words “writ of”
before “sequestration” since writs are issued by courts and not by
quasi-judicial bodies like the PCGG. He stated that the deletion would
make the provision broad enough to include sequestration orders, whether
issued by an administrative body or possibly by any court of justice.

Mr. Villacorta accepted the amendment to his amendment.

In this connection, Mr. Bengzon pointed out,
however, that the sequestration orders issued by the PCGG are called
writs of sequestration pursuant to the authority given under
Proclamation No. 3, in reply to which, Mr. Regalado stated that the word
“Order” in the proposal would already include writs of sequestration
although the latter term is not properly used. He also affirmed that his
interpretation would not make the writs of sequestration issued by the
PCGG questionable.

In reply to Mr. Regalado’s inquiry, Mr. Villacorta
affirmed that Congress may, if necessary and as certified by the
President, extend the period of one year.

REMARKS OF MR. TINGSON

As a member of the Committee, Mr. Tingson stated
that although the PCGG had become synonymous with sequestration, and
cases had been filed questioning its power to sequester, nothing of its
actions had been declared illegal. He underscored that the task of the
PCGG should be judged in terms of actual results and not in terms of
legal niceties, for it had already turned over some P2 billion in cash,
200 land titles for lands in Metro Manila, Rizal, Laguna, Cavite and
Bataan worth several billion of pesos, and which lands are available for
low-cost housing projects. He added that in the legal custody of the
PCGG are expensive jewelries, 42 aircrafts, vessels, shares of stocks
and other real properties, also amounting to several billions of pesos,
not to mention the properties abroad, particularly in New Jersey, and
several bank deposits and securities in Hawaii, New York and
Switzerland.

He noted that the success of the PCGG in recovering a
great bulk of properties and assets of the former President was not
realized by the governments of China, Ethiopia, Iran and Nicaragua.
Although the PCGG may have made some mistakes in its exercise of powers,
he opined that its action would be better than doing nothing at all.

He disclosed that a recent survey released by the
Philippine Survey and Research Center showed that 69 percent of the
Filipino people approved, 16 percent disapproved, and 15 percent were
neutral on the PCGG’s sequestration activities of the properties of the
Marcoses and their cronies.

Finally, he urged the Committee to accept the proposal for the best interest of the Filipino people.

REMARKS OF MR. ROMULO

Speaking in favor of the proposed amendment, Mr.
Romulo disputed the argument that orders of sequestration do not comply
with the requisites for the issuance of search warrants. He stated that
an order of sequestration is not actually a search warrant but a
provisional remedy like a preliminary attachment, preliminary injunction
and receivership, which may be issued ex parte to preserve the property
until question of ownership has been finally decided.

Secondly, on the contention that only courts should
be authorized to issue orders of sequestration, Mr. Romulo underscored
that due process does not demand that the proceedings be judicial. He
cited the fact that the Securities and Exchange Commission can grant
provisional remedies like preliminary attachment, preliminary injunction
and receivership.

Third, on the argument that sequestration orders are
violative of the constitutional presumption of innocence, he explained
that the’ law may provide when certain facts are proven by prima facie
evidence that guilt is presumed if there is reasonable link between the
facts established and the inference of guilt. Mr. Romulo further stated
that Section 8 of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act presumes that
the wealth amassed by a public official manifestly out of proportion to
his salary and other lawful income is ill-gotten.

Fourthly, on the contention that there is violation
of due process by the fact that the application for the issuance of the
orders of sequestration would be addressed to the PCGG by PCGG agents
themselves, Mr. Romulo adverted to the case of Erlanger and Galinger vs.
The Court of Industrial Relations, where it was similarly argued that
the parties charged with unfair labor practice were being denied due
process of law on the ground that the CIR was the accuser, prosecutor
and judge rolled into one. In this case, Mr. Romulo stated that the
Supreme Court brushed aside the argument stating that the findings of
the prosecutors were not conclusive upon the CIR which remained free to
accept or reject them. He stressed that the agents who apply for the
issuance of orders of sequestration are not the same officers who issue
the order and that the PCGG retains the discretion to deny the
application of its agents. He noted that the same can be said of the
agents of the Bureau of Customs who initiate seizure proceedings which
are heard by the Bureau’s hearing officers, or of the Bureau of Internal
Revenue examiners who make the initial findings on assessments on which
the BIR Commissioner finally decides.

Lastly, on the fear that the PCGG could run
roughshod on civil rights, Mr. Romulo pointed out that its actuations
are always subject to judicial review. He stated that even if the law
does not provide for judicial review, the decision of any administrative
tribunal may always be scrutinized by the courts, if it acted without
jurisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion or committed an error of
law.

INQUIRY OF MR. BERNAS

In reply to Mr. Bernas’ query on the need for the
provision if indeed the powers presently exercised by the PCGG are
normal legal powers, Mr. Romulo stated that it is normal within
Proclamation No. 3 and the executive orders issued thereunder.

Mr. Bernas pointed out, however, that the arguments
presented by Mr. Romulo were based on decisions made prior to the
Freedom Constitution, to which Mr. Romulo stated that even if one would
argue that this sequestration order partakes of search and seizure, one
could distinguish it within jurisprudence.

Mr. Bernas maintained that said provision would not
be needed in the Transitory Provisions because it could be justified
even in normal jurisprudence on search and seizure order, to which Mr.
Romulo replied that the existing jurisprudence merely helps to
distinguish it from search and seizure; however, an order of
sequestration, without Proclamation No. 3 is unknown in law, and must be
anchored on Proclamation No. 3 so that once the new Constitution is
ratified, it would then supersede the Freedom Constitution and no doubt
would arise as to whether the PCGG could issue sequestration or freeze
orders.

He emphasized that in case of conflict, an exception
is being recommended in the Transitory Provisions. He affirmed that
specifically, the possibility is that the exception would be from the
provisions in the Bill of Rights.

Thereupon, Mr. Bernas reserved a turn to speak against the proposal and to move for its deletion.

REMARKS OF MR. OPLE

Mr. Ople recalled that the present formulation of
Section 8 was based on the proposal submitted by Messrs. Maambong, de
los Reyes and himself to the Committee and which was refined
subsequently by other contributors. He stated that he would, therefore,
support the Committee’s formulation of Section 8. To some degree, he
noted that the amendment proposed by Mr. Villacorta improved the section
in two aspects, namely, the deletion of the words “search and seizure”;
and that in lieu of the grace period of six months after the convening
of the First Congress, the sponsors changed it to one year and kept the
clause “provided that Congress, in the national interest, as certified
by the President, may extend said period”.

He then interpellated Mr. Romulo.

On whether the provision would in effect ratify, by
constitutional fiat, all the orders so far issued by the PCGG and its
agents and task forces locally and abroad, Mr. Romulo stated that the
amendments deal only with the powers and not with the actions that had
been taken pursuant to such powers. He affirmed that the provision would
not preempt the Supreme Court and the courts of justice of jurisdiction
over orders that have been questioned before them.

On the contention that there are conceivable
situations where the Constitutional provision authorizing the PCGG to
exercise the powers of sequestration and freezing of assets in case of
ill-gotten wealth, should clash with the Bill of Rights and if such
situations arise, the Bill of Rights, presumably by virtue of this
provision, would have to yield to the exigencies that are the
justification for these powers of the PCGG being enshrined in the
Transitory Provisions, Mr. Romulo stated that the provisions could be
reconciled in the sense that a sequestration order is not the equivalent
of a search and seizure order; bonvevers in the event that such doubts
do exist the amendment would precisely create an exception. He denied
that he supported Mr. Bernas’ thesis.

On whether the provision is an extraordinary measure
justified by the nature of the exigencies that it seeks to correct and
that where the Bill of Rights and these powers come into conflict, the
Bill of Rights must necessarily yield to the exigencies that are sought
to be corrected by the proposed powers of the PCGG in Section 8, Mr.
Romulo agreed that it may have to, although both provisions could be
reconciled by distinguishing an order or a writ of sequestration from a
writ of search and seizure. He reiterated that in the event that both
are irreconcilable, the Committee would propose an exception for reasons
of national interest. On whether some discretion is left to the courts
to uphold the Bill of Rights in such situations, Mr. Romulo stated that
firstly, it is the Committee’s position that there is no conflict and,
secondly, when one makes an exception, it does not mean that the Bill of
Rights is disregarded because due process is still guaranteed and the
complainant or the respondent is not deprived of his day in court.

Mr. Romulo agreed that the amendment to be
introduced would delete “search and seizure” in Section 8, precisely to
illustrate that sequestration and freeze order is not equivalent or
similar to a search and seizure order. He opined that a writ of
sequestration could stand without recourse to search and seizure.

On whether the amended section, once approved, would
mean that for search and seizure proceedings the PCGG from the time of
the ratification of the Constitution must apply to the court, Mr. Romulo
stated that normally, if a request for search and seizure is written,
the new Bill of Rights mandates that the person should go to court
because it is only the court, upon personal examination of the affiant,
which could issue a search and seizure order and, therefore, upon the
ratification of the Constitution, the PCGG would be left with no
discretion in the matter of search and seizure proceedings except to
apply to the court for the necessary permission, unless the exception is
created assuming that the PCGG is asking for a search and seizure
order.

Mr. Romulo agreed that where search and seizure
orders are deemed necessary to support the writs of sequestration, the
PCGG would have no choice under the provision;-as amended, except to
apply to the courts.

On whether there is anything in the section which
would lend support to the thesis inherent in the powers of the PCGG as
defined in the Freedom Constitution and in Executive Orders 1 and 2, Mr.
Romulo stated that the Freedom Constitution and the various Executive
Orders do give those powers to the PCGG which, he affirmed, includes the
presumption of the right to vote on sequestered shares as though the
final ownership had been determined.

On whether, as a consequence of the section as
amended, the PCGG may vote on sequestered shares in certain corporations
even before final determination of their ownership in an appropriate
court, and forthwith proceed to take over a company, its management and
its operation, Mr. Romulo pointed out that the Executive Orders were
issued precisely to confirm the authority of the PCGG and that it is the
voting of the shares that allows them to sit in the Board of Directors.
He stated that the running of the company proceeds from the fact that
they are able to vote the shares that have been sequestered and,
therefore, are entitled to the corresponding number of seats in the
Board of Directors.

On whether this section might, in effect, be a
constitutional license to the PCGG to take over sequestered companies
and run them even before a court of competence could rule on the true
ownership of such shares, Mr. Romulo replied that such is the authority
given to the PCGG by said Executive Orders. He pointed out that the writ
of sequestration as presently described and authorized would allow them
through the Board of Directors and the appropriate representatives in
the Board of Directors to help operate the company.

Mr. Ople reiterated that he was partly responsible
for Section 8 as formulated, although it does not settle some profound
issues that the people want answered with respect to the PCGG powers. He
stated that there is no question that the Commission would want to help
the PCGG accomplish its historic tasks but that it is necessary to
bring out the facts and consequences of the operation of Section 8, as
amended, if approved. Thereafter, he expressed the desire to ponder over
the magnitude of said consequences for the Bill of Rights, for the
freedom of the citizenry, for the old axiom underlying the moral world
that the end shall not justify the means. He stated that he would keep
an open mind until the period of voting.

Responding thereto, Mr. Romulo stated that even
conceding that a sequestration and freeze order is tantamount to search
and seizure, this does not mean its invalidity considering the absence
of initial judicial determination. He then quoted the ruling cited in
the case of Phillips vs. Commissioner, to wit:

“Where adequate opportunity is afforded for a later
judicial determination of the legal rights, summary proceedings to
secure prompt performance of pecuniary obligations to the government
have been consistently sustained. Where only property rights are
involved, mere postponement of the judicial inquiry is not a denial of
due process if the opportunity given for the ultimate judicial
determination of the liability is adequate.”

REMARKS OF MR. NOLLEDO

Mr. Nolledo stated that the Philippine Commission on
Good Government came into existence at a critical period in history
when the repressive, graft-ridden and inglorious Marcos regime ended,
leaving dry the national treasury and burdening the new government with a
gargantuan foreign debt.

He pointed out that Proclamation No. 3, issued in a
state of revolutionary government, gave the incumbent President the
right to give priority, among others, to the people’s mandate to recover
ill-gotten properties amassed by the leaders and supporters of the
Marcos regime, through orders of sequestration or freezing of assets or
accounts. He stated that, pursuant to this Proclamation, Executive Order
No. 1 was issued creating the PCGG which had issued sequestration
orders after it had determined, based on evidence, the existence of a
prima facie case.

Mr. Nolledo stressed that the Suarez report on the
PCGG was designed to give constitutional support to the Commission in
view of which, he fully endorsed said report, subject to Mr.
Villacorta’s amendment, for the following reasons, to wit:

1) the PCGG is tasked with a delicate,
transcendental and difficult work of ferreting out ill-gotten wealth
hidden in subtle ways like the use of dummies, employment of nominees,
use of bearer certificates, and others where discovery of real ownership
of properties could be done only after going over voluminous and
technical documents;

2) the PCGG: should not be bound strictly by the
provisions of Section 3 of the Bill of Rights because sequestration
orders are being issued for preservative reasons;

3) the functions of the PCGG are vested with public
interest and dictated by the imperative demands of public policy and,
therefore, its powers are derived from and based on the police power of
the State,

4) the exercise of powers by the PCGG affects merely
property rights which involve stolen properties partaking of the nature
of contrabands reachable by the hands of the State in the exercise of
its police power;

5) as said by Senator Jovito R. Salonga, the PCGG
observed due process by requiring determination of a prima facie case
before a sequestration order may be issued;

6) to transfer to the regular courts or to the
Sandiganbayan the power to sequester may subject the cases to the usual
delay in judicial proceedings. In this connection, if the records are
voluminous, the ordinary court or the Sandiganbayan may also appoint
commissioners in order to determine the propriety of issuing a seizure
order, or the equivalent of a sequestration order.

Finally, he stressed that the extraordinary situations where the PCGG finds itself in need extra legal actions or remedies.

REMARKS OF MR. BERNAS

Mr. Bernas observed that there is something schizophrenic about the arguments in defense of the proposed amendment.

Adverting to Mr. Salonga’s lecture in the Gregorio
Araneta University Foundation in which he argued for the legality of the
actions of the PCGG and concluded that what matters are the results and
not the legal niceties, Mr. Bernas pointed out that the former seemed
to suggest that the PCGG should be allowed to make some legal shortcuts.

If all the actions of the PCGG are legal, Mr. Bernas
inquired why it still asks for constitutional protection: He stated
that all that PCGG is actually asking for is an exception, which the
Constitutional Commission should not be given for the following reasons:

First, the purpose of the February revolution and
the work of the Constitutional Commission is to hasten constitutional
normalization and at the heart of constitutional normalization is the
full effectivity of the Bill of Rights, the enforcement of which cannot
be stopped to give way to PCGG’s functioning. He stressed that due
process of law must be observed.

Secondly, he stated that “good deeds repeated, ripen
into virtue; bad deeds repeated become vice”, and the Constitution
should not allow the new Government to acquire the vice of disregarding
the Bill of Rights. He added that vice becomes ingrained and difficult
to correct, the vicious persons would think they have vested right to
its practice and would fight tooth and nail to keep the franchise.

Thirdly, he noted that the argument that what
matters are the results and not the legal niceties, is very disturbing
especially when said by a staunch Christian like Mr. Salonga and becomes
doubly disturbing and discombobulating when repeated by another staunch
Christian like Mr. Tingson.

Mr. Bernas observed that the argument makes the PCGG
an auctioneer placing the Bill of Rights on the auction block, and if
the price is right, the search and seizure clause would be sold.
Additionally, he called the present government a hostage to the hoarders
of hidden wealth, who will release the hidden wealth if the ransom
prize, which is the Bill of Rights, is paid. He underscored that the
Bill of Rights is not for sale, nor can it be used as ransom money.

He stressed that the country could survive and grow
strong only if the values enshrined in the Constitution are considered
to be beyond monetary estimation.

He then suggested that the entire Section 8 be
deleted and let the PCGG have two options: it can pursue the arguments
of Mr. Salonga and just go on with its activities, but if it is not
sustained, it has to bow to the Bill of Rights.

Finally, on the PCGG defense of its legal niceties,
Mr. Bernas quoted Thomas More who said, “I’ll give the devil the benefit
of law for my nation’s safety sake.” He reiterated that Section 8
should be deleted.

MR. RAMA’S RESERVATION ON BEHALF OF MS. AQUINO

At this juncture, Mr. Rama made a reservation to
insert Ms. Aquino’s speech into the record if she fails to arrive, which
reservation was noted by the Chair.

REMARKS OF MR. SARMIENTO

Speaking in favor of the proposed amendment, Mr.
Sarmiento stated that the concept of sequestration as explained by the
PCGG is a reasonable method employed in order to recover ill-gotten
wealth, and the errors committed in its implementation should not be
used as an argument against the exercise of sequestration powers. He
pointed out that the Judiciary could not act more judiciously and
expeditiously than the PCGG to recover ill-gotten wealth because of the
current judiciary reorganization.

He opined that there is no greater injustice than
what was committed against the nation by those who plundered the
national treasury, while on the other hand, sequestration constitutes a
valid exercise of police power for the national interest and directed to
correct the injustice committed against the Filipino nation.

He recalled that in 1965, only 45 percent of
Filipino families were below the poverty line; and in 1975, it increased
to 51.49 percent. He stated that the Commission should not fail the
Filipino people on this very crucial issue.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE OF MR. TINGSON

At this juncture, Mr. Tingson rose on a question of
privilege relative to the reference made by Mr. Bernas, whose arguments,
he said, were based on pure legalism.

He stated that no one can dispute the majesty of the
Bill of Rights for which he favorably voted. He pointed out, however,
that the crimes committed by the former President were extraordinary
which must be solved by extraordinary measures. He stressed that he was
just adopting the principle which the Jesuits believe, that the end does
not justify the means.

REMARKS OF MR. PADILLA

Speaking in favor of the proposed Section 8, Mr.
Padilla adverted to Section 1(d), Article II of the Freedom Constitution
which provides for the recovery of ill-gotten properties amassed by the
leaders and supporters of the previous regime and the protection of the
interest of the people through orders of sequestration or freezing of
assets.

He noted that it would be correct to replace “and”
with “or” as observed by Commissioner Regalado. The alternative “or” is
found in Section 1(d), Article II, of the Freedom Constitution
(Proclamation No. 3). It also appears in Executive Order Nos. 2 and 14.

He added that the deletion of the phrase “search and
seizure” as found in the original Committee Report would limit the
scope to sequestration or freeze orders, considering that the Bill of
Rights already covers the issuance of search and seizure warrant.

He concurred that the PCGG has the power to
sequester or freeze assets constituting ill-gotten wealth but subject to
judicial action, in compliance with notice and hearing under due
process, considering some violations in the exercise of such power.

He stated, however, that sequestration or freeze
orders have no relation with the convening of Congress, so that the
limit should be anchored on the ratification of the 1986 Constitution
which allows the continuance of the exercise of power as provided in the
Freedom Constitution.

Moreover, he distinguished freezing of assets for
the purpose of conserving the suspected ill-gotten wealth from takeover
of business that is considered ill-gotten. He stated that the government
can take over an entire business if it is actually a government
property like the Bataan Shipyard and Engineering Company, Inc.
(BASECO), but could only freeze certain assets or shares of stock to
place them under the custody of law so that they could not be
transferred nor disposed of and be subject to the legal action for their
forfeiture in favor of the State.

He also disclosed that the term “sequestration” was
used in Presidential Decree No. 885, known as the Anti-Subversion Act,
and could not properly refer to the seizure or taking over and
assumption of the management, control and operation of ongoing private
business.

INQUIRY OF MR. CONCEPCION

On the argument that national interest demands
extraordinary measures to be adopted by the PCGG, Mr. Concepcion
expressed his apprehension that the argument would seem to assume that
due process is less demanded by public interest. He pointed out that the
issuance of warrants of arrest are intended to curb abuses even by
those who exercise authority. He expressed doubts on the measures being
undertaken by authorities to recover properties, and inquired if the
orders of sequestration had been specific in identifying the objects of
sequestration; whether said objects of sequestration were placed under
the custody of the courts so that the parties adversely affected may
seek legal remedies due them; and whether certain acts like voting on
shares of stocks and disposing some assets, had previous judicial
authority.

In reply, Mr. Romulo assured that the PCGG has
sequestered particular assets as some print-outs indicated the nature of
assets and the specific shares in certain banking institutions. He also
adverted to the procedure followed by the PCGG whereby upon receipt of
data from a private person, in the form of a verified complaint, or from
any government agency, or upon its own motion, the PCGG conducts either
a covert or open verification of information. In this connection, Mr.
Romulo stated that the provision indirectly seems to suggest that
particular information is gathered before the writ of sequestration is
issued.

On whether he would object to specifying in the
proposed provision certain conditions such as compliance with due
process at least insofar as specific matters are concerned to ensure
that measures are taken not merely on the basis of what the government
entity concerned in issuing the order deems best but as a condition for
the enjoyment of the authority the period of which is being extended,
Mr. Romulo expressed willingness to consider it at the proper time.

On whether the actions would be referred to a court
as soon as the sequestration or freeze order is issued, Mr. Romulo
replied in the negative. He then read the second phrase which consists
of the first stage which is ex parte and analogous to an ex parte
hearing for the application of a writ of attachment; and the second
stage which is a preliminary investigation. He then explained in detail
the steps taken during and after the issuance of sequestration orders.
He concluded that the sequestered properties are in the custody of the
Commission and not in the custody of a court.

Mr. Concepcion suggested that a provision be
inserted to ensure that property is placed under the custody of the
court, to which Mr. Romulo agreed. He opined, however, that the only
problem is the time that this would require considering the difficulty
of completing an investigation within a fixed period.

Mr. Romulo, likewise, agreed that it would be better
if the courts are advised immediately and for the courts to determine
whether the investigation is being conducted as expeditiously as it
should be, rather than leave it to the sound discretion of the entity
that conducts it; provided that the court has the opportunity to finish
the preliminary investigation prior to freezing the property which is
the primary objective before filing it in court.

On the suggestion that after the sequestration order
is served, the action be reported to a court of justice, Mr. Romulo
stated that the respondent could have the right to go to court if he
feels that the PCGG has abused its authority.

On Mr. Romulo’s clarification as to what would
happen to the main case if the writ of sequestration was delivered to
the court for investigation to determine whether it had been properly
exercised, Mr. Concepcion stated that the court would allow the
investigation to continue, but always subject to the control of the
court which would determine if proper action is being taken and that the
parties affected are not unduly harassed. To dispel doubts about it, he
suggested that the court decide the question immediately. He agreed
that the determination of further action to be taken would have to be
done by the PCCG but subject to the supervision of the court.

On Mr. Romulo’s contention that the respondent could
always go to court to challenge the action, Mr. Concepcion stated that
while courts are available to all, not all people could go to court. He
stressed that in the case of sequestration, the respondent is fighting
the government which has more facilities at its disposal. He inquired
why the property of any person, be he criminal or not, should be subject
to the disposition of any government agency other than the courts of
justice, since this is an act of deprivation or disposition pending the
investigation.

At this juncture, the Chair reminded Mr. Romulo that
some of the ideas expressed by Mr. Concepcion could be taken up at the
proper time should there be a proposal to amend the provision.

REMARKS OF MRS. QUESADA

Mrs. Quesada supported the proposal of some members
of the Commission to strengthen the role of the PCGG to recover the
hidden wealth which could benefit the 55 million Filipino people. On the
orchestrated effort to discredit the PCGG, Mrs. Quesada opined that
there is a need to have this provision to constitutionalize the good
that the agency is doing to recover the much needed wealth.

She also stated that a lot of people are awaiting
action on this hidden wealth case because it is a grand crime that not
only the Filipino people but the rest of the world are watching how the
wheels of justice would work in the new Administration.

REMARKS OF MR. CONCEPCION

Mr. Concepcion stated that his main apprehension is
that the Body, by allowing the PCGG its past performance and its present
practice, may convey the impression that the provisions in the Bill of
Rights concerning searches and seizures are not being adopted by the
Commission in the traditional form. He contended that the arguments
start from the assumption that the properties being frozen or
sequestered are part of the properties that had been stolen, in other
words, putting the cart before the horse. He underscored that he was
stressing the importance of the provisions on the Bill of Rights because
those are intended for the protection of the people against government
abuse. He stressed that everybody wants to recover the stolen properties
but the question is whether the properties being sequestered were
really stolen. He opined that he would not want the provisions on the
Bill of Rights to be less effective now than they were before,
considering that from a constitutional viewpoint, the provisions
concerning searches and seizures are intended more for the protection of
the people. He stressed that these powers have been reserved to the
people and withdrawn from the government which the PCGG represents. He
deplored the fact that in looking at the immediate needs, the general
need of the nation to survive as a democratic society has been
overlooked.

ADJOURNMENT OF SESSION

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

It was 6:18 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 7, 1988